Commons Sitting of 3 March 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
NEW WRIT.
For Banffshire, v. Robert William Duff, Esquire, Governor of the Colony of New South Wales.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
QUESTIONS.

  PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.
  MR. EGERTON ALLEN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if, looking at the size and importance of the Pembroke Dockyard, he can hold out any hope that the number of apprentices to be entered this year will be raised from the small number which have been entered during the last few years to about the number of 20, which was the number which ruled before the reduction?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): I am happy to inform my hon. and learned Friend that it is proposed to enter 23 apprentices at Pembroke Yard during this year, as against seven in 1892 and six in 1891.

  THE VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE (Manchester, S.): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the statement is correct that he is not satisfied with the condition of the Ventilation of this House, and that he is about to take steps to have it improved; and whether, if so, he will re-appoint the Committee on Ventilation which sat during the last Session of Parliament?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I have been wrongly reported in the Press as having come to an adverse opinion as to the ventilation of this House. Great improvements were effected only recently, in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers; and sufficient time has not elapsed for determining whether anything more is required.

  THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the accommodation for the teaching of science at the only Government science school in this country—namely, the Royal College of Science, has been generally acknowledged to be altogether inadequate; and whether sketch plans of laboratories for chemistry and physics, proposed to be erected on the newly-acquired Government land west of Exhibition Road, have been prepared by the Professors of Chemistry and Physics, and sent in at the request of the Board of Works; and, if so, whether he is prepared, seeing the importance of the effectual teaching of science, to take steps to have working plans made for new buildings for the above purposes?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The accommodation at the Royal College of Science is now undoubtedly inadequate, and in my opinion new buildings must be undertaken at some early opportunity. Block plans were drawn up in 1891 by the Professors of the Royal College of Science, showing a suggested appropriation of the land on the south side of Imperial Institute Road, for the purposes both of the Royal College of Science and of the Science Museum, and these plans were submitted to the Office of
  956
  Works. But that Department pointed out that it would be premature for them to consider the plans until the Science and Art Department had obtained the sanction of the treasury to an organisation of their Teaching and Exhibition Establishments on the scale contemplated in the plans. I understand that the Science and Art Department are now in communication with the Treasury in this sense.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE: Will the Report from the Science and Art Department be shortly issued, or shall we have a long time to wait for it?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not think it will be a Report of a nature to be issued to Parliament, but I should be glad to show it to the hon. Member privately if he wishes.

  NIGHT SIGNALS AT SEA.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the ingenious invention of Captain James Fairweather, of Dundee, under which, at the cost of a few shillings, by the addition of a single lamp to those required on board of all steamers, the commercial code of signals can be utilised during the night; and whether, considering the importance of vessels being enabled easily to communicate with each other between sundown and sunrise as well as in daylight, the Board will facilitate this nocturnal extension of the commercial code?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): My attention has been directed to Captain Fairweather's system of signals. But having regard to the opinion adverse to use of coloured lights for night signalling at sea, as expressed in the final Act of the Washington Maritime Conference, I am not prepared, as at present advised, to recommend any general system of signalling at night. The conclusion of the Conference to which I refer is printed at page 61 of Parliamentary Paper C. 6664 of 1892.

  THE ATLANTIC MAILS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what precautions are taken to prevent the contents of mail bags being seriously damaged by the flooding of mail rooms on board of Atlantic steamers; whether the mail

  957
  bags are waterproof, or the mail rooms enclosed in water-tight bulkheads, so that valuable documents and publications may not be reduced to pulp; whether his attention has been called to the recent flooding of the mail room of the steamer Pavonia, on her passage from Boston to Queenstown, and the injury sustained by a valuable postal packet, along with many other cases, in which it was impossible to repair the damage sustained; and whether the Post Office will grant compensation to those who have suffered loss from the irreparable condition of the contents of their letters and packets?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): So far as conveyance by British mail packets is concerned, the precaution taken is to stipulate in every contract that suitable and secure mail rooms shall be provided on board the contract packets. Water-tight bulkheads are not specified in the contracts, and water-proof bags are not used for the mails. Damage by water on board a British mail packet is of uncommon occurrence, and such a thing as the flooding of a mail room is almost unheard of in the Service. The Pavonia was not carrying mails under contract with the British Post Office, but by arrangement with that of the United States of America. Hence the British Post Office could have no responsibility whatever in respect of the sea conveyance. But even if such an accident as befel the Pavonia had occurred to a British contract packet, the senders of letters and packets damaged by water would have no claim against the Post Office.
  MR. LENG: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view to the serious accident to the mails by the Pavonia, he will, when further contracts are entered into, keep in view the desirability of having water-tight bulkhead compartments?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Yes, Sir; I will keep that suggestion in view.

  THE CANEWDON CHARITIES.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): I beg to ask the Charity Commissioner whether he is aware that J. Whitwell, labourer, 75 years old, had notice to quit a cottage the property of the Canewdon Charities, and was subsequently fined for
  958
  refusing to give up possession; and if the property of those Charities could be dispensed, as intended by the donors, for the relief of the deserving poor, and not devoted to other and totally different purposes?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The Charity Commissioners have no knowledge of the determination of the tenancy of J. Whitwell or the attendant circumstances. The accounts, however, of the Charity for 1889, 1890, and 1891, show that in each of these years arrears of rent were due from a tenant of the Charity property of that name. It has already been pointed out to the hon. Member, on three several occasions in answer to questions put by him or to inquiries made in the course of Debate, that this Charity is governed by a scheme made by the Court of Chancery in 1852, paior to the establishment of the Charity Commission, and that no modification of that scheme can be effected by the Commissioners except upon an application from a majority of the present Trustees.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this Charity is devoted to the use of those for whom it was originally intended?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: In a Charity of over £50, the Charity Commissioners can take no steps except at the initiative of the Charity Trustees. If any scheme is submitted to them they will be prepared to consider it, or they will be glad if Parliament will give them power to deal with charities over £50.
  MAJOR RASCH: I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates, and move a reduction of the Vote.

  THE PROFESSORSHIP OF SANSCRIT AT MADRAS COLLEGE.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, on the resignation in this present month of March of Dr. G. Oppert, Professor of Sanscrit in the Madras Presidency College, the Secretary of State for India will recommend the Madras Government to appoint a Native of India to the Professorship in succession to Dr. Oppert, which recommendation will, it is said, be in accordance with the views of the Education Commission?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State has already called the attention of the Government of India to the desirability of appointing a Native of India to succeed Dr. Oppert as Professor of Sanscrit, if a Native fitted for the post is available.

  MILITIA OFFICERS.
  MR. DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the present Militia Regulations, while a Commanding Officer of a Militia regiment is permitted to inspect the recruits once or twice only during the course of the recruit drill, he has no official status whatever; and whether he is prepared to amend the Regulations so as to permit a Commanding Officer who may take an interest in the recruit drill to inspect the recruits whenever and as often as he pleases; and, further, that he should be entitled to draw some nominal pay or forage allowance during this period so as to give him an official status?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,):. Under the Militia Regulations the Commanding Officer may inspect his recruits from time to time; and I do not find that the number of inspections is limited. The Committee of 1890, which fully investigated the wants of the Militia, recommended that the Commanding Officer should be encouraged to inspect the recruits; but they did not make any recommendation as to his payment.

  SOLDIERS AND NATIONAL EMBLEMS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what limit, if any, he proposes to place upon the amount of personal decoration, in the form of National badges, to be worn by individual soldiers on any National festal day?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Until there is shown to be need to the contrary, I think this may well be included in the discretion given to Commanding Officers.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: May I ask whether the permission will be extended to soldiers on duty as well as those off duty?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That naturally would be left entirely to the discretion of Commanding Officers, who, as I said yesterday, are the best judges in the matter.

  THE SCOTCH EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in order to prevent inconvenience, he will arrange that the Parochial Boards of Scotland shall receive their shares of the Equivalent Grant before the close of the current financial year of the Parochial Boards, that is to say, before the 14th of May next?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I am sorry that, owing to the great increase of work lately thrown on the Scottish Office, I cannot promise that the shares of the Equivalent Grant will be issued by the 14th May. Every effort is being made to get through the work, and now that the Treasury have consented to reinforce the strength of the Office, it is hoped that arrears will not occur again. The necessity must have been very great to induce the Treasury to consent to the increase of the staff at the Office.

  RE-DIRECTED POSTCARDS.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether letters with halfpenny stamps, wrappers, and postcards require to be re-stamped on redirection; and, if so, whether he can see his way to place them, in this respect, on the same footing as ordinary letters?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Yes, Sir; the articles in question require to be re-stamped. The present Rules as to redirection was framed in 1891, when, after full consideration, it was decided not to allow the free re-direction of articles sent at the halfpenny rate. I am not prepared to recommend a departure from that decision.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now say when he will bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the interim Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I shall put down the Bill for Monday next.
  DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): Considering the great importance of this question, will the hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill at such an hour as will allow full and adequate discussion?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot say that. The Bill must take its chance.

  THE ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY—GUNS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any pattern of light 12-pouuder gun has yet been approved for the Royal Horse Artillery; and, if so, how soon the batteries will be supplied with such gun; and whether any pattern of field howitzer has yet been approved for service for the Army?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No pattern of 12-pounder gun lighter than that now with the Royal Horse Artillery has yet been approved, but a light gun is nearly ready for trial. A field howitzer is at present under trial.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of 9-pounder muzzle-loading field guns, now in possession of the Royal Artillery in India, at Home, and elsewhere; what is the number of 12-pounder breech-loading field guns at present available for service; and what reserve of such guns exists?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already written to the hon. Member, who will, I feel sure, agree with me that it would be very inadvisable to make public the details he asks for.

  SMALL INVESTMENTS IN GOVERNMENT STOCK.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any depositor in a Post Office Savings Bank can purchase Government Stock at the current price in connection with his savings bank account; whether as small a sum as 1s. may be thus invested; whether the commission
  962
  charged on sums not exceeding 10s. varies from 7½ to 75 per cent.; and whether, in view of the advisability of encouraging such investments by the poor, he will consider the propriety of doing the business of small investors for a lower commission?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The answers to the first three paragraphs are in the affirmative. The charge for investment, including receipt of dividends and payment to the accounts of depositors in the savings bank, is 9d. for any amount of Stock not exceeding £25. As the rate of interest on Stock is only very slightly higher than the rate of interest on ordinary savings bank deposits, I see no advantage in encouraging depositors to make purchases of a few shillings worth of Stock instead of making ordinary deposits in the savings bank, for which no charge is made. I understand that brokers make a minimum charge of 2s. 6d. on any transaction of the kind.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): Was not the object of this arrangement to encourage holders of small sums to become investors in Government Stock; and will not the right hon. Gentleman do away with every restriction calculated to prevent persons from investing in the funds of the country, as they do in France for instance?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am in favour of doing away with every restriction that I possibly can.

  MILITARY DRILL FOR TELEGRAPH BOYS.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will inform the House of the precise nature of the conditions under which the boy messengers in the Telegraph Service attend military drill; whether the conditions were framed and imposed by his Predecessor; whether the conditions are still being enforced; and why it is considered necessary that boys in the Telegraph Service should be taught military drill?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The boys are expected to attend one drill per week, or at the most two. No drill lasts more than one hour, and under no circumstances is drill imposed as a punishment. The messengers are paid at the ordinary rate

  963
  while engaged at drill. The answers to the second and third paragraphs are in the affirmative. The object of the drills, which I should describe as physical drills, rather than as military drills, is to give the messengers a smarter appearance, to make them take a pride in their uniform and keep it in good order, and generally to increase their efficiency.
  MR. CREMER: Is any penalty imposed on the boys for declining to attend the drill?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  POSTAL IRREGULARITIES IN LONDON.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will cause inquiries to be instituted into the complaints which have for some time been made by residents in the North-Eastern District of the Metropolis concerning the irregularity and delay which frequently occurs in the postal delivery?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am not aware of the complaints referred to by my hon. Friend; but I shall be happy to have inquiries made, and to let him know the result.

  CARLOWAY HARBOUR CONTRACT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the contract for the Carloway Harbour Works is signed; if not, why not, and if signed, why operations have not been commenced; and whether he is aware that there is great distress at the present time in the Island of Lewis, and that hundreds of Lewis men would be glad to find employment on those works at an average pay of 2s. 3d. per day?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The contract for the Carloway Harbour would have been signed some time ago, had not a sudden difficulty arisen from the contractor believing that the people of Carloway demanded a higher wage than the contractor thought he could give. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that all difficulty has been got over, and only yesterday a letter was written asking the Trustees to have the contract signed and the work commenced
  964
  at once. It is believed that work was actually begun on the Carloway Road yesterday, so there should be no want of employment for the Lewis men for some time to come.

  BANKRUPTCY FEES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why an employé in the office of the Official Receiver, 33, Carey Street, who until lately appropriated fees for administering oaths for persons calling at that office in connection with the business of the Department, refuses to return fees so collected in one case whilst he has returned them in another?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The fees in question being the ordinary personal fees payable to a Commissioner appointed to administer oaths, I have not thought it necessary to inquire whether, or why, they were remitted in a particular case.

  THE METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Metropolitan Water Supply Commission was resolved upon by the Government, and at what period its first meeting was held?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Royal Warrant appointing the Commission was dated 15th March, 1892, and the Treasury learned the fact on the 17th idem from the Home Office in the usual manner. I am not aware when the first meeting took place.

  MOONLIGHTING OUTRAGES.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, in relation to the Returns of agrarian outrages recently issued, whether there have been any moonlighting outrages during the period from 20th August, 1892, to 28th February, 1893, that have been returned as non-agrarian, and therefore not included in the Return; and, if so, how many?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Constabulary Authorities report that during the period

  965
  23rd August, 1892, to 28th February, 1893, there were 25 outrages of the nature referred to in this question. The following are the details:—firing at the person, 1; firing into dwelling, 9; intimidation (otherwise than by threatening letter or notice), 10; robbery of arms, 1; house attack, 1; aggravated assault, 1; demand of money, 1; and burglary (by moonlighters), 1; total, 25.
  MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.): May I ask whether the principle of enumeration of the agrarian outrages for the period named in the question is the same as in previous years; and whether there were in previous years moonlighting outrages not included in the agrarian crimes?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is so. The principle of classification is exactly the same, and non-agrarian outrages were no more included in previous years than in the present year.

  QUESTION TROUBLES.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now prepared to take any steps for checking the great waste of public time occasioned by the increasing practice of putting questions of mere local and trivial importance to Ministers, either by having the answers printed and distributed, or by restricting the number of questions allowed to be put by any one Member, or by only allowing questions on public matters to be put, or in any other way?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,): My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he does not think he is at present in possession of sufficient information as to the opinions of the House on this subject to undertake to deal with it.

  CROFTERS' APPEALS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the Crofters' Commission will hear the appeal of John Kennedy, of Arineckaig, Strathcarron; and upon what basis the Commission fixed the fair rent of Kennedy's holding?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I can only confirm the information which I understand the hon. Member has already
  966
  received from the Chairman of the Crofters' Commission, that they are not yet in a position to say when Mr. Kennedy's appeal is likely to be heard. The basis on which the fair rent of this holding is settled the Commissioners are not prepared to communicate.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the fact that the delegates appointed by the crofters of Balallan and Arivanich have failed to get permission from Mr. Piatt, the sporting tenant of Park Deer Forest, Island of Lewis, to inspect the lands which they consider available for crofters, they will be protected from prosecution should they visit the deer forest for the aforesaid purpose without the consent of the persons interested?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have asked Sheriff Brand, Chairman of the Crofters' Commission of 1892, to inquire into the case, and he will do so.

  SCOTCH PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the fact that the Board of Supervision has no power to prevent parochial medical officers who are remunerated out of a Government grant undertaking the duties of County Councillors, steps will be taken to declare such medical officers disqualified if their work connected with the County Council necessitate an absence of more than a few hours from their parishes?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: A parochial medical officer is not disqualified by law, as the hon. Member justly states, from sitting on the County Council, and I do not think that if he enjoys the confidence of his neighbours he should be disqualified on grounds of public policy.

  COMPULSORY VACCINATION.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an order by the Guardians of Wigton, Cumberland, that the child of an inmate of the workhouse should, in spite of the refusal

  967
  of the mother, he vaccinated; whether there is any authority by Law for such a proceeding; and whether he will communicate with the Guardians on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. B. FOSTER,): I am informed by the Guardians of the Wigton Union that a fatal case of small-pox occurred at the workhouse on 3rd February, and that the child referred to had occupied a ward close to that in which the small-pox patient had died. The medical officer of the workhouse, under these circumstances, deemed it necessary that the child should be vaccinated. The mother objected, but the vaccination was authorised at an emergency meeting of the Guardians, and the child was vaccinated accordingly. Upon the facts stated, I have no doubt that the Guardians acted in the interests of the child, and of the other inmates of the workhouse; but in the opinion of the Local Government Board the children of the inmates of a workhouse should not be vaccinated when the parent objects, and the Wigton Guardians will he informed accordingly.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Is there any law—I know there is not—by which vaccination can be performed if the parent objects?
  SIR W. FOSTER: That is a question of law on which it is not for me to give an opinion; but my own opinion is that vaccination cannot be legally performed under the circumstances if the mother objects.

  THE COUNTY MAGISTRACY.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, in the County of Worcester, out of 257 County Justices, 12 only belong to the Liberal Party, whilst 245 belong to the Party now in opposition to Her Majesty's Government; if he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this great disproportion; and if he is not aware of these facts will he inquire into them?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I am aware that in this and in other counties there is a great disproportion between the number of Liberal and Conservative Magistrates. I have no reason to doubt, but I have no means of verifying, the precise
  968
  figures stated by my hon. Friend. I have brought the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.
  SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.): May I ask whether it is not possible to obtain a little more accurate information than that contained in the question; and whether it is not a fact that on the list of Worcestershire Magistrates at the present time there are about a dozen gentlemen who contested Parliamentary elections as strong Liberals, and a great many more who actively supported them?
  MR. LODER: I beg also to ask is it not a fact that political considerations enter very largely into the appointment of Borough Magistrates; and if the Lord Chancellor has not appointed a large number of known and avowed supporters of the Government to the Magistracy on borough Benches?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: A Return is now being prepared by the Home Office, which will give, I think, full information with regard to the questions now put. When the figures are before the House hon. Members will draw their own conclusions.
  MR. MOWBRAY: Will it give the dates when the appointments were made?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: Yes.
  MR. J. G. LAWSON: May I ask whether, in preparing the Return, he will say what evidence of political opinion he required in the case of gentlemen charged with being opposed to Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: Hon. Members will have to draw their own conclusions from the facts as given in the Return.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not an infringement of the Ballot Act to cross-question those who are to be appointed Magistrates?
  MR. MACFARLANE: Is the Return to extend to the whole country?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I think it is limited to England and Wales.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: May I ask whether it is the practice of Lord Lieutenants when recommending Magistrates to inquire into their politics?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: My opportunities for knowing anything about the motives of Lord Lieutenants are singularly limited.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: I did not ask what their motives were; I asked whether it is the practice.
  DR. MAC GREGOR: Cannot the Inquiry be extended to Scotland?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I know of no reason why, if it is asked for by the Secretary for Scotland, it should not extend to Scotland.

  ABOLITION OF PROPERTY QUALIFICATION.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government proposes to ask this House to assent to the abolition of the property qualification now required for County Justices; and, if so, how it is proposed to deal with the present practice of requiring gentlemen to have the recommendation or nomination of the Lord Lieutenant of the county as a condition of their appointment?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: The Bill of which the Home Secretary has given notice, but which he has not yet been allowed to introduce, will, if passed into law, abolish the property qualification of County Justices. The Government have no present intention of proposing legislation on the subject of the recommendation or nomination of County Justices.
  MR. FENWICK: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if the Government will afford facilities for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for the Maldon Division of Essex, which proposes to abolish the property qualification for County Magistrates, so that working men in counties, like their fellows in towns, may be able to sit on the Magisterial Bench?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I must ask for notice of that question.

  APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  MR. WASON (Ayrshire, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in Ayrshire there is a great disproportion between the number of Members of the Liberal Party who
  970
  have been appointed Justices of the Peace for that county and of those who belong to the Party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government; and whether, if so, he will inform the Lord Chancellor of the fact in order that steps may be taken towards rectifying the disproportion?
  MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.): May I ask whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire was not appointed by the present Prime Minister; whether, since 1878, the Lord Lieutenant has not appointed 118 Liberal and Liberal Unionist Magistrates and only 83 Conservatives; whether there is any instance in which the private political opinions of the Magistrates has interfered with the public discharge of their duty; and whether it is proposed that steps should be taken to compel Justices of the Peace to change their political opinions to suit those of the Secretary for Scotland?
  MR. DODD: Is there any law vesting the appointment of Magistrates in the Lord Lieutenant?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The law on the subject is very simple. The law is that the Lord Chancellor appoints; the custom is that the Lord Lieutenant practically appoints. With regard to the question by the hon. Member below the Gangway, it is quite evident that in the County of Ayr there would be no difficulty in making out the Return to which attention has been called, because the substance of that Return is evidently a matter of public knowledge in Ayrshire. With respect to my hon. Friend's question, if he will lay a statement before me I am prepared to communicate it to the Lord Chancellor, as I am prepared to communicate the statement made by the hon. Member below the Gangway.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, when any Return is laid before the Lord Chancellor in order to enable him to form a judgment upon this question, that it will be clearly shown, in indicating the politics of the present Justices, how long they had been in opposition to Her Majesty's Government, and whether they were appointed originally by a Liberal Lord Lieutenant as members of the Liberal Party?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.): I should like to ask whether, in undertaking to make this reference to the Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Gentle-

  971
  man has any reason to believe that the Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire has not made his recommendations with perfect impartiality?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have no reason to believe either one way or the other. But when a statement of a great practical grievance is laid before the Government inquiry ought to be made, and all the Lord Chancellor has promised is an inquiry. He will inquire into the question whether any such grievance exists, and will not go upon the first aspect of the facts as laid before him.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: That does not answer my question.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor will not act upon statistics laid before him by a private Member. If these allegations are such as to call for any inquiry he will make that inquiry, and I have no doubt that inquiry will include the question of the date of the appointment.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I have not asked what the Lord Chancellor will do. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay before him the statistics I have mentioned—namely, how many of the Justices were appointed by a Liberal Lord Lieutenant as members of the Liberal Party?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor will find the information more accurately for himself. I have nott given him any statistics.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: You said you would supply statistics to him.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I said I would supply to him any statements furnished me as to agreements said to exist.
  MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under a Statute, 27 Henry 8, no person has any authority to make Justices of the Peace, that they can only be made under the King's Great Seal, by the authority of the King's Highness, or by that of his heir; and whether, if a custom has arisen in violation of that Act of Parliament, he will see that it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I must ask for notice of that.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman propose to represent to the Lord
  972
  Chancellor that a grievance exists in Ayrshire?
  MR. BARTLEY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be very particular as to the date, because, take the right hon. Gentleman himself, he would be in one category at one time, and in another category at another date.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE SUGAR BOUNTIES CONVENTION.
  MR. BAIRD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the sugar-producing countries represented at the Conference on Sugar Bounties have taken steps to carry out the first Article of the Convention; and, if so, which?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Convention was not ratified by any of the Signatory Powers, and, therefore, has never come into operation. The German and Belgian Governments have taken measures to effect, to some extent, the object of the first Article of the Convention. We are not aware that action has been taken by any other countries.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any future negotiations which may be entered upon with the French Government with regard to the questions connected with the Newfoundland fisheries, the Government will take into consideration the necessity of obtaining a reduction of the prohibitory tariffs at present imposed upon British goods, especially fish hooks, levied as and from 10th January, 1893, in the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelow?
  SIR E. GREY: The hardship inflicted by the present tariffs will be borne in mind in any future negotiations with the French Government.

  BONÂ-FIDE TRAVELLERS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a recent decision given in the Queen's Bench Division by a Court consisting of five of Her Majesty's Judges (one, Justice Cave, dissenting) has

  973
  caused considerable misunderstanding in the Courts of Law as to the interpretation of the words "bonâ fide travellers"; and whether, by legislation or otherwise, he will take steps to give greater clearness to the definition?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend, no doubt, refers to the case of "Penn v. Alexander," decided on 5th February last. The decision was concurred in by four Judges out of five. Its effect appears to be that if the primary or main object of a journey is to obtain liquor the person making it is not a bonâ, fide traveller within the meaning of the Licensing Acts. This would seem to be a clear and intelligible rule, and so far as it goes not to need further definition by legislation.

  THE RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received from the representatives of any of the Railway Companies any proposal which is likely to terminate the present unsatisfactory state of the railway rates dispute and give satisfaction to traders?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; I have received this morning very important communications from three large companies, all indicating a desire to come to a speedy understanding with the traders. The companies in question are the Great Northern, the Midland, and the Great Eastern. I have also heard, on good authority, that other companies are about to take the same steps. I propose, if we have a Debate to-night on the question, to submit the letters I have received to the House.
  MR. JACKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reply from the Scotch Companies?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir; I have not received any specific reply from Scotland. The companies are now indicating separately the line they propose to take.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: Have not the companies undertaken that any reductions agreed upon shall date back from January 1st?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Whatever revised rates may ultimately come into force, they will date back to January 1.
  MR. HUNTER: May I ask whether;the Government will consent to the
  974
  appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the recent increase of railway rates, and to examine whether any, and what, precautions can be adopted to protect the public from unreasonable charges for the conveyance of goods?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think it is undoubtedly desirable and necessary that there shall be ultimately some inquiry, but I think that, as the Government will be prepared, in the first instance, to move a Committee, it would be hardly desirable to propose a Committee before Easter, while negotiations are going on. Immediately after Easter I think such an inquiry ought to be instituted, and will have a very good result.

  WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can say for how many of the new secondary schools, to be established under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889, have Schemes been drawn up and sanctioned; how many of these new schools are at the present time in full working order; and what provision, if any, has been made, under the above Act, for staffing the newly-established secondary schools with properly trained teachers?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): No Scheme under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act has yet been sanctioned by the Queen in Council. Three Schemes have been framed and submitted by the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department, of which two have been approved by the Department. There Are, therefore, no new schools in working order, and it is not possible to state what provision has been made for teachers.

  THE DISCUSSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL ESTIMATES.
  MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORT: I wish to ask the hon. Member for Kerry whether he is correctly reported in The Times, Daily News, and other London morning papers to have stated in the course of last night's Debate—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The incident has been disposed of.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: On a point of Order, I would ask yon, Sir, whether, in view of the fact that the Chairman did not hear the words last night, we have now any opportunity of raising the question?
  MR. SPEAKER: The question ought to have been raised at the moment. It cannot be raised now as a question of Order.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: We did raise it at the moment.
  MR. SPEAKER: The incident is closed, and it is no longer a question of Order. It is a matter entirely for the Chairman to deal with.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will state, for the information of the House, what has been of late years the Rule relating to the intention in the discussion of Supplementary Estimates as to debating the question of principles belonging to the original Estimate to which the Vote is supplementary, especially as set forth in the Report and Evidence taken by the Committee on Estimates in the year 1885?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have always, since I have been in the Chair, manifested great reluctance to answer any question which might seem to be in the nature of an appeal from the Chairman of Committees to myself; but the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put his question clearly indicates to me that he does not wish to refer to me as a Court of Appeal. I wish to dissociate myself entirely and absolutely from anything that occurred last night. The question has only been put to me since I came into the Chair to-day, and I will endeavour to answer it to the best of my ability. Undoubtedly of late years a certain restriction has been placed upon the discussions of Supplementary Estimates, and they have been restrictions to the items which form the bulk of the Supplementary Estimates. As a general rule, on the Supplementary Estimates it is in order to discuss only the particular items which constitute the Supplementary Estimates, and the sub-heads of the original Estimates can only be referred to so far as they are involved in the fair discussion of the points contained in the items asked for in the Supplementary Estimates. Of course it is quite obvious it would be improper, as a
  976
  general rule, to raise on a Supplementary Estimate the whole question of policy involved in the original Estimate, but, as I have stated, the discussion is properly confined to the items of the Supplementary Estimate. I think, however, that I ought to state that items of Supplementary Estimates may raise in themselves questions of policy, but the interpretation whether they do raise questions of policy or not must clearly be left to the Chairman of Committees. If I may be allowed to illustrate what I mean, I would say the question of the draining of any particular house in Constantinople would clearly not raise the whole question of Foreign Embassies. But on the other hand, a Vote which would largely increase the Vote for a railway to Uganda might raise the whole question of the policy involved in the original Vote for Uganda. I do not know that I need say anything else but that I entirely sever myself from anything that occurred last night. The question has been asked me, and it is quite true that restriction has been placed upon the discussion of items in Supplementary Estimates, and the question whether principles are involved, either new principles or principles which were originally involved in the original Estimates, must be one entirely at the discretion of the gentleman who occupies, and worthily occupies, the Chair.

  THE PRACTICE OF PAIRING.
  SIR W. PEARCE: I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury whether he will inform the House how many Members of the Government Party who "paired" at 7 p.m. yesterday voted in the 7.25 p.m. Division, as I know of two. Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest some better arrangement?
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): I am certainly not able to say how many Members who were paired voted in the Division at 7.25 yesterday. Of course, hon. Members who were paired prior to that hour were not justified in so voting. I am sure that any hon. Member who did so vote did so from inadvertence and not from malice prepense. As a matter of fact, the practice of pairing is not recognised by the House itself. It is purely a question

  977
  of private arrangement between individual Members, and I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish strictly to adhere to the terms of the pledges they have given.
  MR. CROSFIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the two clocks in the Lobby are not synchronised, and that those who, like myself, paired until half-past 7 last night might have voted in the Division at 7.25 if they had gone into the Lobby by the clock which was timed before the other clock?
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I am sure the hon. Member will excuse me from becoming the corrector of the clocks of the House in addition to my other work.

  THE EXPORT OF PIG-IRON.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the exports of British iron and steel were last year 1,440,000 tons less than they were in 1889, and that the production of pig-iron in the United Kingdom was 1,840,000 tons less in 1892 than in 1889; and in such case, having regard to the serious consequences to all engaged in the iron trade, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Board of Trade have no official Returns of the production of pig-iron, but the hon. Member has correctly stated the falling off in the exports of iron and steel. The year 1889 was one of the highest years of export in the iron and steel trade, and the falling off began immediately after the financial crisis of 1890. The chief decline is in exports to the Argentine Republic, to Australasia, and similar countries, due to the financial disturbance in those countries. These crises are beyond the control of Governments. After similar fluctuations there has always been a recovery in exports.
  MR. JACKS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in 1870 the exports of Germany and Belgium to neutral markets was only 20 per cent., and in 1891 36 per cent.; and whether he is aware that in 1870 Germany exported nothing to this country, and in 1891 98,249 tons against exports from this country of 55,293 tons; and, further,
  978
  whether there is any explanation of the reason for this serious state of affairs?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am afraid I can not answer this question, but admitting the facts to be as the hon. Member has stated them, I cannot see what steps the Government are to take in order to increase the export of iron and steel, or to increase the production of pig-iron. These questions depended entirely on the financial state of the country, and had nothing to do with the Government.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Are not the foreign prohibitory tariffs largely to blame, and can no steps be taken to get them reduced?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Member must know that the tariffs have been reviewed within the last year, and the present tariffs are a reduction. We are looking forward to some change in America which will be beneficial to trade.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): What will be the course of business on Monday and next week generally?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Navy Estimates will be the first Order on Monday, as has already been announced. As to the business on the subsequent days of the week, I can make no announcement at present.

  THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): May I ask when the Committee on Agriculture will be appointed?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The appointment of the Committee depends on the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford and the supporters of the Amendment of which he has given notice. The Minister for Agriculture is very anxious to proceed with the matter, but the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is practically an Amendment designed to defeat the Motion. Therefore, the question of when the Motion will be brought forward depends upon the conduct of the supporters of the Amendment.
  MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.): Are not the Government supposed to have a majority in this House? I cannot, in the circumstances, quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: When will the Army Estimates, promised us on Wednesday, be circulated?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry that more copies of the Army Estimates have not hitherto been available. I have been disappointed in the matter, but I hope that to-morrow morning, at the very latest, copies will be sent to every hon. Member.

  FREE SCHOOL BOOKS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the case in Scotland (as the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education has explained to a correspondent it is in England) that School Boards are bound to provide a proper supply of books and other school apparatus, and cannot compel a parent to provide books, either by periodical payment or by purchase?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, which lays on School Boards the obligation to "maintain and keep efficient every school under their management," has not, so far as I am aware, been interpreted to mean that a School Board are bound to provide school books free of charge for the use of scholars. Neither does the Scotch Code make the provision of school books by the managers a condition for receiving the annual Parliamentary Grant. But many School Boards do provide books free of charge, and the Department recognise such expenditure as legitimate.

  THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S FISH RATES.
  SIR WILLIAM PEARCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to an increase of over 30 per cent. in the common fish rates between Penzance and Plymouth, a large fleet of fishing boats is sustaining great loss; and whether, in these circumstances, he will make such representations to the Great Western Railway Company as will induce that Company to modify these rates immediately, as no future rebate will benefit the fishermen?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir; I have not had any information upon the point referred to in the hon. Member's question. If he will furnish me with details of the rates complained of, I will cause representations to be made to the Great Western Railway Company.

  EDUCATION GRANTS.
  SIR JOSEPH WESTON (Bristol, E.): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in consideration of the hardship inflicted upon schools by the limitation of amount of grant to 17s. 6d. on average attendance, Art. 107, Code 1892 (after a much larger grant has been earned), the Department will consider the advisability of its revision, or at least the exemption of instruction in the specific subjects from its operation?
  MR. ACLAND: The limit of 17s. 6d., referred to by the hon. Member, is laid down by legislation by Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, for what appear to be sound reasons. It is not proposed to introduce fresh legislation with the view of altering it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1892–3 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg, Mr. Mellor, to draw your attention to the fact that there are no copies of the Supplementary Estimates to be obtained in the office. It is, I think, perfectly impossible to discuss the Estimates in the circumstances, and unless some remedy can be devised, I hold that Progress ought to be reported.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR,): That is not a question of Order. It is for the Committee to decide whether they will proceed to consider the Estimates or not.
  DR. CLARK: Why cannot copies be obtained?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am surprised to hear that copies of the Estimates are not procurable, for any amount were to be had last night.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They were exhausted by 10 o'clock.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I understand that the usual number of copies were supplied, but I suppose they have been exhausted in consequence of an unusual demand. I will send to the printers for additional copies at once. I have no doubt there are plenty there.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How soon?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I said at once.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But how soon may they be expected?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have no doubt that there are a sufficient number of copies in the hands of hon. Members to justify the Committee in proceeding. I will take steps to have other copies sent to the House immediately.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is extremely difficult to carry on the Estimates without the copies.
  MR. DALZIEL: Have not the Supplementary Estimates been circulated in the ordinary course to every Member of the House?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Certainly. Copies were circulated in the usual way on Monday.

  CLASS I.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for the Expenses of Inland Revenue Buildings and of Post Office and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain."
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Does this Vote include the General Post Office?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The items are—Inland Revenue Building, Post Office Buildings, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I do not intend to move the reduction which stands in my name.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I rise to a point of Order. I have a question to put which deals with an item prior to that to which the hon. Member for East St. Pancras alludes. Am I precluded from raising it? In the last Parliament it was ruled that, after an item had been passed over, the Committee could not return to it.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I am very pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had simply a question to ask the First Commissioner of Works. Last year the sum of £12,000 was voted for the site and erection of a new post office in Manchester. It appeared that an additional sum of £2,438 was now wanted in respect of the site, and he wished to know whether both sums were to be expended in respect of the site alone. If so, the Committee last year were misled, it having been said that the sum of £12,000 would cover the cost of erection as well as the cost of the site.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is the fact that the sum voted last year and the amonnt ask for in this Supplementary Estimate are both required for the site.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Then last year's statement that it was for buildings and site was incorrect?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think last year it was stated it was for the site alone.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: No; last year's Estimates said it was for a site and the erection of a new office.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I will make further inquiry into this matter.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I find that a particular question I wished to refer to, as regards certain post offices in North London, does not arise in this Vote, and, therefore, I am precluded from bringing the matter before the Committee. I see, however, there is here a Vote for the General Post Office, and I think it would interest the Committee to hear from the First Commissioner of Works when the new works in connection with the General Post Office and Telegraph Department will be completed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope that the work will be completed within the present financial year. At any rate, only a small portion is likely to be carried over.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I am not complaining of the present Government, but of the late Government, in regard to the matter of the new office for Manchester. The Estimate last year distinctly said the sum asked for was for the site and the erection of a new office. The Committee were deceived by being asked to vote money for new buildings and

  983
  site when it was to be devoted to the purchase of the site alone. I hope that another time we shall not be so deceived, and that this matter will be thoroughly inquired into.
  MR. J. G. LAWSONsaid, that as a new Member, he had examined the Supplementary Estimates with the greatest care, and had noticed that the manner in which the sums voted for the erection of post offices was distributed was calculated to lead to confusion. The effect of the course now pursued was to make the Post Office surplus appear larger than it really was. Means ought to be taken to let the public know what was the real surplus of the Post Office. Many hon. Members were anxious to lay before the Postmaster General schemes for distributing the surplus, and the present arrangement of the Votes might result in their being misled. According to the particulars given, it appeared that if a building was bought ready to hand, the charge was made on the Post Office; whereas, if a site was bought and a building erected upon it, the charge went to the Board of Works. He believed that so as to place himself in Order he must move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £18,000, not, of course, for the purpose of preventing the money being expended, but simply to have it placed under the right heading from a book-keeping and business point of view.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. John Lawson.)
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,)said, the hon. Member was perfectly right in saying that the Post Office site should be charged to the Post Office Vote, and only the cost of the buildings to the Vote under consideration. The same thing could not be said, however, of the Inland Revenue buildings, and it was thought well that the two items should be brought together in the Votes. In the original Estimate the cost of the Post Office site was charged to the Post Office Vote, and the cost of erecting the buildings to the Building Vote, whilst in the case of the Inland Revenue Buildings the cost both of the site and the erection was charged to the one Vote.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDwished for some information with regard to the establishment of communications between the Post Office and lightships and lighthouses. The Royal Commission on Electrical Communication with Lighthouses, Post Offices, &c., reported that when communication was established between a light station and a post office which was not constantly open, an alarm bell should be placed in the room of the telegraphists. He thought that sentence would render him in Order in bringing the subject forward on this Vote. If not, he should like to know whether on the Post Office Vote any sum was asked for in regard to the carrying out of the recommendations of the Commission.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.)said, there were certainly no items in the Supplementary Estimate which touched the question the hon. Member had raised. There would be a Vote on the Estimates of next year dealing specially with communications with lighthouses and lightships.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)asked how it was there was no Supplementary Vote on the subject. He had, of course, taken great interest in the Royal Commission, and, indeed, had been responsible for its appointment. The Commission reported in November, recommending expenditure on certain places; and he understood that some of that expenditure had been already incurred, so that it ought to have appeared in the Supplementary Estimates for the present year.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said, the case was even stronger than his right hon. Friend had put it. After the Estimates were framed last year, in deference to the wish of the House, as expressed upon a Motion moved by one of the supporters of the then Government, the Government undertook to provide certain communications with lighthouses, and so forth, on shore. The Commission only had reference to lighthouses and lightships; but previously works had been ordered, and to a great extent executed, even before the late Government left Office, so that a Supplementary Estimate was clearly necessary.
  MR. A. MORLEYsaid, two questions which were not identical had been raised. There was the question of communication between lighthouses and post offices, and there was also the question of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission dealing mainly with lightships. A Vote of £20,000 had already been passed for the present financial year with respect to the first of these questions. That sum had, he believed, been very nearly expended, but no expenditure would be incurred on any of these services outside the £20,000. The Report of the Royal Commission was being very carefully considered by the Government, and it was intended that Parliament should be asked to sanction certain works recommended by the Royal Commission. No Supplementary Estimate, however, was needed for the purpose.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDasked whether all works connecting post offices with lighthouses and lightships were to cease? He thought the House had understood from a statement made by the President of the Local Government Board that the works would go on this year, and that another winter would not be allowed to pass before communications with lighthouses and lightships were provided.
  MR. A. MORLEYsaid, it was intended to continue the work of connecting lighthouses with post offices.
  SIR J. GORSTinquired how the Government were going to carry on the work if the money already voted had all been spent, and no more money was taken on a Supplementary Estimate. The Financial Rule was quite distinct: that no expenditure could be entered upon by any Department of the Government, or sanctioned by the Treasury, until a Vote had been passed by the House of Commons. In order to maintain the control of Parliament over the Expenditure of the country, it was necessary that the particular Department of State which was incurring expenditure should at once make application to the Treasury, and obtain Treasury sanction, so that expenditure might be approved by Parliament before the end of the financial year. The statement made by the Postmaster General was really to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman was going to break the law.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had gone a little too far. The Postmaster General had not broken the law, nor did he intend to break the law, because no money had been spent, and it was not intended to spend any money on the service in reference to lightships until next year. £20,000 had been provided for the present year in reference to coast communications, including shore lighthouses, and another Vote would be asked for next year, while a certain sum would be set aside for effecting communications with lightships and island lighthouses. Although the Government did not propose to the full extent to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, the money provided would enable them to do so to a very large extent.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he would put himself in Order by moving to report Progress. In April last a Debate took place on a Motion brought forward by Sir E. Birkbeck, and the House was addressed, amongst others, by the then Postmaster General (Sir J. Fergusson)—
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman's contention is that there is no money provided for a certain purpose in the Supplementary Estimate, he is not in Order in continuing the conversation. The reason I allowed the Debate to proceed was that I thought it desirable that some information should be given; but I do not think it proper that the right hon. Gentleman should continue the conversation unless he intends to draw attention to something in the Estimates.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he proposed to call attention to the way in which the Estimate was prepared. Last year the then Postmaster General named certain objects which he intended to execute at once, and said, "We have already put in hand the surveys of several of these works of the more pressing kind."
  MR. DALZIEL: Mr. Mellor, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to speculate as to what ought to be, or what might have been, in the Supplementary Estimate, when we have it on the authority of the Postmaster General that no provision is

  987
  made in the Supplementary Estimate for the matter referred to?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order to continue the discussion unless the right hon. Gentleman moves to report Progress in order to discuss the mode in which the Estimate is prepared. He has not got to that point yet.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he was coming to that point, although he, of course, quite appreciated the difficulties in which the Chairman found himself placed by the interruptions of persons who were absolutely unacquainted with the practice of Parliament. His point was, that the ex-Postmaster General stated in Parliament a year ago that the Government had already taken certain steps which involved expenditure, and were about to incur further expenditure. He was glad to see that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present, as they would no doubt appreciate a point which new Members naturally failed to grasp. The present Postmaster General said he was not going to spend any money at all during the present financial year. The question, however, was what money had been spent since the 26th of April last, and in what part of the Supplementary Estimate did such expenditure appear? He could only conclude that owing to the paucity of copies of the Supplementary Estimates, one had failed to find its way into the hands of the Postmaster General, or possibly the right hon. Gentleman had generously given up his copy to some friend—
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must rise to Order. If the right hon. Gentleman's observations can be made during the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates, they must be made upon the Telegraphic Vote and not upon the Post Office Vote. This question of telegraphic communication has nothing to do with the Post Office Vote. I must, therefore, venture to say that my right hon. Friend is out of Order.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I am not going to argue questions of Order with the right hon. Gentleman, whose arduous duties do not include the laying down of Rules of Order for our guidance.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is, of course, impossible to bring forward that matter
  988
  on this Vote, as it is not included in the Vote.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, his object was to protest against the way in which the Vote was framed.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.): I must ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already stated my opinion, but the right hon. Gentleman will be in Order if he moves to report Progress for the purpose of distinctly describing the mode in which this Estimate is framed.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, it was his intention to do so. These Supplementary Estimates had been framed, according to the Postmaster General's statement, in entire disregard of Parliamentary precedent. All expenditure not provided for in the Estimates of the current year must be submitted to Parliament in the form of Supplementary Estimates. In April last a responsible Minister pledged himself to incur expenditure not contemplated in the current Estimates, and there was no doubt that the money had been spent. This being the case, he wished to know what Vote in the Supplementary Estimates contained this expenditure. He desired to ascertain how much money had been spent, and how much more was to be spent in the same way. If the money had been spent under other heads, of course a deception had been practised upon the Parliament. It was, of course, most improper to expend balances in carrying out works which were not contemplated in the original Estimates; and if this course had been followed, the Treasury practice had sadly degenerated. In order to raise this highly important point, he moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. James Lawther.)
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the Supplementary Estimates had been prepared according to precedent and practice. No money was being used which had not been voted. The right hon. Gentleman had mixed up two questions. One of these dealt with coast communications, which had been under the charge of the Post Office authorities. For the expenditure on such communications, a Supplementary Estimate for £20,000 was presented to

  989
  the House in June last, and the whole of the expenditure that had taken place on coast communications had come out of that £20,000. The other branch of the question related to telegraphic communications with lightships and islands. No money had been spent on any portion of that part of the proposal.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: A promise was given that it should be spent.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, it was not given in his time, and he was not responsible for any promise given by any of his predecessors. As a matter of fact, no money had been spent illegally, and whatever had been done, had been done according to practice.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I would point out that the Government has incurred a heavy responsibility in this matter. The Royal Commission, whose Report is dated December 8th, 1892, recommended that the Goodwin, the North Land Head, the Kentish Knock, and two other light-vessels, should be immediately connected. Although they had the Report of this Commission unanimously signed before them on the 8th December, Her Majesty's Government propose to wait until the 25th March before starting the work which the Commission said should be commenced immediately. Why is this? It is in order to save themselves from submitting a Supplementary Estimate. I really would ask the Postmaster General whether he is willing to incur such responsibility as that? It is obvious that, in the view of the Commission, the delay might involve loss of life during the current year.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: All I can say is, that the Government have considered the Report, and have made provision for carrying out the recommendations of the Commission. They do not consider it necessary to provide for the expenditure under a Supplemental Estimate. They are defraying the cost of carrying out the recommendations out of the money voted in June last. They are carrying out some of the recommendations of the Commission gradually.
  MR. FITZGERALDsaid, that on this important subject he wished to ask a question of the Postmaster General, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be labouring under a misconception. He (Mr. FitzGerald) had received two dis-
  990
  tinct answers of an opposite nature to each other. The right hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, no doubt, if it was not in accordance with the facts—said the work was going on. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said the work was not going on. The matter was one of such vital importance that he wanted to have these conflicting statements put right. He did not care a straw where they got the money, but he wanted the Lifeboat Institution to be able to go on with its work.
  MR. A. MORLEY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. In what I said I referred to coast communication and the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I said that coast communication was going on, and would go on, during next year; and that next year a substantial Vote would be taken for it. The other recommendations of the Royal Commission are under the careful consideration of the Government. The moment the Report came into my hands—and I do not think it was submitted till January, which is after the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—I communicated with the Treasury and the Board of Trade—who are more especially interested in matters affecting shipping—and the subject was then, and is still being, considered. There will be a Vote in the Estimates for next year which will especially deal with this matter. I said that as to lighthouse communication forming part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it is of the same nature as the coast connection work, and some of it is actually now being considered with a view to being carried out without loss of time. But there is no money in this Supplementary Estimate which in any way touches on the subject under discussion.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTthought there were evidences that the Government wished to avoid the discussion of this important matter. If there was no money in the Vote touching upon the discussion there ought to be; and if the right hon. Gentleman would go to a Division he would support him.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONdid not think there was any necessity to go to a Division. As a member of the Royal Commission, he could say that all who had been on it were anxious that

  991
  something should be done to carry out the recommendations contained in their Report. The Report dealt with various subjects. One was the subject of coast communication, another fixed lighthouses, and another communication between light-vessels. Some of these communications were very simple to effect, while others were very complicated and difficult. Before the recommendations of the Royal Commission were made the Post Office had done a good deal in regard to coast communication, and more had been accomplished since. Some of the communications could be effected without great cost, and some of them the Departments could not well agree to without full inquiry on their own account. It would be unreasonable, so far as some of the recommendations were concerned, to expect them to be carried out until the Departments had satisfied themselves with regard to them. The Report was only presented in the last days of last year; and though the connections ought to be made as soon as possible, he did not think it reasonable to expect all the work to be carried out within so short a time after the Report was issued. He did not think there need be any great anxiety as to loss of life, because the opinion of several Members of the Commission was, that if the money recommended for communications between lighthouses and lightships could be spent in putting up new lighthouses, loss of life might be saved to a greater extent. Still, the recommendations were highly important, and he hoped something would be done to carry them out.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I do not wish to press the Motion. I have elicited what I wanted. I wished to ascertain how the money was spent.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £2,000, be granted for the said Service."
  MR. FITZGERALDsaid, the subject was one of great importance, as the circumstances of the wreck of the Dilsberg showed. If the lightships—the Kentish Knock, the Long, the Sunk, and Shipwash—had been connected, a great deal of the loss of life which unfortunately happened would have been prevented.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMANsaid, the amounts for post office buildings and post office sites were in different Votes; and when attention was called to the fact, it was said that the whole expenditure was given in the Post Office Report. He wished to know why the Post Office Report differed from the Estimates.
  MR.SHAWLEFEVRE: I did not say that the Post Office Report—I said that the Return issued last year shows the expenditure in the Post Office under all the heads. It shows what is the real surplus after taking into account all the receipts.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: Why should not the Votes for buildings and sites be put together?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The usual course has been to put only the sites under this Vote.
  MR. MORTONsaid, they ought to have an undertaking from the Government that in future these Votes be taken together, so as to save time and trouble and two discussions. The Committee should be able to see the total amount required for the buildings.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: That will be considered.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £12,000, Supplementary, Public Buildings, Great Britain.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, so far as he could understand, there had been no Vote at all for this service—the National Portrait Gallery Building. He should like to know the exact position in which the institution stood. It seemed that owing to the liberality of some unknown person funds were provided for erecting this gallery, but at the same time Parliament was aked to vote £16,000 for that which was really part and parcel of the building. He had always held that the site selected for the gallery was a bad one. He did not believe in putting several of these public institutions together. London was a large place and he had always thought that it would be an advantage to London to have the various institutions for the promot on of culture and the study of art and the improvement of the people placed in different localities so as to form centres for radiating knowledge and culture

  993
  amongst the people. Would the First Commissioner of Works give them some details as to this building? Did he understand that the gallery was to become the absolute property of the nation?—for there was some idea that this £16,000 was to be a contribution towards the cost of the building, which was not to become public property.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The hon. Gentleman is quite justified in asking for information on this Vote, which is a new item. It is one for which my predecessor is responsible, but I am very glad to be able to defend it. The House, I think, will agree that it is justifiable, and that if the Government had not agreed to contribute this money, it would have been acting unfairly towards the gentleman referred to as the unknown donor, but who is well-known as Mr. Alexander. This gentleman has very munificently offered to build the National Portrait Gallery. Mr. Alexander, two years ago, offered to contribute a large sum of money (£60,000) towards the erection of a National Portrait Gallery on two conditions: one being that the Government should provide the site, and the other being that he should employ his own architect. It was decided that the building should be erected on the site behind the National Gallery. I believe that Mr. Alexander himself wished for that site, but, for my own part, I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite on that subject. The question, however, of site has been determined, and I do not think it worth while to enter upon a discussion as to whether or not the late Government were right in arranging with Mr. Alexander for that particular site. The site having been settled, Mr. Alexander put the matter into the hands of his architect, Mr. Christian, who prepared plans. He had not proceeded very far, however, when it was ascertained that the £60,000 would not cover the cost of the building, but that £96,000 would be needed. Mr. Alexander said he could not undertake to furnish the whole of that amount, but he very generously said that he would contribute £80,0000—which was the estimated cost of erecting that portion of the building mainly to be used as a National Portrait Gallery—but he expressed the opinion that the Government might fairly contribute £16,000, which
  994
  would be the cost of the erection of that portion of the building necessary to connect the new Gallery with the National Gallery, and of constructing a new façade for the National Gallery. The late Government took that view of the matter, and most reasonably and properly undertook to provide the remaining £16,000. The late Government came to a most proper conclusion in the matter, and I do not see how they could have arrived at any other without being open to the imputation of being shabby and mean to Mr. Alexander. The Government have the assurance of the architect that there can be no possibility of the expenditure being more than £96,000, and that the Government can by no possibility be called upon to contribute more than £16,000. When the building is complete it will be put into the hands of the Government, and become the property of the nation, and we shall then be in a position to thank Mr. Alexander for the splendid donation he has made to the country, and we shall have a National Portrait Gallery most suitable for the purpose, and a very handsome addition to the public buildings of the Metropolis.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explicit statement. The right hon. Gentleman must not think that he (Mr. Bartley) was in any way antagonistic to the Vote; but inasmuch as it was a new one, and the public were not familiar with the circumstances, he had thought it desirable to elicit an explanation. The general public, he thought, would be glad that the discussion had been raised.
  SIR J. GOLDSMIDthought that thanks ought to be tendered both to Mr. Alexander and the late Government for their action in the matter. It was most desirable that the collection of portraits should be properly housed, the subject being one which had been urged on various Governments for years past. The Government would have been shabby, indeed, to have refused to ask the House to vote £16,000, or even £20,000, if necessary, for an important building of this character.
  MR. FREEMAN - MITFORDsaid, that everyone who had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works must have listened to it with great satisfaction. It

  995
  would, doubtless, add to that satisfaction if the right hon. Gentleman could tell them when they might expect the new gallery to be opened.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It will be completed in about the middle of the next financial year — perhaps rather earlier.
  MR. PLUNKET: As I was in Office at the time these negotiations took place with Mr. Alexander, I rise to add my voice to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman by stating that nothing could exceed the generosity and the liberality with which Mr. Alexander has behaved to the Government and to the nation all through these transactions.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £2,200, Supplementary, Harbours in the United Kingdom, and Lighthouses Abroad under the Board of Trade.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: There are one or two points in this Supplementary Estimate as to which I am anxious to ask a few questions of the President of the Board of Trade. The first item in the Estimate is a re-Vote in respect of certain works at Holyhead Harbour. Some alterations are being effected at the place where the steamers of the Royal Dublin Mail Company embark and disembark their passengers, and the pier is being strengthened to resist the western gales. Some of the work was completed two years ago, and three-fourths of the cost was taken in the financial year 1891–92, and it was estimated that the remaining quarter would be required in the current year. The re-Vote is due to the fact that not so much of the work was done in 1891–92 as was anticipated. But what I want to direct attention to is this: that the re-Vote appears in the Estimate, less certain savings, under several sub-heads in the Estimate for the current year. Now these sub-heads referred to certain very necessary expenditure indeed. There is, for instance, an item for the repair of Dover Harbour, another for works at Spurn Point—an important bulwark against the sea at the mouth of the Humber, which has been under the charge of the Board of Trade for some years. Spurn Point got into a dangerous condition, and Sir John Coode prepared an estimate as to the cost of the neces-
  996
  sary repairs, and he reported that it would be £1,300. At the time it was considered absolutely necessary that this work should be done, and done at once, for the security of that part of the coast. There must have been a considerable saving under that Estimate of £1,300, which has been devoted towards part of this Holyhead Harbour, because the total saving is £1,100. Then the other item upon which a saving has been effected is also for necessary work—namely, the erection of lighthouse keepers' dwellings in the Falkland Islands. Has the right hon. Gentleman got that £1,100 consistently with the proper completion of these works? I come now to the second item, an increased charge of £1,800—an unforeseen increased expenditure on the alteration and repairs to a new steam tender. For some years past some dozen lighthouses at the Bahamas had been served by a sailing tender, which had become gradually unfit for the work, and it was suggested to me that she should be replaced by a new tender which would cost something like £26,000. I went carefully into the matter, in which I had the assistance of the naval advisers to the Board of Trade. I preferred to purchase a gunboat from the Admiralty, which was obtained for a comparatively small sum. I was informed that £10,000 would be ample to place her in a condition to do the necessary work, and a Vote for this amount was taken. I see, however, there is an increase on that amount of £1,800. I should like to ask why that increase has been found necessary, if this is the last Vote on the matter, and if the work has been done and the steamer put on her station in the Bahamas?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have to say at the outset that many of these matters have not come under my notice at the Board of Trade, and none of them have been dealt with under my administration, but I will inquire into them. As to the saving which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to, I have to say that a sum is taken in the Estimates every new year for the construction of a new groin at Sperm Point. This year the engineers reported that there was no necessity for a new groin, as the old groin stood well. Consequently, the saving was applied to the completion of the works at Holy-head. There had also been a small saving on the works in the Falkland

  997
  Islands. In respect of the lightship for the Bahamas, it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that a gunboat was purchased, and that it was estimated that for a sum of £10,000 she could be placed in proper condition for the work in which she was to be engaged; but, as a matter of fact, it cost £11,800 to complete her. I am sure the whole thing was done with great care and economy, and that there was no neglect of work.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I did not impute discredit to the right hon. Gentleman or his subordinates at all. What I want to be clear about is that any necessary work at Spurn Point has been done, and that any saving under that head of the Estimate for this current year has been incurred by the advice of the engineer, and not by any neglect of necessary work.
  MR. MUNDELLA: That is exactly what I stated.
  COMMANDER BETHELLwas glad to hear that the saving that had been effected in regard to Sperm Point had not been at the expense of any necessary work. In connection with this matter, he pointed out that for a great number of years the Board of Trade had interfered with the people on the coast, and had prevented them taking gravel for a long distance from Sperm Point, and if there had been a saving in the construction of this groin he suggested that greater liberty should be given to the people along the coast in respect to this important question of gravel.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, this question of gravel was pressed under his consideration when he was at the Board of Trade, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not prove amenable to the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken; for if that hon. Member's constituents removed this gravel from Sperm Point, a great national mischief might be done.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the real Vote was for £1,500 for works at Holy-head. They were told there were savings under certain sub-heads which were for proposed works at Dover and other places. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that certain of these works might not have been necessary. He objected to the way these Votes were presented. The Government
  998
  ought not to ask for £400, which was not the proper sum, but for £1,500, which they were really going to spend. With regard to the next item of £1,800, the increased expenditure for this new steam tender, he said the original Estimate was for £10,000, whereas it seemed that this amount had been exceeded by £1,800. Surely their highly-paid officers could estimate nearer the actual amount than this.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £34,786, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for Payments under the Light Railways Act of 1889."
  MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORTwished to know if this was the last sum they should be called upon to pay in connection with these Irish railways?
  MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)desired to know whether this sum was distributed over all the light railways under the Act; how much was going to be given to the railways for which contracts had been carried out by existing Railway Companies; and how much to the railways carried out by contracts direct from the Government? He also wished to know how many of these railways had fallen through, and the date of the probable completion of the lines? If the work had been stopped on any of the lines, he should like to know the reason of the stoppage, and whether the Secretary to the Treasury could assure the Committee that the Government were making such arrangements as to ensure that the work would be resumed as soon as possible in any case in which it had been stopped?
  MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)said, he would like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could now inform the Committee on what date the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company had been bound to commence the work in connection with the Collooney and Claremorris Light Railway? He was informed that a great deal of distress existed in that district, that there was great anxiety owing to the want of employment, and that it was a matter of great importance that the works should commence immediately. The work would be of infinitely greater

  999
  value to the people now than it would be two months hence, when they would be employed on their Spring work. There had been a very great and unnecessary delay in the starting of the works.
  SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry, S.)said, there was also much distress in Donegal in consequence of the bad seasons. He should like to know whether this money had been expended, and, if not, whether it would be expended in those distressed districts in the West? Did this complete the whole sum of £600,000 voted by Parliament; and if it did, and if certain, railways were yet uncompleted, what was to become of them? He knew some years ago of one railway in Donegal which could not be completed for want of money, and the works went to wreck and ruin during the time negotiations were proceeding for obtaining the requisite money to complete the railway.
  MR. T. W.RUSSELLsaid, there was an undertaking when this Light Railways Act was passed that the line from Westport to Mulrany should be extended to Achill Sound. He should like to know whether that undertaking had been carried out.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENinquired in regard to the railway from Headford to Kenmare, and asked whether the full complement of workmen were being employed on that undertaking at present. There was great distress in that neighbourhood owing to the bad times. He hoped the Government would at once put a full complement of labourers at work rather than wait until they would be engaged in agricultural pursuits.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)said, he wished to draw attention to a line in the County Donegal, which had been in hands for a very long time—that which ran from Stranorlar to Glenties. That line ought to have been completed as far back as last November. It was not, however, half completed, and it was very difficult to ascertain when it would be in working order. He had had some correspondence with the Board of Works with regard to it, and he had been assured that the contractors who appeared to have an interest rather hostile to the completion of the railway were now making every effort to finish the work, and that 300 men had been put
  1000
  to work. However, the last information he had was that, so far from employing men in any reasonable number or on reasonable terms, the contractors in question were only offering 2½d. an hour to men employed on the Glenties end of the line, and there was no prospect, of course, of their getting anything like adequate labour on such terms to complete the work within a reasonable time. He wished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would undertake to compel the contractors to execute the contract that they had undertaken, and whether he would enforce the penalties under which they stood if the work was not completed during the period up to which they got their last extension?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Before I say anything with respect to the particular railways that have been referred to, I think it would be well if I said a word or two as to the amount of money spent and likely to be required for the completion of the various works. The total amount asked for to-day is £34,786. The necessity of that Vote arises in this way: In December, 1891, when the Estimates were being prepared for the year 1892–1893, it was thought that £510,000 would have been spent by March, 1892, and, therefore, the then Government proposed to ask Parliament to vote £90,000. It turned out that the £510,000 was not spent up to the end of March, 1892, and that the real sum spent was only about £475,000, leaving a sum of about £125,000, which was required to make up the £600,000 provided by Parliament. Parliament having provided £90,000 in the original Estimate has now to provide £34,876. The present Government adopted the plans of their predecessors, and this Supplementary Vote is to complete the expenditure up to the £600,000. I will just state shortly the position in which the fund is. The amount for which we are liable to complete the light railways is estimated at £1,145,000. Against this sum there is the amount provided under the Act of Parliament of £600,000. Then there is the power of raising money upon loan, and that has been carried out to a certain extent, and will be carried out still further. The amount available under the present powers for loans amounts to £376,000. That makes a

  1001
  total sum available of £976,000, leaving a sum to be made up (for which we shall have to ask powers from Parliament) of £169,000. We shall take steps to bring forward a Bill to provide for something like that sum, or perhaps a little over, so as to raise the necessary amount. I will now state the position in which the railways stand. There are 12 railways, and I will give the particulars of each. There is the Donegal and Killybegs line. The probable date of the completion of that line is June, 1893, but an Extension Order has been granted until the 24th of October, 1893. There is the Stranorlar and Glenties line, for the completion of which, by an Order in Council, the time has been extended to December 31st, 1894. Then there is the Achill extension, for which there is no Order in Council, but it is hoped that some satisfactory arrangement will be made with the Midland Railway Company in regard to that extension. The time for the completion of the Galway and Clifden line was extended by Order in Council to the 31st December, 1894. The probable date of the completion of the Headford and Kenmare line was fixed as July, 1893, but the time has been extended by Order in Council to the 17th September, 1893. The probable date of the completion of the Killorglin and Valentia line was also July, and that has been extended to the same date. The time fixed by Order in Council for the completion of the Baltimore extension was December last. The Bantry extension is now open for traffic. The Downpatrick and Ardglass Railway was opened for traffic on the 31st December, 1892; but in reference to the Ardglass line, I am sorry to say there is a dispute regarding a tramway from the railway to the pier, but it is expected that that dispute will be settled in a very short time. The time fixed by Order in Council for the completion of the Collooney and Claremorris Railway is the 31st December, 1894, and for the Westport and Mulranny line December, 1893. The Ballina and Killala Railway has been already opened for traffic. The amount required for expenditure upon these lines up to the 31st January this year was £706,110. The amount required from that period up to the end of March is estimated at £104,853, and next year a sum estimated at £271,000 will be re-
  1002
  quired. On the respective railways, with regard to which questions have been asked, I should explain that the Glenties line has not been pushed forward in the way that it ought to have been pushed forward, but we have taken steps to bring pressure to bear on the contractors. I may say, indeed, that we have brought considerable pressure to bear on the parties, for I understand the line has been very much delayed.
  MR. CREAN: What time must the works be completed under the contract?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Order in Council fixes the end of 1894. With regard to the Collooney and Claremorris line, the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company have had a dispute with a contractor, and I am sorry to say the matter is not yet settled. It is the intention of the Irish Board of Works, if it is not soon settled, to take steps to bring the subject before a Court of Law, and apply for a mandamus to compel the Company to proceed.
  MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.): What is the dispute about?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am unable to state with any detail what the particulars of the dispute are.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date by which the railway must be finished?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The date fixed by Order in Council is the 31st December, 1894; and with regard to the Galway and Clifden line, I may state that the Midland Great Western Railway Company have made arrangements with a new contractor. I have a telegram here which states that the Midland Company took possession of the Galway and Clifden line from the old contractor in July, 1892; that the new contractor, since appointed, has been at work for some time, and that the works are progressing satisfactorily. With regard to the extension of the Westport and Mulranny line to Achill, I have not obtained the details of the negotiations with the Midland Railway Company, but the Irish Board of Works are very hopeful that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the completion and working of the line.
  MR. JOHN G. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many lines of light

  1003
  railway have been opened in Ireland during the last six months?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot say how many lines have been opened during the last six months, but I can state the number of miles that have been completed.
  MR. JOHN G. LAWSON: A Paper has been circulated amongst the Members of the House during the last two or three days with the object of showing that there have been 22 miles of railway opened in Ireland during the last six months. I presume that some of these have been opened through private enterprise, and the question which I ask is, how many miles have been opened under the Light Railways Act?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am not able to answer that question; but I can tell the hon. Member the condition of the various lines at present. Donegal and Killybegs: Length, 19 miles; completed up to formation level, 18¾ miles; permanent way laid, 15 miles. Glenties: Length, 24½ miles; up to formation level, 17 miles; permanent way laid, none. Ballina and Killala: Length, 8 miles; up to formation level, 8 miles; permanent way laid, 8 miles. Westport and Mulranny: Length, 18 miles; up to formation level, 16 miles; permanent way laid, 13½ miles. Collooney and Claremorris: Length, 47¾ miles; up to formation level, none; permanent way laid, none. Galway and Clifden: Length, 49¼ miles; up to formation level, 30½ miles; permanent way laid, 13 miles. Killorglin and Valentia: Length, 26¾ miles; up to formation level, 26¾ miles; permanent waylaid, 12 miles. Headford and Kenmare: Length, 19¾ miles; up to formation level, 19¾ miles; permanent way laid, 7 miles. Baltimore and Skibbereen: length, 7¾ miles; up to formation level, 7¾ miles; permanent way laid, 7¾ miles. Bantry extension: Length, 1¾ miles; up to formation level, 1¾ miles; permanent way laid, 1¾ miles. Downpatrick and Ardglass: Length, 8 miles; up to formation level, 8 miles; permanent way laid, 8 miles. Achill extension: Up to formation level, 8¼ miles; permanent way laid, 8 miles.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, they could only arrive at the conclusion that matters in connection with the light railways were in an unsatisfactory state. The Act
  1004
  was passed in 1889, and in addition to the benefits that the lines were to confer upon Ireland there was one motive which influenced the House very materially in passing the Act—namely, that whilst it would confer benefits upon Ireland from the commercial standpoint, it would also help the poople of the districts who were then in a state of distress. His hon. Friend asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many lines had been opened during the last six months. The Secretary to the Treasury told them that the Bantry extension line had been opened. That was about a mile long, and, therefore, it did not count very much. It was simply from the pier at Bantry up to the town. Then the Baltimore extension line had been opened, and everybody must be rejoiced at the fact, because there, at all events, a real work of utility had been done. But that line was only seven miles long, and, therefore, a great deal had not been accomplished in the four years. The Ardglass and Downpatrick line had been done, and that was three or four miles long.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Eight miles.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had some scruple in mentioning that line, because he really did not know how a light railway came to be constructed in the County Down. At all events, it came to this: that something like 15 miles of light railway had been completed in four years, and this was the work that was to employ the poor people who were in distress. What was the cause of this? It was not the fault of Parliament, because Parliament voted the money. They were told now that the Railway Companies were in collision with the contractors, and that, in fact, old contractors had to be dismissed and new contractors appointed.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I only know of one case of that kind—the case of the Galway and Clifden Railway.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, there was also the case of the Waterford and Limerick Railway with regard to the Collooney and Claremorris line. That made two cases. He wished to ask whether the Treasury and the Board of Works ought to stand this delay? With regard to the Westport and Mulranny Railway, they were told that it was hoped that the Midland Railway Company would do it. What had the Midland Railway Company

  1005
  got to do with it? He thought the whole thing was in a sad state, and that the Treasury ought to see to it, especially in times like the present, when there was a great deal of distress.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)said, the Secretary to the Treasury had used the phrase "extension has been given by an order in Council" in connection with most of the light railways. What did that mean? It meant that the contractors had neglected to fulfil their contracts, and that they went to the Board of Works to ask leave to depart from their contract and the conditions they had agreed to by having an extension of time to complete the work, and all this while there was said to be distress in the western districts of Ireland, and men willing to work going about idle. He thought the Committee had a right to ask whether this large extension of time would not have the effect of entailing more cost upon the taxpayers. They had a right to know what the extra cost involved in these extensions was?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: None.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he could not help carrying his mind back to the Debates when this question of constructing light railways in Ireland was before the House. He remembered passages from a speech either of the late or of the present Chief Secretary in which he stated that railway works in Ireland had been left uncompleted, leading from nowhere to nowhere, and that well-made roads traversed great regions of bog without any beginning and without any end. He felt sure that all parties in the House were anxious that no such disgraceful state of things should prevail in the present scheme of light railways in Ireland. Had the Government yet considered seriously how these railways were to be finished, and how the recurrence to the old abuses in the construction of railways in Ireland were to be avoided?
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said, he hoped the Committee would appreciate the benevolent views of the hon. Gentleman who took such a deep interest in the Light Railways of Ireland. He hoped they would appreciate how this subject had become intensified since the Government came into power. He congratulated the people of Ireland on the great interest that was taken in the matter by the
  1006
  Members for Tottenham Court and other places.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is out of Order.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, of course, he would withdraw, but he hoped they would appreciate the intense interest taken in the matter by these gentlemen, who only wanted to occupy the time of the Committee, and who could throw as much light upon the Vote before the Committee, as the noble Lord who had just sat down. The Irish Members very well understood the position with regard to these railways. The people of the localities who were interested in the completion of these railways were the best informants of the House, and he would beg hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen, who were Scotchmen and Englishmen, to lay the flattering unction to their souls that they knew nothing about the case, and that they should allow the Irish Members to go on with their own business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said this was an Irish question on which English Members had no right to express an opinion. I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out that if Ireland gets the railways England pays for them.
  MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.): Ireland pays every penny of it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Member for North Kerry, who usually poses as a financial authority in this House—well, I will not say poses, he is a financial authority—tells us that Ireland pays every penny of it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get up and substantiate that statement, and if he does he will astonish every other financial authority in the House, and no one, I am sure, more than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. SEXTON: I have not the slightest objection to state in a sentence how Ireland pays every penny of it. Ireland contributes every year to the Imperial Treasury £8,000,000 sterling, and after all the charges and costs of the Civil Service of Ireland, and all the various grants are paid, there are £2,000,000 left to the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member bases his strange contention on the view of the general financial relations between England and Ireland, I should not be in Order in discussing it at the present moment. But I apprehend there is a measure before the House under which that question can, and will, and must, be raised in detail. The only other observation I have to make on that point is that a Committee for investigating this very question was offered to the hon. Gentleman by the late Government, and the hon. Gentleman, by means perfectly understood by this House, put off from week to week and from month to month the appointment of that Committee, so that we are now possessed of no definite information on the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to say on that matter that for two years the late Government refused to put down the Motion for the Committee except under circumstances that would exclude the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman means that the late Government did not, to the detriment of other business, give a day for the purpose of having a controversy on the question, he is quite right. Whether that was a legitimate or an illegitimate action on the part of the late Government I will not now discuss; but let me point out that it is precisely that same course which the Leader of the House proposes to adopt in regard to the Committee to inquire into the causes of agricultural distress. But whether Ireland gains or does not gain by the general financial relations between the two countries, every sixpence connected with these eight railways has been paid out of the Imperial Exchequer for purely Irish purposes, and English Members have, therefore, as good a right as Irish Members to discuss the matter, and to criticise the progress that has been made in the works. I am sure the Government are doing their best to bring the railways to a completion. They have great difficulties to contend with, as we had great difficulties to contend with, in the matter of the contracts with the Railway Companies. If my noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer) thinks it is in the power of the Executive Government to take care that the contractors and the Railway Companies shall come to terms
  1008
  and deal with each other in the spirit of Christian charity, I am sure he will find, if he puts them face to face, that that operation is not so easy. I do not wish to press the Government to give me any information upon negotiations now in progress, but I should like to know, with regard to the Collooney and Claremorris line, whether they can hold out substantial hopes that that railway will be finished at the time mentioned. It is one of the longest of the lines—nearly 50 miles in extent—and we have been told by the Secretary to the Treasury that not a single yard of formation level, or a single yard of permanent way, has been laid. It passes through an extremely populous and an extremely poor district; and I believe there is no part of Ireland where a light railway is likely to do immediate good and to result in the permanent improvement of the condition of the people. I hope that the difficulties will be soon got over, and that the somewhat discreditable condition of affairs—I do not mean discreditable to the Government—will be soon brought to an end.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Hon. Members seem to think they have some cause of complaint against the Government for not accomplishing more than they have accomplished in regard to these light railways; but they must remember that we have only been in Office six months, and that the Light Railways Act was passed a couple of years ago. So far as I am concerned, I can only promise that whatever can be done in the way of pressure by the Irish Board of Works will be done to bring these railways to a completion. I am anxious that these works, which have been inaugurated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson), should be completed in a way which is satisfactory to him and to the country generally; and I hope that before very long we will be able to see these light railways, which are being carried out under great difficulties, opening up the backward districts of Ireland and doing great good to the country.
  MR. JACKSON: I was surprised to hear the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Flynn) in reference to the action of Members of the Unionist Party on this Vote; for, whatever may be said of us, this scheme of light railways in Ireland is a thing that

  1009
  should be placed to our credit. Reference has been made to the increased Vote that is required by the House, and to the probability that a Bill will be brought in in order to increase the sum placed at the disposal of the Treasury. I think I am correctly describing the matter when I say that, although a Bill may be necessary to place at the disposal of the Treasury an additional sum, that does not necessarily mean there is any increase in the expenditure. The position is this: Parliament placed at the disposal of the Irish Government for this purpose of railways £600,000. There was a balance of a sum which Parliament had placed at their disposal under the Light Railways Act of 1883, which was also available. Under the Act of 1883 there were certain Treasury guarantees given to certain railways made in aid of the Baronial guarantee. We thought we were well within the spirit of the Act, if we were not quite within the letter of the Act, in treating as a balance available to us the balance that had not been called upon under the Act of 1883. Having considered this question, the Law Officers decided that in order to be technically right provision must be made for the largest sum that might ever be called upon under the Baronial guarantees; and although it may be necessary to take the full sum of the Baronial guarantees to give the additional power to the Treasury, it does not mean that there has been any excess of expenditure over the original Estimate. I was somewhat criticised by the present Chief Secretary, when he was in Opposition, for having made what he described as unbusinesslike arrangements with regard to these railways. I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman will not now rise in his place, and with his further experience on the subject question the arrangement that was made by the Government with regard to these railways. The arrangements made with the Railway Companies relieved the Government of all responsibility as regarded the construction and the working of these railways when constructed, and assured to the different localities the perfect maintenance in good order of these railways. The management also enabled the Government to rely with certainty upon their Estimates, and when it is borne in mind the difficult circum-
  1010
  stances under which the arrangements were made, all who look carefully into the matter must admit them to be satisfactory. When my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), who was then Chief Secretary, was advised at the end of the Session of 1890 of the possibility of distress arising in Ireland, he came to me and asked me what could be done in the matter of pushing forward these works in case of need, so that they could be utilised in aid of the relief of the distress. I was sent over to Ireland to make the best arrangements I could. My right hon. Friend had decided, and wisely decided as experience proved, that the best plan was to try and make arrangements with the existing Railway Companies, both as regards the construction and the working of the extension lines. The position was not a very easy one. It was known perfectly, well that the Government were anxious to try and make these works available for any possible distress that might arise in the winter. I spent six weeks in Ireland, and I did my best to make a good bargain., I came back from Ireland, having made arrangements with the Railway Companies which involved the expenditure of £1,000,000 of money, and I say now, with the further experience that has been obtained, no one can question the wisdom of the arrangements made at that time. If you take the case of Achill, it will illustrate the difficulties. I had made an arrangement as regards Westport and Mulranny, before my right hon. Friend had his tour through Ireland. He went to Achill, and saw what he considered to be a prospect of great distress. He then went to Collooney and Claremorris, and saw there also prospects of distress. The people pleaded to him; he yielded to their entreaties, and came to me and said, "I have decided that this line must also be made." I pointed out to my right hon. Friend that there was no power to make this line; there was no Act of Parliament and no compulsory power to take the land. My right hon. Friend said, "Power or no power, railways must be made, and therefore you must find a way out of this difficulty." The only reply I could make was, that if it was insisted on these lines being made, we must make our bargains before we began to spend the money, and the only way I could suggest was that my

  1011
  right hon. Friend should find some solicitor who could go as it were with pen and ink and cheque book in his pocket, get the aid of the people in the district who were interested in the question, and by that means make provisional agreement for the acquisition of the land through the entire length. That course was pursued; lands were so obtained, and the works were immediately commenced. I was in great anxiety in regard to these two lines, because we had not been able to make arrangements with the existing Railway Companies for their construction or their working when completed. In the case of the Collooney and Claremorris Railway, let me say it is a curious fact, that whilst in 1891 we were told that it was a most urgent necessity that these works should be gone on with; whilst there were frequent questions in this House, and frequent applications from people in the district urging the construction of this line in order to provide work for the people in the district, we never hear a word now, although the works are standing still.
  MR. DILLON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have spoken of the matter to-day, and I shall certainly speak again very soon if these works are not completed.
  MR. JACKSON: I make no complaint of the hon. Member. I thought he was exercising great restraint indeed.
  MR. DILLON: So I have been.
  MR. JACKSON: I presume that, having exercised that restraint and patience, he has not had the pressure put upon him by his constituents that he had on former occasions.
  MR. DILLON: On the contrary, I am sorry to say there has been considerable pressure.
  MR. JACKSON: All I can say is that the hon. Member deals very differently with the existing Government to what he did with the late Government. Why, Sir, in former times we used to think that the hon. Member put pressure on his constituents in order to embarrass the Government. But these were the only two lines about which I had anxiety. I was fortunate enough before leaving Office to see the contract finally made as regards the Collooney and Claremorris line. I should have been glad if the arrangement had
  1012
  been concluded with the Midland Railway Company for taking over the Achill line, because that would have completed the whole of the work in connection with these railways. I do not want to put undue pressure on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I do hope he will do all he can to insure that the works in connection with the line from Collooney to Claremorris shall be put into active operation. They have now been standing for nearly 12 months. I hope no difficulties will be allowed to stand in the way, because I believe this line will not only prove to be a great advantage to the district through which it passes, but there is a possibility that it will also prove a profitable line. With regard to the difficulties that have been spoken of in dealing with the contractors of other lines, I should like to say this word in favour of the Midland Company: I know they have had great difficulties in connection with the Galway and Clifden line. The contractor who first undertook the work of constructing the whole of the line failed. This was no fault of the Railway Company, and they were bound then to look after completing the line in some other form. They are responsible for its construction; they can receive no benefit from the line until it is completed; and, therefore, there is the best of all guarantees, that is to say, their own self-interest, that the line will be completed as soon as it can be completed. From what I know of Sir Ralph Cusack, I am quite sure that whatever he undertakes to do he may be relied upon to carry it out and as early as possible. As regards the Westport and Mulranny line, I understand that it is in a good state of progress, and I hope the Midland Railway will take over the Achill line. It will be a great advantage, as it takes the line up to the verge of the population. It will also prove not only to be a relief as regards Achill itself, but I believe it is within easy reach of Belmullet, because practically within two hours' sail from Belmullet to Achill Sound, and I shall be very much surprised if instead of the traffic from the district of Belmullet travelling 40 miles practically across the bog to Ballina, it will not come down through Blacksod Bay to Achill Sound and take the railway there. I am glad to

  1013
  hear that several of these lines have been completed. I think that all that is necessary for me to say with regard to the Stranorlar and Glenties line is that I understand it is now making progress. There was a little difficulty with the contractor, but that has now been overcome. The Killybegs line is nearly completed, and is to be finished by June, 1893. I wish to point out that any gratitude that the Irish people may feel for the carrying out and construction of these railways is due to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), who alone is responsible for the initiation of this great work.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)expressed the opinion that the Midland Railway Company and the Great Eastern Railway Company would bitterly regret the bargains they had made with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), which would turn out to be most unfair to themselves and their shareholders.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid it would conduce to facilitate the business of the House if hon. Members adopted a less offensive tone. The hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) had used some offensive expressions, and had followed what seemed to be a policy of shouting down and preventing free expression of speech by the Members of the Unionist Party. This hon. Member represented as new-born zeal the favourable consideration on the part of Unionist Members, not only of Irish railways, but of every effort to assist the want of labour and the necessity and distress in Ireland. Hon. Members who recollected the origin of these light railways would remember that the opposition to them came from hon. Members opposite, and that the very Members whom the Member for North Cork had taken to task in such offensive terms were the very Members who were most anxious to press them forward, and who did press them forward, in spite of those who, one would think, ought to have been the first to forward any measure for the alleviation of distress. Even the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Timothy Healy) voted against these light railways in Ireland, and he (Mr. Collings) remembered the anxiety and perseverance which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) practised in furthering these works, even sitting up all night to resist the opposition of the very Members—or
  1014
  many of them—who were now charging the Unionists with a new-born zeal in giving what he ventured to say was the true relief to Ireland. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury had any power over his friends and allies, but he might take it from them (the Unionists) that they were not going to be dragooned, much less insulted by hon. Members opposite. If they continued their present course, with them must rest the responsibility for the delay in business. They (the Unionists) repudiated the assertion that their zeal was new born in favour of these light railways, or in favour of any other means for the relief of Irish distress, and he thought they ought to make it clear, both to the hon. Members opposite and to the Government itself, that they were going to have free discussion, and were not going to be muzzled, especially by a Government that relied for its majority on hon. Members opposite.
  MR. V. GIBBSasked what arrangement had been made for the re-adjustment of this expenditure by the House to complete these railways in the event of the Home Rule Bill passing? That might be an improbable event, but hon. Members opposite still contemplated it as a possibility, and it was not an encouraging outlook for the future if, when they asked reasonable questions as to money voted by that House at the instance of the late Government mainly for the purpose of benefiting the people of Ireland—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Whose money is it?
  MR. V. GIBBSmust appeal to the Chair. Not only were the Unionist Members subjected to the grossest ingratitude, but private Members, like an hon. Friend behind him, who had taken no part in this discussion, were subjected to personal insults. It was not a very cheering prospect for the future.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I think the proper time to discuss the question raised, as to the effect on this money in case of the Home Rule Bill becoming law, will be when legislation is brought forward to provide the £169,000 or £170,000. I do not think this is the proper time to discuss it.
  MR. TOMLINSONexpressed the greatest dissatisfaction at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, A

  1015
  Bill was at present before the House, the object of which was to alter the whole relations between England and Ireland, and yet hon. Members could not get the slightest information as to how vast monetary transactions which had taken place would be affected by the future.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, so much had been said by Irish Members as to English Members having nothing to do with this matter, that there was one branch of the subject that appeared to have been very much overlooked—namely, that they, the taxpayers, were supplying the money. The sum of £600,000 that was to be taken out of the Imperial Exchequer to construct these railways was very largely supplied by the English taxpayer. He knew the Irish Members said they paid all this taxation, and that the alliance between England and Ireland was very beneficial to this country.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: You rob us of £2,000,000 a year.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the practical point remained that they had got to vote this large sum of money. The Debate had elicited that only 15 miles of these railways had been completed, although four years had elapsed since the Light Railways Act was passed. He was the representative of a very poor district, which had subscribed its share to this large outlay, and protested against this additional Vote until at least they knew that some more material result was to be gained. They were entitled to more information before they passed the Vote.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Considerable assistance has been lent the Committee by the expression of their views by my two right hon. Friends who have in the immediate past each occupied the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland. There is another of our brother Members in this House who, if he had been in his place, might have been in a position to render very material assistance to the Committee, and especially to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I refer to the present occupant of the post of Chief Secretary. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is within reach, but I think it would be most desirable we should have the views not only of the Financial Secretary, but of the Irish Government, because I need hardly remind
  1016
  the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Chief Secretary for the time being must not allow his action to be hampered and his hand held back by even so eminent a Colleague as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. This very salutary step in the direction of the improvement of Ireland is twofold in its character. One object was, no doubt, to afford relief by way of employment to the people in a period of distress in that country. But differing in that respect from almost all relief works or quasi relief works in the past, it was proposed by these Irish light railways, at the same time as they afforded immediate relief in the direction of providing employment to the people, to confer lasting benefits by means of the permanent improvement of the means of communication in Ireland. I must enter my protest against the idea that has been put forward in several quarters that this was the only relief work which has been undertaken of a permanent as distinguished from an ephemeral character; for, although I do not intend to detain the Committee by going into the question now, I must recall attention to the fact that the measures which I was charged with proposing to Parliament and carrying into execution in 1879–80 also aimed at the permanent as well as the ephemeral benefit of the Irish people. I hope the Financial Secretary, in the unfortunate absence of the Chief Secretary, will be able to tell us what is to be the policy of the Irish Government in the immediate future with regard to these works. Do they, when the agricultural classes will be engaged in spring sowing and other field work, and later on in the collection of the harvests, intend to expend large sums of public money at a time when the people do not require employment? I do not for a moment suggest that these works should be allowed to lie fallow for the best part of the year, but I say that the twofold object of the works should be carefully borne in mind. If they are to be pushed on during the spring and summer months we shall next winter have the old story over again, and the British taxpayer will be appealed to to find money for further relief works, whereas if these railways are judiciously managed, and if the resources at the disposal of the Go-

  1017
  vernment in this respect are carefully husbanded, it may be practicable, while not allowing the works to fall into disrepair in any way, to increase the amount of employment at a time of the year when employment is really needed in the interests of the inhabitants of Ireland, rather than to obtain supposed financial results by the hurried execution of this railway movement. For my own part, I never was a great believer in these light railways as such, though I believe they have been productive of good results indirectly, that is to say, by affording employment to the people, but if the element of affording employment to the people is to be left out of consideration altogether, these works will only be a meagre benefit to the country at all. I hope we shall have some definite statement as to what is to be the policy of the Irish Government in the immediate future. I do not know whether the discussion will continue to such time as will enable the Chief Secretary to be in his place, and I hesitate to take the step of facilitating his presence by suggesting that some other Vote should be discussed till we have the advantage of the presence of the Chief Secretary. I hope we shall be afforded some indication of the line of policy the Government intend to take.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman through all his remarks. I do not think it at all necessary that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be present to speak upon the policy in respect to this Vote. What we are doing in respect to these light railways is loyally to carry out the policy of the late Government, and that will continue to be our policy. My opinion as to the object of these light railways is that it was partly to give employment to the people but also to confer a permanent advantage on the country by improving the means of communication. I think it best for Ireland that the railways should be pushed on as quickly as possible, and so far as I am concerned I shall use every effort to bring pressure to bear not only upon the Irish Board of Works but upon the Railway Companies for carrying out as quickly as possible the object we have in view. I would like to point out that we are not seeking to impose new taxation on the people of this country. Parliament has passed an Act providing
  1018
  £600,000 for the purposes of these light railways, and we are now voting a sum to complete that £600,000, so that we are merely asking for a Vote to carry out the pledge given by Parliament on the subject. The right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Collings) has asked me to use my influence as to the conduct of hon. Members. I can only answer for my own conduct, and as for myself I hope to treat not only this but every other question with consideration for every Member of this House, and in considering questions like this I deprecate either heat or the introduction of strong language.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): I think the Committee will recognise the absolute courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman treats all who are concerned in this discussion, and on all other matters on which he addresses the House. I think also that the Committee will have heard with satisfaction the declaration of my right hon. Friend, that on this point the Government are following loyally the policy of the late Government. Some of us regret they do not carry that loyal sequence a little further. But I must point out to my right hon. Friend that circumstances have greatly changed the whole question of policy. I myself, I think, have been as active and prominent a supporter of the prosecution of these public works in Ireland as any Member of the House. I have believed it was a claim which Ireland had upon the Imperial Exchequer, and I believed, not only in regard to the employment which they would give in times of distress, but also as a permanent benefit to Ireland, these railways deserved our heartiest support. And, Sir, therefore most willingly I, for one, voted the contribution of £600,000 from the Imperial Exchequer to be wholly expended in Ireland. But that was when I was under the belief that Ireland not only was, but was going to be an integral portion of the United Kingdom. The policy of the late Government was to keep it so, and now that the present Government have adopted a totally different attitude, I certainly think it is time for this Committee to re-consider the whole question. I, for one, am not prepared to vote one single penny for these railways, or for any other act of

  1019
  consideration of the kind, if Ireland is hereafter to be financially independent of assistance from this country. I certainly think the Committee would be quite wise in postponing the consideration of this Vote—if it does not actually reject it, until we know what the views of the House as a whole are on the Home Rule Bill. If this House is going to give to Ireland the power of taxation and the independent power of dealing with its own financial affairs, then I think the whole question of the provision of light railways should be handed over to Irish opinion. We have some reason to believe, from the debates that took place in the last Parliament, that Irish Members are opposed to this policy, and that if they were dealing with their own money, they would not subscribe a penny to these light railways. That is a point which I should be glad to relegate as a matter for their consideration.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think it would hardly be a convenient method, especially having regard to the principles laid down by the Speaker this afternoon, if we were to graft a Home Rule debate on a Supplementary Estimate. There is a much simpler and more direct course for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham to take, and that is to negative this Vote, and take the opinion of the House upon it. We certainly cannot postpone the Vote. We think it our duty to press on the Vote, and if my right hon. Friend has made up his mind in that contingency, which he obviously contemplates as a certainty on this Vote, let us take a decision on the Vote at once. That will save the time of the Committee, and if my right hon. Friend is successful he will save the Exchequer £34,000, and we shall have come to a satisfactory conclusion on this Vote. At all events, do not let us waste our time by an interlocutory discussion of Home Rule on a Supplementary Vote for Irish Railways.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLventured to submit that the discussion in the phases it had now assumed came exactly within the ruling of the Speaker. There was a debate concerning the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and did ever any discussion of the kind go forward in the House of Commons before without the presence of the Chief Secretary? He desired to know where the Chief Secretary was, and in
  1020
  order to find it out he begged to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 250.—(Division List, No. 20.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is now in his place—
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): Perhaps, Sir, it will save the right hon. Gentleman's remarks if I intervene. I regret very much that I seemed to be wanting in courtesy to the Committee or in attention to the duties of my Department in not being present during the discussion of this Vote. The truth is I was very busily engaged, and I thought that there would be no doubt as to this money being voted. We are simply carrying out the policy initiated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and more than that, as I uuderstand and as I maintain, a policy to which this House and Parliament is pledged. What we ask for is simply the vote of the money wanted in order to carry through a further stage the scheme introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, a scheme which was approved by the House of Commons and Parliament of that day, and to give up which now would be to stultify the action of the late Government and the approval given to it by the late Parliament. Therefore it did not enter into my mind at all that there would have been the slightest doubt about the passing of this Vote. I regret that my absence should have been the cause, if it were the real cause, of delaying a Vote in no sense a Party Vote, and which in no sense can be made a Party Vote; and I do now respectfully hope that my absence may be considered to have been condoned, and that the Vote may be allowed to pass.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I have no desire to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman, who, I feel sure, was urgently occupied, and I have no doubt he came as soon as he could, but the presence of a representative of the Irish Government in the Committee was desired, not

  1021
  to give any explanation as to the action of the late Government, but as to the future policy of the Irish Government with respect to the administration and expenditure of the money which the Committee was asked for. The question I wish to ask is this: Having regard to the fact that this light railway scheme was provided and sanctioned by Parliament for a twofold object—for providing employment in times of distress, and also for developing the local industries of the country—I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman [Cries of"Divide, divide!"]—if his very disorderly friends will allow me to do so—whether he intends to push the works forward with all available speed during seed time, when it will be necessary to import labour to carry on the works, or whether he intends to bear in mind the fact that Parliament entered upon this work to a large extent with a view of affording employment in times of distress?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure, Sir, that my friends are the most disorderly; but, as I understand that the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me has been already answered in substance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who speaks with quite as much authority as I should, I must very respectfully decline to answer it again.
  Mr. J. A. PEASErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will not promote the object he has in view of pushing forward the progress of business in this House if, when he rises in order to make an explanation and an apology, he accompanies that apology with an insinuation against his political opponents. Now, I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion which so tardily succeeded in gaining his presence was a perfectly bonâ fide Motion. It has already been held by the Speaker that to impute obstruction to any hon. Member of the House is disorderly and a breach of Privilege, but probably the new Members of the House
  1022
  are not aware of that. The matter arose on the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman, failing to obtain any satisfactory reply from the Secretary to the Treasury, asked for the presence of the Chief Secretary, who alone has authority in this House to speak as to what is the intention of the Government of Ireland with regard to this matter. The question the right hon. Gentleman put is a pertinent question which deserves a civil answer; and if the Chief Secretary refuses to give a civil answer, then I think the Committee will be perfectly justified in refusing to proceed with the Vote. The question was in what way the money was to be spent, and it was pointed out that if these works were to be proceeded with in the time of seed sowing or harvest they would enter into competition with labour devoted to other purposes. The simple question asked was whether these works were to proceed now, or whether in spreading them out the Chief Secretary would have some regard to the interests of the localities for whose benefit they were intended.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,): I should really like to do something, if I can, to soften the demonstrations that have been made. I am very anxious to bring this scene—I do not use the word in an objectionable sense—my right hon. Friend knows what I mean—to a conclusion. Now, as I understand that my right hon. Friend opposite rather complained of my not being in the House, I have been in the House a great many times this afternoon, and on every occasion I came into the House I found my right hon. Friend on his legs. I admire his oratory, but I felt after four or five times that I knew his case by heart. All I can say is that, in my opinion, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has given a very civil answer. ["No."] Well, I think he has. There are some people who are determined to take no answer. I will give the answer over again, which has been given a dozen times this evening. It is that these works on the Light Irish Railways are going on in the regular course, in order to carry out the plan agreed to by the last Parliament on the proposal of the late Government. You may go on all this evening; you may go on all next week repeating these ques-

  1023
  tions, and you can and will receive no other answer than that. It is an explicit and clear answer, and I do hope that under these circumstances the Committee will now consent to go to a Division.
  Vote agreed to.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again this day.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [2nd March] reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1892–3 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

  CLASS I.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for certain re-arrangement of Rooms in the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings in Egypt."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  COINAGE (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 221.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  SIR HENRY JAMESreported from the Chairmen's Panel; that they had appointed Sir G. Osborne Morgan to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; that they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Places of Worship (Leasehold Enfranchisement" Bill: — Mr. Brunner, Viscount Cranborne, Mr. Crosfield, Mr. Wingfield-Digby, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Stanley
  1024
  Leighton, Mr. Perks, Sir Francis Sharpe Powell, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Charles Roundell, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Seely, Mr. Halley Stewart, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Carvell Williams.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

EVENING SITTING.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

    RAILWAY AND CANAL RATES AND CHARGES.—RESOLUTION.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.), in rising to call attention to the subject of Railway and Canal Rates and Charges and the conditions of Traffic, and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the revised railway rates, charges, and conditions of traffic are most prejudicial to the industries and agricultural and commercial interests of the country, and this House urges upon the Government the necessity of dealing promptly and effectively with the subject by legislation, declaring unreasonable rates, charges, and conditions illegal, and establishing, in connection with the Board of Trade or otherwise, a cheap, simple, and expeditious mode of determining in case of dispute what are reasonable or unreasonable rates, charges, and conditions,"
    said, he need hardly give an assurance that he did not regard this in any sense or manner as a Party question. It appealed to the interests and feelings of the community, and he brought it before the House with a sincere appreciation of the services rendered not only by the President of the Board of Trade but by his Predecessor and the staffs of their respective Offices. He would also say that he introduced the subject in no spirit of hostility to the Railway Companies, for though he thought they had made a mistake, there were mutual interests between the companies and the traders, and he hoped that in time the Companies would realise that it was to their benefit to give every facility to commerce, so as to bring about that increase of traffic which experience

    1025
    taught was the result of conferring these advantages. On this subject the mind of the country had been profoundly stirred. Some had said that it was a subject of interest; but he ventured to speak of it as a subject of the deepest anxiety, hence the agitation on the part of the Municipalities and the Chambers of Commerce and the commercial classes. The whole commercial community were unanimous on this matter. They recognised that in these days of competition the margin of profit was small, and that, therefore, every saving that could be legitimately effected must be secured. Then the consumer recognised that the cost of transport formed a material element in the cost of purchase, and was therefore largely interested in this question. He ventured to say that the State also was interested, and it would, he hoped, find a safe, a speedy, and a just solution of the difficulty. The object of the agitation which was got up years ago on the subject of railway rates, and which led to the passing of the Act of 1888, was not only to bring about revision, but also reduction, and the diminution in the maximum rates which was effected by the Parliamentary Committee showed that that was the case. When the Railway Companies proposed their new classification, to which great exception was taken, and which in many respects was felt to be preposterous, the feeling evoked showed that the object of the whole movement was to effect not merely the revision, but the reduction of the rates of the whole of the companies. Whatever might be said as to the various Committees which sat upon the subject, he ventured to say the whole House would regard the services of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Sir Courtenay Boyle as having been of great value to the commercial community. The result of what was done was that a reduction was effected in the maximum rates, but experience had shown that what was intended in the maximum rates as a shield to the trader had proved a sword for injuring him. There really was some justification for the expression of the hon. Member for Aberdeen that maximum rates had proved to be a delusion and a snare. The hon. Member, he thought, had spoken of maximum rates as Parliamentary bayonets. He believed it was Cavour who said that you might do anything with bayonets
    1026
    except sit on them, and these rates were bayonets which the traders of the country declined to sit upon. They emphatically desired them to be removed. It was said that in addition to a reduction in the maximum rates some reductions had been effected in the actual railway tariffs. Well, those reductions had been comparatively few in number. The reductions had been chiefly in Classes 4 and 5, which were not the subjects of the greater and more important traffic. The reductions were few in the earlier Classes, somewhat more marked in Classes 4 and 5, and were in favour of places where there was a little traffic, and in the interests of the larger traders, and not of the smaller, who were not in a position to fight their own battle. He did not propose to trouble the House with a long statistical enforcement of the statement he had made as to the limited number of reductions effected, and the large increases which had taken place. The enormity of the increases, for he could call it nothing else, had become common property, they were all too familiar to the trading community; and he thought he might take it that the rebates and reductions which had recently, and only recently, been promised were a virtual admission that the tariff that was in existence on the 1st of January was in many respects an exorbitant one. He did, however, propose to give to the House one or two typical illustrations of the increases effected by the Railway Companies in their rates. He had with him a list prepared by the London Chamber of Commerce at great cost; it contained some 2,000 rates, and he found from it a series of increases in articles of ordinary commerce ranging from 15 per cent, in the case of mustard seed to no less than 334½ per cent, in the case of pelts and other goods. He would take as a further illustration one or two articles of household use. He would mention first petroleum—an article of great importance to the poor for lighting purposes. He found that whereas for 20 years the rate on petroleum had been 5s., from the 1st of January it had been 25s. per ton, so that, as this was a low-priced article, the cost had been nearly doubled. The House might be interested to know that the consequence was that a village in Hampshire was prevented from using petroleum, and was now in darkness. In

    1027
    like manner the Municipality of Walsall had been obliged to add 2d. in the £1 to the rates in respect of the manufacture of gas through the enhanced charge for the carriage of coal. In the grocery trade in Class 1 the rates had been advanced 4·3 per cent., and taking 20 large towns, the rates for one leading commodity had been increased 6 per cent., and a high authority—Mr. Rogers, of Sir John Travers & Sons—had stated that the increased tax on the grocery trade, according to his computation, would reach no less than £500,000. He could give other illustrations of the increased tax put on this trade, but, speaking generally, he might say that the enhanced charges had been from 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. As an instance of the audacity and rapacity on the part of the Railway Companies, an hon. Colleague had informed him that the Great Western, for the carriage of a pair of wheels and axles which were sent from Cardiff to Swansea, the old rate being 2s. 6d., had charged at the rate of 5s., or an increase of 100 per cent., and, not satisfied with that amount, the company sent in a new debit note charging the wheels as two tons, and demanding 18s., less the 5s. already paid, or an increase of 600 per cent., and when the wheels were sent back from Swansea to Cardiff a debit note was sent in for 13s. This was a fair illustration not only of the rapacity of the companies, but also of the confusion prevailing in their minds on this question of rates. It illustrated the extortion to which traders were subjected; but one would hardly have thought that a Railway Company would have made one of Her Majesty's Judges the subject of imposition. But he had a letter from one of the Judges, who spoke of a company having conveyed his luggage by goods train down into the country, and having not only charged him 25 per cent. on the old rate, but charged also for cartage, although the luggage had been carried to the station in his own carts. When this was pointed out the explanation was that the rate was "an inclusive rate for collecting, whether they did it or not," and on the Judge remonstrating, the traffic manager excused himself and his company on the ground that they had introduced the change to assimilate their system to that
    1028
    of other companies, with all their rates inclusive of collecting and delivery, whether they did collect and deliver or not. The Judge applied to the conduct of the company an expression well known in Courts of Law, although not to be found perhaps in the railway vocabulary. There had been large increases in the rates for coal and iron, agricultural produce, dairy produce, fruit, market garden produce, as hon. Members would testify in the course of the Debate. One hon. Member would deal with the case of Ireland, where the rates had been rendered exceptionally high, and where cheap railway transport was one of the most essential conditions to the development of the country. He was recently in Denmark, where the dairy system was carried to a great point of perfection owing to the admirable method of collection, which made the supply of milk to Copenhagen one of the greatest commercial features which could be imagined. The milk was collected and submitted to a process of purification in a manner which might well be imitated in this country. The supply and the condition of it were due to cheap transit, and he had been told that the one country in Europe that could and ought to become the rival of Denmark in the matter of dairy produce was Ireland, but that would be impossible whilst the railway rates remained as at present. Market gardening he was told was being ruined by the new rates. The whole timber trade had been disorganized. Speaking as a shipowner, for many years it had been usual in the timber trade to ship and deal with goods by measurement. Now machine weight had been substituted.
    MR. HANBURY: Alternatively.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: Yes, with the alternative of computing the charge by measurement, but in a higher class. The Railway Companies could not have thought their case a good one, because when it was proposed that they should meet the representatives of the trade with a view to coming to a satisfactory arrangement they declined. The increase in the rates for the carriage of fish was about 1s. per cwt., except from his own Port of Hull and the Port of Grimsby, about which ports there were doubts, and he gave the company the benefit of them. The increase in the case of the common sorts of fish

    1029
    was as great as in the case of the prime sorts—an obvious injustice, as there was 50 times as much of the former transported as of the latter, the common fish forming an important article of food for the poor. Moreover, in the case of the fish trade there was a new charge of 10s. a ton made on returned empties. One of the most important matters of trade, affecting 75 per cent. of the trading community, was the charge for small parcels of under 3cwt., known as "smalls." There had been an increase in the rate of 3d. per hundredweight. He need hardly speak of the importance to London and other great distributing centres of this particular branch of trade. The increased charge which had been made had resulted in great loss to the trade, for the rate had often exceeded the profit on the articles. He spoke especially of one particular consignment of goods from Newcastle to London. Then as to empties, which were formerly in Class 4, but were now in Class 5, thereby paying the highest rate which could be demanded by the companies. This inflicted an injury, especially on London, and upon many branches of trade there. On returned empties there was an enormous difference of from 1d. to 7d. per hundredweight, a matter seriously affecting the drug, wine and spirit, mineral water and other trades. There was another point he should like to dwell upon for a moment, and that was the question of preference to the foreign trader. One of the chief provisions of the Act of 1888 was to the effect that there should be no preferences given to foreign as compared with the home trade. This was not a question of protection. It was merely a question of justice to home industries and of regard for the best of all markets—namely, home markets. Those preferences used to exist to a large extent under the old system, and goods were absolutely brought, especially dairy and agricultural produce, from places like Hamburg on the Continent and carried by the railways at a less rate than goods produced at home could be sent from one place to another. Those preferences still existed to a great extent. In the sugar trade the preference given to the traffic from Hamburg viâ Gloucester was 9s. 7d. per ton. These preferences should cease to exist, and home producers should be treated on a fair and equitable basis. He could give many
    1030
    instances of matters of perhaps less, but still of great importance, in all of which the companies had gained and the traders had lost. For instance, they now carried 20 cwt. instead of 21 cwt. to the ton; a fraction of a cwt. or a fraction of a, 1d. was charged to the benefit of the company; the rebates were reduced in cases where the consignee performed his awn delivery. Their object was, as far as possible, to monopolise the service terminals in relation to delivery and the like. The new risk note was an onerous thing to the trader, as it imposed on the consignor or consignee the risk of transit; and this he believed to be contrary to the spirit of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854. Now, what was the view of the companies in regard to these increased charges? They alleged that they were to be the judges of the amount of freight an industry would bear in relation to the imposition of rates. If anyone should be able to judge of that it should be the traders concerned, certainly not the people who fixed the rate. In this respect the companies had a giant's strength, and they used it like a giant. The country could not be surprised at the indignation which had been aroused, for it was based on the principle of self-preservation. That feeling it was that induced the traders to come to Parliament and ask for assistance in removing a great burden. The companies said they had not had time to revise the rates; but they had had since August, 1891, for the bulk of the rates, and for the through rates they had had since June, 1892. But even this excuse was not made until the agitation had occurred and a strong feeling had been aroused on the subject. Sir Henry Oakley, in his letters of January 7th, January 24th, and February 7th, did not speak of rebates in regard to rates prior to January 1st. The whole spirit of his letters was that of the impenitent thief, who prayed, "Oh, Lord, convert me, but not to-day." The action of the companies had been a constant course of procrastination. It was evident from Sir Henry Oakley's letters that the companies saw they had made a mistake, and that being so they ought to bear the consequences of it. Mr. Cawkwell, in his letter in yesterday's Times, admitted that an error had been made, and showed some disposition to make satisfaction for

    1031
    it, but it was a strange coincidence that that letter did not appear until Parliament was about to be moved on the subject. It seemed from first to last of the agitation that pressure had been necessary to obtain from the companies what they ought to have conceded as a matter of justice to the traders—what they ought to have conceded gladly in their own interest for the development of trade. It was said that time was required to adjust the special rates, and that if time was allowed that readjustment would take place. But what were the prospects in connection with the revision? He would give one or two figures to show what, had been done in the way of revision, and he would ask whether the rates as revised were just or unjust. In the case of agricultural seeds, from Hull to Carlisle the old rate was 22s. 6d. per ton, at the company's risk. From January 1st the rate was 33s. 1d. per ton; and the re-revised rate now proposed was 29s. 10d. at the owner's risk.
    MR. MUNDELLA: On what line is that?
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, it was mainly on the North Eastern. The revised rate would be an increase of 33 per cent. on the original rate, and the carriage would be at the owner's instead of the company's risk. In another case of carriage from Andover to Mitchelkener the old rate was 7s. 6d. per ton; the rate on January 1st was 14s. 4d.; and the re-revised rate 13s., an increase of from 40 to 50 per cent. In the case of straw in bundles carried from Andover to Dimpleton, the old rate was 12s. 6d.; the rate on January 1st, 23s. 5d.; and the re-revised rate 16s. 2d. Again, the re-revised rate for vegetables from Snodland, in Kent, to London was quite 30 per cent, above the old rates. As far as could be judged, the most recently revised rates were from 15 to 30 per cent. in excess of the old rates; and that would not be acceptable either to the House or to the country. He would pass on to the next point—namely, what were the proposals of the traders. No doubt, a temporary adjustment could easily be made, but owing to what had transpired the controversy had assumed an acute form, and the traders now distinctly challenged the right of one party to a bargain to fix the rate for the other. They challenged the statement that the
    1032
    companies were the best judges in their own interest of what a particular industry would bear. They said that neither the company nor the trader ought to define the terms of the bargain for the other. Nemo debit. … was an old principle which was as true to-day as it was in old Roman times. He did not believe that either the House or the country would now accept an order of "as you were" from the companies. The object of the commercial crusade which had taken place on the matter of railway rates would be thrown away by any such permanent arrangement. If such an arrangement were made after what had passed, what security would there be for a settled state of commercial affairs, enabling bargains to be made with confidence, when there had been such a disposition on the part of the companies to take advantage of the traders? Maximum rates which had been proposed as a shield had been used as a sword against the traders, and the traders must now find some other shield. That was one of the conditions on which they entered upon the present stage of the controversy. Then, if neither party, as he submitted, was to be the judge in his own case, what tribunal—for there must be a tribunal—should be elected for the purpose. It had been suggested as a remedy that there should be a reduction of the maximum rates all round on the percentage system, but that, he thought, would be a violent, and, in many respects, an unjust, and far from a beneficial arrangement. Then it had been suggested that the State should become the owner of the railways, and so imitate other countries. He might say here that he regretted that the opportunity afforded for doing this in the 21 years after the passing of the Act of 1846 had not been availed of. The problem, no doubt, was a difficult one to deal with. He regretted that the experience of other countries in regard to haulage had not been gone into at the inquiry. But if the remedies to which he had referred were impracticable at present, he would ask whether the Railway Commission was a tribunal capable of dealing with the matter? On behalf of the commercial community he answered that it was not, as the private trader would not be able to bear the expense of fighting a great monopolist company

    1033
    before it. What was wanted was a tribunal which would be as accessible to the small as to the large trader. They might judge of the value of the Railway Commission by looking at the figures which showed the extent to which it bad been resorted to. In 1889, 15 persons had resorted to it; in 1890, 28; in 1891, 28; and in 1892, 22. The cost of the Commission he found to amount to £400 for each occasion on which it sat. Then they had to add to that the cost of the Judge who sat ex-officio, and the registrars and so on, which made it a most costly and inevitably a most dilatory tribunal, utterly unsuitable for commercial purposes. If proceedings were taken before the Railway Commission after endeavouring to settle a case amicably there might he some difference. If, as in the case of other Courts, each Commissioner sat alone, the tribunal would be bettor, but it was an anachronism at present for the trial of these cases. This was a case in which some speedy, summary, and effective form of arbitration would be the best mode of dealing with commercial matters. In these days of telegraphs and telephones accounts could not be kept open and books unclosed. There must be some expert treatment of commercial matters — some treatment which would bring about a settlement speedily and effectually, and at the same time at small expense. Clause 31 of the Act of 1888 convoyed a suggestion as to the form of tribunal the traders desired. That clause, in the United States law, enabled an attempt at amicable adjustment between the companies and the trader, and it had been attended he believed with very good results. It did not, however, in this country come under the definition of jurisprudence. The Board of Trade might arbitrate and report to the Railway Commission the result of its attempt to bring about an amicable adjustment, and require that tribunal to carry out its wishes, but for his own part he would give power to the Board of Trade itself to enforce what it believed to be just. Another suggestion was the appointment of an arbitrator or umpire to adjust disputes between the traders and the companies. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade saw any difficulty in this, he would remind him that the Provisional Orders Acts them-
    1034
    selves embodied the Board of Trade Arbitration Act of 1884, so that the whole machinery was at present in the hands of the Board of Trade if they cared to exercise it, and if Parliament sanctioned that course being taken. Clause 31, too, gave the President the opportunity of procuring expert aid to obtain an amicable adjustment. Why should not that aid take the form of an umpire or arbitrator capable of deciding cases? It would be said that this would make an undue demand on the Board, and that a Government Department so large would be an evil. In France the Department was a large one, and it accomplished all this. It gave them the best illustration of the State controlling the railways as distinguished from owning them. Even the evil—and he granted that it was an evil—of an enlarged Department of the State would be less than the evil which was oppressing the traders at the present moment, and with which the President of the Board of Trade and his staff was incapable of dealing. There was a provision in the Act of 1883 which justified his suggestion. That measure authorised the Board of Trade to act judicially between the traders and the Railway Companies in regard to the determination of service terminals. Why should not that principle be applied to questions of rates and preferences? The right hon. Gentleman must not anticipate that he would have millions of cases before him. There would be some test cases at first for determination, but the number requiring hearing would be comparatively limited. It had been said that there was but one step between the policeman and politeness. He ventured to think that if the Board of Trade were made the policeman there would be a great deal more politeness on the part of the companies to the traders, and much less need for requisitioning the services of the policeman. In addition to the question of procedure there was a matter of law which he thought would also require attention. The traders would not now be satisfied to be protected merely by maximum rates. In his opinion, every rate ought to be a reasonable rate. The maximum rate might still be retained in order to show traders what was the worst they could expect. It would, at least, be a basis on which they might

    1035
    make their bargains. But why should a rate which, though generally reasonable, was in a particular case unjust and unreasonable, be enforced against a trader? He thought it should be taken that the maximum rate should be primâ facie a reasonable and proper one, but subject to reduction in particular cases. There was a precedent for this in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, under which a special contract might be made between the carrier and the trader, but if its terms were unreasonable such contract might be held to be void by the Judge who tried the case. There was also a precedent in the Act of 1888. Sub-section 31—the adjusting section—of that Act assumed the possibility of rates being within the maximum, and yet unreasonable. The cases which were to be referred to the Board of Trade were cases of dispute within the maximum. Maximum rates were creatures of the Statute Book. The old Common Law required that in the case of carriers who, more or less, had monopolies, that their rates should be based on reason and justice. The Railway Companies were carriers and, as such, should be made subject to the principles of the old Common Law. He was aware that the subject was one which was very difficult to deal with in the time at his disposal. It had been the subject of years of investigation and consideration. It was complex and technical, but there were others in the House who, like his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had had practical experience of the Commissions and Committees which had sat on the subject, and would be able from their knowledge of various branches of trade to contribute that practical information which was so essential to the House in dealing with the question. He concluded by asking on behalf of the traders for the help of the Government and for relief from Parliament. He put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that it was the duty of statesmanship to solve quietly and safely problems which the traders might otherwise attempt to solve by more violent and less advantageous methods. He felt that if that which the traders believed to be just were done it would conduce to the commercial prosperity of the country; it would relieve traders and others of a very heavy bur-
    1036
    den, and would further the best interests not only of the community but of the Railway Companies themselves. He moved the Resolution of which he had given notice.
    SIR J. WHITEHEADseconded the Motion. He said he should like to recall to the House one or two of the points which had led up to the controversy lately carried on between the traders on the one side and the Railway Companies on the other. It would be within the recollection of a large number of Members that in the first instance there was no intention whatever to confer a monopoly on the Railway Companies. The Railway Companies, as originally constituted, were to be toll takers. They were not to be sole carriers but competitive carriers. Parliament, however, had little doubt that each company would have a monopoly on its own line, and it attempted to restrict the charges by fixing maximum rates. That was the condition on which the lines were allowed to be laid. It was soon found that the maximum fixed was far too high, and, in point of fact, was no check whatever on the Railway Companies. But there was at that time a check on the Railway Companies, inasmuch as there was competition of a real character. From and to certain points there was competition by sea; there were the old carriers still competing for the light and short distance traffic; there were the canals, which were strong competitors for all kinds of goods; and, moreover, the Railway Companies had not at that time combined to keep up rates, so that there was effective competition in rates between the companies themselves. Somehow or other, by a stealthy and persistent policy continued over a great number of years, the conditions of the competition which then existed were now entirely gone. They were gone mainly in consequence of the efforts which had been made by the Railway Companies to bring about amalgamations, and to buy up and put down competition. Within quite recent years docks had been bought up, and they were being bought up whenever opportunity arose, so that the freight charges could be controlled by the Railway Companies. The canals had been largely acquired by the Railway Companies with the view of stifling com-

    1037
    petition with their own lines. Already over 1,200 miles of canals had been acquired by the Railway Companies, who to-day held the most important links between the Northern and Southern navigations. In point of fact, they had secured what was popularly known as the neck of the bottle. A process of the amalgamation of the different lines had also being going on, so that there were now very few small lines, as there were very few large ones, the small lines having been absorbed by the large ones. He believed he was correct in saying that the London and North-Western Railway alone consisted of no fewer than 51 different systems. In his judgment, one of the duties of the House of Commons in the future would be to take care that no amalgamation between Railway Companies should take place unless under conditions favourable to the traders. One was bound to recognise the fact that the Railway Companies were now all pulling together. Their combined aggressiveness when before the Board of Trade showed that such was the case, whilst their united action in raising the rates on the 1st January proved beyond question that the defence afforded to traders and agriculturists by competition in times gone by had been destroyed. If further evidence were needed it was to be found in the replies given in the House of Commons by the President of the Board of Trade to the questions which had been addressed to him on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman's answers, and the letters he had read, all tended to show that no Railway Company could do what it liked of its own volition, as all the large companies were banded together. The protection originally afforded to the traders and agriculturists of the country had, it seemed to him, been broken down by the deliberate, long-sustained, and clever—he ventured to say too clever—policy of the companies. Not only this, but the Railway Companies had invented a new system in the shape of station terminals, and had succeeded in getting them allowed by Parliament. They had at the same time secured enormously high powers in regard to rates. He should like to remind the House that they had obtained those powers by means of promises which they had not kept. They prevented opposition to the proposals they made in
    1038
    1889, by representing that the proposed revision related to maximum powers only, and did not touch the actual rates. They even went further, and said they had no intention of raising the actual rates. They urged that they required a margin, and over and above the then existing rates, in order to provide for serious emergencies, such as an advance in coal, an advance in iron, a possible advance in labour, and a possible shortening of the hours of labour. Since the companies secured these powers under the maximum charges, no emergency such as was then contemplated had arisen, and yet they had availed themselves of such powers to the full extent. The companies said that when the schedules of rates were issued on the 16th December it was not intended that they should be permanent. But why did they not say so at the time? They knew that the rates they proposed would be distinctly injurious to trade and agriculture, but they did not say they were merely provisional, until there was a universal outcry in the country, and the Board of Trade began to put some pressure upon them. Even now, the concessions made by the companies were only of a very partial character. To some extent they were bending to the storm, but they were not doing so with a good grace. He would give the House one or two examples of the way in which companies had, under the pressure of the Board of Trade and the traders, amended these rates, and he might say he had been very careful to verify his figures. He found that the charge for conveying agricultural seeds in bags from an important centre of agriculture, Andover to Overton, under the old rate was 5s. 6d. per ton, that under the new rates it was 10s. 10d. per ton, and under the revised rates, after the application of pressure by the Board of Trade and the traders, it was 9s. 7d. per ton. From Andover to Southampton the old charge was 5s., the new charge 11s. 7d., and the revised charge 6s. The charge for straw in bundles from Andover to Wimbledon was formerly 12s. 6d., whilst under the new rates it was 23s. 5d., and under the revised rates 16s. 2d., while from Andover to Nine Elms the old rate was 14s. 2d., the new rate 16s. 10d., and the revised rate also 16s. 10d. He returned to agricultural seeds, which from another point of view had been referred

    1039
    to by the hon. Member opposite. The concessions were only of a very partial character. Agricultural seeds from Chester to Carlisle under the old rate was 21s. 3d.; under the new rate 30s. 7d.; but under the revised rate 27s. 7d. Iron tanks and cisterns sent from London to stations on different lines average per ton under the old rate 33s. 3d., under the new rate 55s. 6d., and under the revised rate 45s. 8d. It was proposed on one occasion to send 13,000ft. of timber from Ledbury to High Wycombe, and while it was found that the old rate would have been £244 18s. 10d., the new rate had been raised to £523 18s. 8d.; and after a good deal of discussion between the timber merchant and the Railway Company they eventually said that they would take the timber for £390 7s. 11d. It seemed to him that his was a case in which an arbitrator might be brought in, as had been suggested by his hon. Friend. There were, however, thousands of cases in which no adjustment had yet been possible, or had even been attempted. The scale of charges which came into force on January 1 still remained in force. For example, the increase to one firm alone in the empties which they sent over one line amounted to £2,500 a year. The increased rates for "smalls" to the typical stations which were mentioned by Sir George Findlay during the Board of Trade inquiry were these:—In Class I., south of the Thames, the increase was 40 per cent.; in Class II. the increase was 37¾ per cent.; in Class III., 34½ per cent.; and in Class IV., 25 per cent. The increase of rates for the lines running North was not so great as in the South, but still they were very considerable. Those figures had been forwarded to the Board of Trade more than four weeks ago; they were also sent to the Railway Companies, but no remission of these figures had been given except in regard to two rates on the South-Western system. As to the preference given to foreigners, he said that great difficulty was experienced by the traders and agriculturists in obtaining information from the Railway Companies. He had received a letter from a correspondent in Cupar, Fifeshire, showing that the North British Railway Company had been overcharging him. He applied to the secretary to supply par-
    1040
    ticulars of the charges for haulage, motive power, use of wagons, loading and unloading, covering and uncovering. The Company refused to give the information though they were obliged to do so by the Act. The correspondent then wrote to the Board of Trade, but the Department stated that they had no power to settle the dispute, and suggested that he should resort to legal measures. It was not surprising that under these circumstances there had been a falling off in the receipts of the Railway Companies, and that trade throughout the country was suffering. The Returns of the Railway Companies showed a considerable reduction in the amount of their revenue, although some portion of the decrease might, perhaps, be attributed to the rebate which they proposed to allow when the rates were finally settled. It was evident that the Railway Companies were acting either in total ignorance of the wants of the traders of this country or that they were fully aware of the effect their action would have upon that trade. In his opinion, the Railway Companies were acting upon a well-thought-out system. The evidence given before the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament showed that the Directors and Managers of Railway Companies were fully aware that they were already exacting all they could from the trading community for the carriage of goods, and that it was not their intention to increase their rates. In the face of such evidence as that he should like to ask the House what they thought of the statements that had been made by the Chairmen of the different Railway Companies at the annual meetings which had been held during the last month, that they had given no pledge that the rates should not be increased. The great difficulty that the traders were in was that they had no power to compel the Railway Companies to fix reasonable rates. The Board of Trade had power to mediate, but not to arbitrate; they had power to advise but not to determine. The Railway Companies were quite aware of that fact, and unfortunately they were in a position to do exactly what they liked and to raise the rates up to a maximum, which went far beyond any practicable charge. The Railway Companies would continue to charge excessive rates unless Parliament interfered in the matter. It appeared to

    1041
    him that the time had arrived when that House should, not in the interest of the trader or of the agriculturist alone, but in the interest of the general community, determine that in the event of any dispute arising between the traders and the Railway Companies, the decision of the question should no longer be left to the irresponsible discretion of the Railway Companies; and he hoped that the Board of Trade and the Government, who must have realised the very serious aspect which this question had assumed and the feeling that had arisen with regard to the matter throughout the length and breadth of the land, would come to the conclusion that some check ought to be put upon the companies by legislation.
    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 revised railway rates, charges, and conditions of traffic are most prejudicial to the industries and agricultural and commercial interests of the country, and this House urges upon the Government the necessity of dealing promptly and effectively with the subject by legislation, declaring unreasonable rates, charges, and conditions illegal, and establishing, in connection with the Board of Trade or otherwise, a cheap, simple, and expeditious mode of determining in case of dispute what are reasonable or unreasonable rates, charges, and conditions,"—(Sir Albert Rollit,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR A. HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.)said, he supported the Resolution because it was just, expedient, and practicable. If there existed a natural competition among the Railway Companies there would have been no need for this Motion, but the Railway Companies were banded together so that, no company could reduce a rate without the consent of the others. The London and North-Western, the Great Western, and the Midland stretched from sea to sea, their capital amounted to hundreds of millions, but the conduct of the business of each company was practically out of its own hands. It had been admitted by the managers that when they had been satisfied it would be right to reduce a rate they could not do it because the companies would not consent. A company had power to
    1042
    raise rates, but it had no power to reduce them. This state of things had come about from a fear of a war of rates. What was wanted was a tribunal which should emancipate the Railway Companies and enable them to reduce rates when they saw they ought to be reduced without running the risk of a ruinous war of rates. The natural consequence of a great monopoly was that the monopolists neglected all opportunities of reform. During the last 10 years operating expenses had been reduced by one-half in the United States simply by improvements in the rolling stock, but in this country operating expenses had increased. He was interested in iron works in the United States which were charged rates less than half those that the Railway Companies of this country said would be confiscation. A railway manager had told him that he had tried an American bogey wagon on which 25 tons could be moved with the same motive power as it took to move 10 tons with the ordinary English wagon. A mineral train of 1,500 tons was drawn in the United States at the same cost as one of 200 or 300 tons in this country. Here a traveller could enjoy all the luxuries of a sleeping car at a less rate per mile than was charged for coals. Competing trains were run at the same times when one would accommodate the public. The stoppage of this competition between Wolverhampton and London would save £5,000 a year. No trader in his senses would dream of taking a case before the Railway Commission. The Liverpool Com Trade Association had gone to the Commission against the London and North-Western Railway Company, which charged for the carriage of corn 8s. 3d. from Cardiff to Birmingham, 173 miles, and 11s. 3d. from Liverpool to Birmingham, 98 miles. An injunction was granted against the Company, who simply raised the rate from Cardiff. The Association commenced a similar suit against the Great Western, and this time the Railway Company won. Questions of costs came in. The traders were allowed but two counsel and two guineas a day for expert witnesses. The companies were allowed three counsel and from 25 to 12 guineas a day for witnesses. What was wanted was a tribunal which should say that if a company could

    1043
    run 173 miles for 8s. 4d. it should be compelled to charge less than 11s. 3d. for 98 miles for the same traffic. Wine was carried from Dieppe to Wolverhampton for the same as from London to Wolverhampton. It cost less to bring corn from Odessa to Birmingham than from the Eastern Counties. It cost less to bring iron to London from Belgium than from Staffordshire. There was abundant precedent for what was proposed. In the Act of 1873 the Railway Commission were empowered to fix reasonable charges for terminals, &c., and in the Provisional Order Acts of last Session the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade was authorised to settle what should be paid for services at stations, collection, delivery, retention of wagons, loading and unloading, coupling and uncoupling, &c. All that was asked was that those powers should be extended to rates, and then only if the rates were unreasonable. It was quite absurd to suppose that the arbitrators appointed by the Board of Trade would act unfairly towards the Railway Company. A clear case of unreasonableness would have to be made out before the arbitrators would act. He asked the House to release the Railway Companies from the bonds against which they themselves dare not struggle, and to set free the springs of trade and agriculture in peace.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he did not think it was right that all the speaking should be on one side. The House of Commons was always willing to hear some one on the other side of the case, and he therefore ventured to make a few observations, because he happened to be a Director of the railway line which had been honoured with more words of compliment than any of the other lines of the United Kingdom—namely, the Loudon and Brighton Railway Company. In order to show the House that the Railway Companies did not deserve all the hard words used by his hon. Friend the Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit) he would speak plainly as to what had occurred at his Board. Within 10 days after the 1st of January, when they found that the proposal of fixing maximum rates had produced not only a feeling of irritation but some unfairness towards various trades, the Board of the Brighton line assembled and gave instructions that the whole of
    1044
    the rates should be revised in order to meet all legitimate demands. Their general instruction, given within 10 days or a fortnight from January 1st, was that all rates were to be taken as far as possible on the level of the old rates. In the case of the Brighton Company that meant that 4,500,000 of rates had to be entirely revised. He found that in the two months that had just elapsed there had been 84,960 Minutes, so that the House would see how few the Minutes had been to revise 4,500,000 of rates. And the Brighton Railway was not a goods railway in the ordinary sense of the word. It was mainly a passenger railway. But even that passenger railway had 4,500,000 of rates, and that being so the House would understand how much more difficult and how much longer must be the task of the London and North-Western Company with 30,000,000 of rates. He could only say on behalf of the Company he represented that they were determined to satisfy all legitimate complaints of traders, and the managers of that railway, and he believed of all other railways, were working as hard as men could work to grapple with their task. He now came to the question of fixing the maximum rate. The Member for North Islington (Sir Albert Rollit) had said that the original movement with regard to railway rates was intended for reduction, and not for revision; but he would like to point to the evidence taken by the Committee in which it would be found stated by many traders that they did not wish to reduce the earnings of the Railway Companies through a fresh classification. At the meetings of the Railway Commission he, in common with others, had advised that under the circumstances of the case it was better for the Railway Companies to lose, as they would lose largely by the revision of rates, rather than give any fair cause of complaint to traders. That principle was generally accepted at the Railway Association, and therefore hon. Members would see that all their complaints against the companies were not thoroughly justified. The fixing of the maximum rates as a temporary measure was, in his opinion, a mistake. It was committed avowedly as a temporary measure by the managers, who had said, and had said truly and honestly, that they had not had time to go

    1045
    through all the rates to revise them. The increase in the rates was not to be more than 5 per cent., and though it might be unwise from some points of view to make any increase, still the statement of the hon. Member for South Islington, that from 15 to 20 or 30 per cent. was intended as permanent increase, was absolutely wrong. Whatever hon. Members might say, the Railway Companies were traders as well as the traders themselves. He might be told that they were traders with a monopoly, but that was true only to a limited extent, for there was carriage by water as well as carriage by rail. The hon. Member for South Islington had said that the trader should fix his own rates and not the Railway Company.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: That is a mistake.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I took down the words of the hon. Member at the time. He said, "The railways consider they ought to be the judges as to what tax industry should bear, but I say the trades should be the judges."
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: What I said was that the trader having a knowledge of his own trade was better qualified to judge, but I added that neither the railway nor the trader should be the judge in the case.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the hon. Member had used the words he had quoted in the early portion of his speech, but half an hour later when he came to the tribunal the hon. Member modified his statement, and said that neither should be the judge, but that the Board of Trade should step in, and, according to the modern theory of the Conservative Radical, that the Government should settle everything. It was perfectly obvious that the Railway Companies were traders just as much as the traders themselves, and any company which did anything to reduce its business must be cutting its own throat; while, as had been stated and re-stated over and over again, a rebate would be allowed in every case from 1st January. Consequently, it was not quite fair to say that Railway
    1046
    Companies were inflicting a loss on the trading community. It could not be said that the trader suffered loss if the money was returned. It had been stated that the London and North-Western Company, through their Deputy Chairman, had been induced by the pressure of the hon. Member's Motion to publish the letter to which reference had been made. It was only fair to that gentleman—whom he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) did not know—to say that was not so. What happened was this: At several meetings of the Railway Commission it was discussed in what form the announcement with regard to the rates should be made, whether in a general form or a special form, and it was eventually decided that it should be in a special form. Many of the Railway Companies had had prepared their papers ready for publication, and, therefore, it was not because of the pressure of the hon. Member that the letter of the London and North Western was published, but because it was thought to be right that the intentions of the company should be made known as soon as possible. It might be thought that these intentions were not published soon enough. In the case of the Brighton Railway Company the information was divulged in the middle of January.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. A. J. MUNDELLA,): February.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the first notice had been published in the middle of January and another notice was published in the middle of February. He had been a party to the preparation of those notices, and he therefore spoke with authority on the matter. He thought the other Railway Companies had made a mistake in not publishing notice of their intentions as soon as possible, but it was obvious that the companies had not méant to maintain these maximum rates, because 20 railway managers had been occupied day and night in revising these rates. He said, therefore, that if reasonable time had been allowed to the railway managers, all the rates complained of would have been subjected to careful revision. In the particular case of the

    1047
    Brighton Railway Company, he believed their book would be ready on the 17th of this month, and he could assure the House that the labour thrown upon the small number of railway servants competent for this work had been very great indeed. His hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Sir Albert Rollit) had talked about the Railway Companies intending to maintain the increase in the rates amounting to 15, 20, and 30 per cent., but there really was no intention on the part of the companies to maintain such increase. He trusted, therefore, that the fears of any trader which might have been raised by that statement would be abated when he knew that the over-charge would be returned when the revision of the rates was completed. His hon. Friend had also contended that the Board of Trade should fix not only the maximum rates, but the rates themselves. How far would that principle be applied? He was afraid that on this principle they would soon go back to what had been tried and found wanting when the prices of many commodities were fixed by Act of Parliament. It was better that the railway management should be left to the companies themselves, as was decided by the House of Commons years ago in the time of Mr. Disraeli. If the House believed, as he asked them to believe, that it was the intention of all Railway Companies to meet all the reasonable demands of traders, he thought they would come to the conclusion that there was no reason for passing this Resolution. So far as the Brighton Railway Company was concerned, they had reduced the rates for vegetable produce even below the amount they stood at in former times, and so much so that several growers of vegetables in their districts intended greatly to increase their production. He mentioned that to show that the lowering of rates was even most beneficial to both sides. He ventured to say, without any authority from the Railway Companies, but simply from the knowledge he possessed on the subject, that this proposal to appoint arbitrators to settle the 250,000,000 of rates was perfectly absurd and impossible. It was far better to allow these arrangements to be made under the pressure of public opinion, and under the natural desire of all Railway Companies to stand on good terms with
    1048
    their customers. He knew that considerable pressure had been brought to bear in this matter on the President of the Board of Trade; he knew that the right hon. Gentleman took a deep interest in all that was under his control; and he believed, also, that the legitimate desires of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the railway rates would be met as far as possible by the Railway Companies.
    MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDsaid, that as the Representative of a large agricultural district, he wished to touch upon a few points that had not been dealt with in the course of the Debate. Agriculture had been altogether left out in the cold in the remarks of hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Baronet who had just spoken had urged upon them to leave this matter to the Railway Companies. That was very much like giving advice to the lamb to leave it to the wolf whether it should eat it up or not. This fresh attack on agriculture by the Railway Companies had been made at a most unfortunate moment. Agriculture was at its last gasp, and the Railway Companies had now got it by the throat and were determined apparently to shake the little life that was left out of it. Few people who were not connected with agriculture could realise the importance of this question to the small fanners. The farmer was a very patient person—he had been long-suffering in the past, especially in this matter of railway rates—but there must be an end to even his patience, and his powers of endurance. In the district he represented the Great Western Railway Company exercised something like an omnipotent monopoly; and some of the rates which that company charged were such as to make it absolutely impossible for the farmer to carry on his business. With regard to milk, the Midland, Great Northern, and the London and North-Western Companies had retained the old rates of 1d. per gallon up to 100 miles, making no charge for the carriage of empties. The Great Western charges 1¼d. for the same distance, and charges also for empties. The company relieved the milk

    1049
    contractors of London of the cost of the carriage for empties, and charged it on the farmer, the very last man who could stand any further burden being placed on him. The hon. Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit) had stated that the additional tax upon the growing of garden produce in the neighbourhood of London, owing to these railway rates, amounted to 30 per cent. Would the House believe that the rates for garden produce from Evesham to Manchester had gone up from 15s. 10d.to 23s. 4d.? Evesham was the centre of a large market gardening industry; it had often been called the Garden of England. Its garden produce went to Manchester and to other large towns, and the effect of the rates of the Great Western Company was that an additional tax of no less than £3 per acre was placed on every yard of land these farmers cultivated. Was that condition of things to be tolerated, and were they to trust themselves to the Railway Companies who had imposed these rates as suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid)? He thought it was absolutely impossible to expect the farmers to stand the conduct of the Railway Companies much longer. If these rates were to continue—and so far as he could see in the case of the Great Western Company, they had absolutely no guarantee that the rates would not be continued—the last death blow would have been given to agriculture in the district which he represented. He deprecated altogether that this discussion should assume anything of an academic form; they did not want the history of rates, they wanted remedies sharp, short, and decisive, which would relieve the farmer from the terrible imposition which had been put upon him by the Railway Companies; and unless that imposition was removed from his shoulders, he must be absolutely and entirely ruined. It was in that belief that he humbly asked the House to support unanimously the Motion of the hon. Member for South Islington.
    MR. D. R. PLUNKET: Mr. Speaker, I desire only to occupy the time of the House for a very brief period. I certainly feel, speaking as a Director of one of the great railways, very much as my hon. Friend the Mem-
    1050
    ber for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) felt, as one standing in rather a difficult position on the present occasion. I am sure, however, that the House will on that account all the more hear patiently the few observations I have to make. Now, Sir, there is no doubt that the discussion of a matter which is really a question, or ought to be a question, of commercial arrangement between the companies and their customers, has been, by the prevailing excitement of the last few weeks, worked up into a form which was truly described by my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution as a crusade against the Railway Companies. Many hard things have been said. I cannot resent the hard sayings of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and who has introduced himself so favourably to the notice of the House by his first appearance as a debater. He struck very vigorously against the Railway Companies. I will not use one word of recrimination or of discourtesy with respect to the President of the Board of Trade or to those permanent officials of that Department, for both the Railway Companies and the public have entire confidence in their impartiality. Further, I feel, in the present unfortunate condition of trade and agriculture, it is but natural that those who imagine themselves to be pressed hardly by the action of the Railway Companies should feel very keenly and bitterly any burden which they think is unnecessarily placed on them. But such feelings have arisen mainly from a misapprehension of the action of the Railway Companies; certainly there has been an entire misapprehension of their intentions. But I shall not go into that matter at length, because the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade during Question time has put an entirely new complexion on this controversy, and has to a great extent deprived the Motion before the House of its pressing importance. The President of the Board of Trade stated to - day at Question time that it was his intention to appoint a Committee for the purpose, I understood, of inquiring into the working and results of the revisions of rates which have taken place, and inquiring whether any further steps

    1051
    might be necessary. I can only say, speaking for the railway with which I am connected—the London and North Western—and I believe for all the great Railway Companies, we shall welcome that inquiry most heartily, and we are confident that it will have the effect of relieving us from a great deal of misapprehension which at present prevails upon this important subject. It also, to a certain extent, knocks the bottom out of the operative part of the Resolution which has been proposed. I do not know whether it will be pressed by my hon. Friend who introduced it, because I do not suppose the House of Commons is going to declare that the Railway Companies have been guilty of all the enormities which he charged them with, and proceed, further, to decide what legislation shall be taken in order to deprive them of the authority and power they have now of fixing their own rates. I do not think they will seriously urge that proposition in face of the inquiry that is to take place for the purpose of investigating these very charges, and of considering, I understand, what kind of legislation, if any, should follow. You have heard of hanging a man before he is tried; but to hang a man, and then, at a considerable distance of time after this operation, announce that you are going to institute a trial into his case, would be one of the most extraordinary propositions for this Assembly to adopt. The position of the London and Northwestern Railway Company is stated in the letter which was published a few days ago by The Times, signed by Mr. Cawkwell, our Deputy Chairman. I wish to say a word or two following up what has been said by the Member for South St. Pancras. I regret that that letter was not sooner published.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Why was it not?
    MR. PLUNKET: I was myself in favour of publishing it, but I do not want to go into that. All I say is, that the policy embodied in that letter was the policy which had been resolved upon long before, but its publication was delayed for various reasons which I did not myself assent to. The case made by
    1052
    that letter is this: that in the vast majority of the cases in which exception is taken to the rates as they are now or have been, that exception is taken under a misapprehension; that it was for want of time that those rates which are most complained of were not then or have not since been set up in the position which they are intended permanently to occupy. Whether it was wise or not to adopt the course the great companies have done of starting their new rates upon the maximum instead of building up from the old rates I will not now discuss. But, as is well-known, all the great companies have pledged themselves in every case where the rate is revised to date back the revision of that rate to the 1st January. I desire to say a few words on a letter which has this day been sent to the Board of Trade, which will explain the views the London and North-Western Railway Company take upon one matter in which they happen to differ—as also does the Great Western—from the other great companies. As that letter will probably be published to-morrow, I should like at the same time that the explanation of our conduct should go forth and the grounds on which we acted should be stated. The letter says—
    "It is understood that some of the companies, with a view of establishing a general principle of revision, have suggested that in no case should a rate be raised so as to exceed by more than 5 per cent. the corresponding rate prevailing in 1892. The North-Western Company, while concurring in any arrangement which would conduce to a fair and moderate course of dealing between the company and their customers, think that to lay down a hard-and-fast line would be neither practicable nor desirable in all cases. In some cases, where goods are of high value, such as £50 or £100 a ton, in addition to the rate of 1d. or 1½d. per hundredweight would, while amounting to a higher percentage, really not affect the cost of the article or provoke any opposition from the trader, while other traffic could not reasonably bear any increase even to the moderate extent named. Another objection is that such a suggestion would go far to nullify in many cases the uniformity and simplicity gained by the codification of the maximum powers of the company which has been the result of the prolonged labours of Parliament and the Board of Trade upon the subject, and the introduction of another standard would, in addition to, if not in substitution for, a reference to a few Acts of Parliament, involve individual reference to the many millions of actual rates existing in 1892, access to the records of which would, to the public, be difficult, if not impossible."

    1053
    Now let me say one word on the charge of bad faith so often alleged against the various companies. It is said that whereas they pledged themselves there would be no raising of the rates, in point of fact many of the rates have been raised, it is said that a pledge was given that there should be no raising of the rates. Well, if any such pledge was given, it must have been given in the sense that the whole result of the revision would not end in a raising of the rates, because at every period of the transactions between the companies and the public, before the Committee and before the Commission, again and again did they claim the right, in certain cases where it would be fair, to raise the rates, though not, of course, those which were to be lowered by force of Act of Parliament. On the other hand, the Board of Trade always seem to have contended that that must not be done upon any great scale, but that it might be done to a certain extent was certainly conceded. To show this I will read one short paragraph from the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle. On page 69 of that Report they say—
    "In determining the figures in the Schedule we have had regard to the highness of the present non-competitive rates, and, on the other hand, to the fact that the companies will probably have to rely more on increase in traffic than on the raising of their non-competitive rates to recoup themselves from any loss they may sustain by deprivation of the right to charge specially high rates, as are now in some instances in force."
    From this it is evident that increase in traffic was not the only way which was contemplated of recoupment. It was intended in certain cases that a raising of other rates might be permitted, though not to any far-reaching extent, and that was the view, I know, which was accepted at that time by the great Railway Companies. Now, one word more. It has been hinted here this afternoon that after all there have been no great remissions, no great reductions made by the Railway Companies in the previously existing rates. It is contended that it has been altogether a one-sided endeavour on the part of the
    1054
    Railway Companies to raise the rates wherever they could. Unfortunately, at this moment I have not got by me the figures on this subject from my own railway, but I have here the figures which were sent the other day by the Great Western Railway to the Board of Trade. The officers of that company tell me that these figures only give a partial statement and illustration of the reductions made, but they say they have submitted to the President of the Board of Trade 33,000 specimen cases of the reduction of rates from 24 stations only, and that they have, since January last, arranged 872,864 exceptional rates, all far below the maximum charges which they are by law allowed to make. [Mr. MUNDELLA was understood to ask if they were below the charges of last year.] I understand that a great many of them are. There seems to be some misapprehension also as to what the loss to the great Railway Companies would really be if all the reductions following upon the Act of 1888 were to be enforced, and there was to be no recoupment by raising other rates. I can state confidently that as regards the London and North Western the net loss would not fall short of from £80,000 to £100,000 a year, and the Great Western authorise me to state that in their case the loss would be as great, if not greater.
    MR. DODDsaid that the Members representing agricultural constituencies had their drawers full of complaints from agriculturists in this matter. He recognised that it was because agriculture was in a depressed condition that the loudest complaints came from them, but complaints also came from commercial men. That there had been a large and important increase in the charges made by the Railway Companies was beyond dispute. There had been no misapprehension as to the figures—the bills sent in by the Railway Companies had been forwarded to Members by their constituents—but the Railway Companies were under a misapprehension when they thought the traders would bear the rates they put on. He would not weary the House with details, but would take one case—and that by no

    1055
    means the worst—out of the large number that had been sent to him. He had a letter from a man who said he was dealing in pigs, the only thing any money could be made out of by farmers in these times. He stated that prior to the 1st January, 1893, he sent 10 pigs from Ely to Stratford and London for 10s., but the present rate was 22s. for five pigs. The writer wound up a practical, if not altogether grammatical letter, by saying he "had now discontinued sending pigs to London, though they were now in nice condition." The same state of things occurred in almost every branch of agriculture. It was said that as the Railway Companies were about to meet the traders in a conciliatory way this Motion was unnecessary. He was sorry to say that from the letter of his friend, Sir Henry Oakley, he was not satisfied that the companies were going to meet the traders in this conciliatory way, for Sir Henry wrote that the companies were unable to accept without qualification the suggestions of the President of the Board of Trade. He submitted that the facts were sufficiently well-known to the House without any further Committee or Inquiry; and that when there was a dispute as to whether a rate was reasonable or not, it must be settled by some tribunal. They were all agreed that the Railway Commissioners were an impossible tribunal, but he suggested that they had in the Board of Trade a cheap and simple Body which would be able to act as arbitrators between the public and the Railway Companies when there was a dispute, and to settle what was a reasonable rate. They had recently had an Arbitration Act which provided a simple mode of enforcing awards when there was a dispute between private people. When the arbitrator made his award that award was enforced by the ordinary Courts just as if it was an order of the ordinary Courts, and he suggested that when the Board of Trade had made an Order deciding whether a rate was reasonable or unreasonable it should also be enforced by the ordinary Courts. This would be a simple and expeditious mode of dealing with the matter. They asked that this Motion should be adopted by the House so that the Board of Trade might deal directly, speedily, and cheaply with disputes
    1056
    between traders and the Railway Companies.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I am very sorry to stand between the House and many hon. Members who wish to discuss this question. We have only three hours for the discussion—a very inadequate time certainly—and as my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) will, I am sure, desire to follow me, I shall, therefore, detain the House but a very short time in order that I may not do him injustice. We need not go into the history of the question. The Act of 1888 and the work which was done by the Commission and the Joint Committee under that Act was of an excellent character, and was of the highest importance for the future dealing with this question. It is impossible to over-estimate the skill and ability brought to bear by the Commissioners in the work they did in the revision and classification of the railway rates of this country. It was not a light task to get rid of more than 1,000 Acts of Parliament, all contradicting each other in the conclusions they arrived at, and to reduce the whole of the railway rates in this country into a Code in 35 Acts of Parliament. It is to be regretted that the Railway Companies, when called upon to publish their rate books, should have come to the resolution practically to claim the maximum charges. It is an unprecedented thing. I know that in doing so they claim to be within their rights; technically they are within their legal rights, but they have inflicted an amount of hardship and discouragement upon the traders of this country that I think they are now becoming fully alive to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), whom we are always glad to hear, made the very best case he could on behalf of the Railway Companies, and the hon. Baronet who has also spoken for the Railway Companies stated that the companies anticipated a storm, that they bowed to it, and that it passed over their heads. I could have wished that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) before he sat down would have announced that the London and North-Western was as

    1057
    willing to be as liberal, even now, in its dealing with this question as many other Railway Companies had been. He has said that the London and North-Western and the Great Western were not willing to limit their increases, where increases were possible, within the limit of 5 per cent. But other great companies are willing to do so, and why should not the London and North-Western and the Great Western? The right hon Gentleman spoke of the vast number of reductions made by the Great Western. But reductions of what? Reductions from the charges that were fixed in the rate books on the 1st January? And if they are those revised charges of to-day, are they as low as the charges of last year? Are they not very much higher than the charges of last year; and if they are, is it keeping faith with the public? Now, the understanding before the Commission was that there was to be no general raising of rates, and many traders and Trades Organisations withdrew all opposition from before the Commission and the Committee on the understanding given by the Railway Companies that their rates would not be touched. One Association—the Agricultural Traders Association, I believe—opposed the Railway Companies. The Railway Companies placated them, and said, "We are not going to interfere with you;" and on the understanding that their rates would not be raised, they withdrew their opposition. Now, however, they find that, after they have had their rates revised, they are subjected to an increased taxation of 6·61 per cent. by the Great Western and 8·33 by the London and North-Western. There is, therefore, some ground for some of the hard words that have been used in this controversy. My right hon. Friend spoke of the agitation having been worked up, and he said that nearly the whole of it was due to misapprehension. There is no doubt that some part of it is due to misapprehension, but on the whole it has not been a worked-up agitation. If the right hon. Gentleman was inside the Board of Trade for one day he would no longer believe that this was a manufactured agitation. We are inundated with complaints. And who are the complainants? Why, nearly all the Local Authorities of the Kingdom.
    1058
    There have been great meetings of merchants in all the great centres, such as Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, &c., and these meetings of merchants and traders call upon us to come to their assistance and point out to us the mischief that would accrue to trade from the present state of things. It is the duty of the Board of Trade, of course, to do what it can to relieve traders from hardship, it was never intended, never anticipated, that they would be subjected to. Hon. Members have spoken of how certain traders will be affected by these rates. I have been told that in one trade alone—the grocers—if these rates are maintained, it would amount to something like a new impost of £500,000 a year. But I was never more interested and impressed than I was by a deputation representing market gardeners and small cultivators and hot-house cultivators from Essex, Bedfordshire, and various counties which waited upon me last Wednesday. Nothing is more satisfactory than the remarkable development which is going on—development of a most desirable kind—in this country, and the increase in the amount of land which is being brought into cultivation for vegetable produce and market gardening. There is nothing more striking than the amount of labour these businesses employ. One of the deputation said that he cultivated 500 acres of land, and paid £4,000 a year in labour; another said that he cultivated 90 acres and paid £1,000 a year in labour; another said he cultivated 120 acres and paid £3,800 a year in labour; and another said he cultivated six acres, mostly under glass, and he paid £1,000 a year in labour. And these men came to me in a state of thorough discouragment, not knowing what would eventually become of their trade owing to the enormous rates and the competition of foreign producers. The members of the deputation were affected very largely in respect of the increased cost of manure and every kind of fertiliser, and they complained of the increased charges. It is no use, therefore, thinking that this agitation is a fictitious one; it is a real and substantial impost upon industry and agriculture, but especially upon the small trades of the country. The House will hardly believe the immense burden and strain this agitation

    1059
    has been on the Board of Trade since 2nd January. It has taxed the energies of every man in the Railway Department, and others have been brought in to assist the staff of that Department in discharging the duties cast upon it by the agitation, and, for my own part, nobody will be more glad than I to be rid of it. Now, I want to ask the House to let us deal with this question in a thoroughly practical spirit. I have been putting pressure upon the Railway Companies, and I have put as strongly in writing as I could what I was quite sure would be the inevitable result of a persistence in this policy on the part of the Railway Companies; and that if they did not reduce the rates, it would not be the Board of Trade that they would eventually have to deal with, but the House of Commons. I am glad to say I have had some indication that the Railway Companies are not quite so much banded together as they were a week ago. I have received letters from different companies—the London and Brighton, the Midland, the London and South Western, the Great Northern, the London and North Western, the Great Eastern, the North Eastern, and the Great Western.
    COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.): Any from Ireland?
    MR. MUNDELLA: No; none from Ireland yet; but we will deal with all railways on the same footing, I hope. [The right hon. Gentleman here read a letter he had received this day from the London and South Western Railway Company, which stated that strenuous efforts were being made to remove any cause of dissatisfaction. The Directors were fully determined that no action on their part should injuriously affect the public, and they had given instructions to their officers with regard to rates which were to remain at the figures in operation at the end of 1892, and as a general rule applicable to goods traffic, no increase should, unless in exceptional circumstances, exceed 5 per cent. on the old rate. The rates which had hitherto been below the ordinary level had been increased in order to recoup the company for losses.] Every one of these letters pledges the companies, except the Great
    1060
    Western and the London and North Western, that if they do in any case recoup themselves to any extent it shall never exceed 5 per cent.; and that whatever rebate is made, it shall date back to 1st January this year. Well, this is a very considerable concession which has been made by the Railway Companies, and some of them claim that it will not bring them back to the rates of last year, but that they will be considerable losers thereby. And now I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Islington not to withdraw his Motion, because with this part of it I agree—
    "To call attention to the subject of railway and canal rates and charges and the conditions of traffic; and to move that, in the opinion of this House, the revised railway rates, charges, and conditions of traffic are most prejudicial to the industries and agricultural and commercial interests of the Country, and this House urges upon the Government the necessity of dealing promptly and effectively with the subject."
    I accept that part of the Resolution, and I hope the House will pass that portion of it unanimously. But the hon. Gentleman himself said that we must proceed safely and cautiously on this question. If we were to pass the whole of the Resolution to-night, what would be the effect? The effect would be that the companies would not proceed with their reductions; the whole matter would be thrown upon the Government the whole question of the reduction of rates would have to wait until such time as we could set up a new tribunal, and what the traders have a right to expect would be postponed indefinitely. We accept the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman up to that point; but the Railway Companies demand time to make their reductions, and I must say they have some claim in that respect. The House should not be ungenerous or vindictive. Let us give them the time they ask for to revise their rates, and then when we have seen the revision we can investigate the result, and, if necessary, proceed to deal more effectually with the whole question of railway rates. There is another reason why I ask this. Reference has been made by several speakers to the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission is probably the most expensive Court that was ever set up in this country. When traders

    1061
    go into that Court they have to meet the combined Railway Companies with unlimited purses, and assisted as they are by the ablest counsel. Now, I think the time has come when we ought to consider whether we cannot re-constitute that tribunal, or make it more effective. I do appeal to my hon. Friend to let the House show a united front on this question by passing unanimously that part of the Resolution I have accepted. I do not think that any Member of this House charges the Department over which I have the honour to preside with any neglect of duty in this matter; and although we have not compulsory powers, if we are backed by a united House of Commons, the Railway Companies will not be too strong for us, whatever their policy may be.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.): I entirely agree with the observations with which the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech—that it is a misfortune, not only to the House but to the country, that this Debate has been curtailed within the limits of three hours. No subject can be of greater importance, no subject can more urgently require discussion. And I am convinced that if we had had a full evening for the Debate, such a voice would have gone out from all sides of the House of something more than discontent with what has been done by the great Railway Companies of this Kingdom as at any rate to convince them that they cannot safely abuse the powers given them by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that he desired to leave some time for me to address the House. I certainly do not complain of the time he has taken up by his observations, for I do not wish to criticise anything he has said. What is the state of affairs before us? We have heard the case of the Railway Companies presented by two highly-skilled advocates—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University and the hon. Member for South St. Pancras. They practically admitted the case of the hon. Member for Islington. They admitted that in the exercise of the powers which the Railway Companies possess under recent legislation they
    1062
    had made a very serious mistake. The question that we are asked to-night to decide is what this House is to do. That appears to me to be a matter of very grave difficulty, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has been right in his view that we ought to content ourselves on this occasion with an affirmation of the mischief which has been done, and with distinctly throwing upon Her Majesty's Government the responsibility for promptly and effectively dealing with the matter, instead of attempting to indicate the precise manner in which it should be dealt with. Let me for a moment refer to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. What it amounts to is this: a reversal of the whole policy of Parliament in past years with reference to railway rates. The policy of Parliament in past years, from the very commencement of railway legislation, has been to fix maximum rates within which the Railway Companies might work by voluntarily dealing with traders, and not to fix the actual rates to be charged upon the railways. Under that system the whole of our great internal trade and commerce has grown up—especially through the special rates, settled, as hon. Members know, purely by voluntary arrangement between the two parties. What the Railway Companies have now done is this: They were compelled by Parliament to lower a certain number of their class rates; they have done so; they have raised others of their class rates, but they have abolished a very large proportion indeed of their special rates. I do not wish to apply a strong epithet to the able men who control our railways; but if I was talking about anybody else, I should say that no more foolish policy could be conceived than that adopted by the Railway Companies. Why they could not content themselves with raising some of the class rates, which they could have done, while they lowered others, and retaining the special rates as they were, to be revised, if revision was necessary, at their leisure, I have never been able to understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington proposes to give compulsory powers in some way or another to the Board of Trade, or an official appointed by the Board of Trade, to decide what shall be

    1063
    the actual rates charged by the Railway Companies within their maximum powers. That is, as I have ventured to state to the House, an entire reversal of the policy which Parliament has hitherto pursued. It may be necessary; but, if so, it ought only to be adopted by the House after complete and exhaustive inquiry, and this House cannot be too careful in selecting the tribunal which shall be entrusted with such great issues, involving as they do millions of pounds—issues of the greatest importance not only to railway shareholders, but to the trade and commerce of this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken a wise and prudent course in accepting the first half of the Resolution as a declaration by the House of its view of what has passed, and as making it binding upon Her Majesty's Government to deal promptly and effectively with the subject. I think he has also been wise in his proposal to appoint a Committee, which, I hope, will endeavour, in a business-like and practical spirit, to find some solution of a difficulty which has vexed and troubled trade throughout the length and breadth of the country.
    MR. W. A. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, he would trouble the House only for a moment in consequence of an observation which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Committee which was proposed would be a Committee to inquire into the results of the revision of maximum rates. He himself understood no such thing, and would be no party to any such inquiry. They had sufficient knowledge of the subject, and that portion of the Resolution which the Government had accepted pronounced a definitive judgment on that subject. As he understood, the only question which was to be referred to the Committee was the question which had been put by the late President of the Board of Trade, i.e., the question of the remedy for the evil, which the Government acknowledged and which the first part of the Resolution declared. Upon that understanding he would earnestly recommend his hon. Friend to be content with the result of
    1064
    the discussion, and to accept the offer which had been made by the Government.
    COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said, he only wished to point out that Ireland had been very much neglected in this Debate, and he was very sorry to find that while the English Railway Companies were making overtures to the President of the Board of Trade, none of the Irish companies had done so. He quite agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that where there was a grievance they ought to leave the matter to him. He hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and he also hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman came to regulate the matter he would not forget Ireland.
    MR. J. JOICEYsaid, there were two classes of persons who had been interested in this discussion—the railway shareholders and the traders; but he regretted that there was not in the House a Representative directly connected with the workmen on the railways, because, after all, their interest was closely connected with the question of the fixing of rates. The important measure before the House for the shortening of the hours of railway servants, which he thought would be a most excellent thing to accomplish, would, to a large extent, affect the cost of the railways, and he hoped it would not be long before they bad in this House a Representative of the railway workers.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he only wished to detain the House for a moment in support of what the hon. Member for Galway had stated. He had that day received a telegram from the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Armagh, and the Mayor of Deny, asking him to bring before the House the fact that they deeply felt the injury to the trade of Ireland caused by the increase of rates, and he earnestly pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the great grievances of Ireland in this respect which all parties suffered from.
    MR. P. STANHOPEsaid, having had the advantage of following

    1065
    this question for some years in this House, he might be permitted to say that both the late President of the Board of Trade and the present one had spoken in terms of so much satisfaction of the legislation of the late Parliament that he confessed he was rather amused to find them so sympathetic with the Motion by the House. While he accepted the unanimous verdict of the House, he must reserve his opinion and his complete liberty of action, and he hoped hon. Members would do the same, and not give away the case of the traders in consequence of the action of the Board of Trade.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: May I say one word on the observations of the hon. Member in explanation? I have never at any time said that the Act of 1888 was intended to reduce the actual rates. What I have said was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said to-night—namely, that it was intended to simplify the law, and enable traders easily to discover the maximum rates that could be charged.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Railway Companies would be entitled to appear by counsel before the Committee, or whether it would be an ordinary Select Committee, who would take evidence in the usual way?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Counsel will not appear before the Committee.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: The Debate has served a useful purpose; and after the statements from the two Front Benches and the promise of a Committee after Easter, I think I ought to be satisfied.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add after the word "That," in the Main Question, the words "in the opinion of this House, the revised railway rates, charges, and conditions of traffic are most prejudicial to the industries and agricultural and commercial interests of the Country, and this House urges upon the Government the necessity of dealing promptly and effectively with the subject."
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the revised railway rates, charges, and conditions of traffic are most prejudicial to the industries and agricultural and commercial interests of the Country, and this House urges upon the Government the necessity of dealing promptly and effectively with the subject.
    SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

  CHOLERA HOSPITAL (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 245.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Objection taken.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I want to introduce some Amendments in Committee. I really hope the hon. Member will withdraw the objection.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell us what the Bill is.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Bill proposes to make certain changes, but its powers only extend over one year.
    Objection withdrawn.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 134.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. A. Picton.)
    Objection taken.
    MR. PICTON: The Bill contains no new principle, and I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection.
    Objection withdrawn.
    MR. ASQUITH: I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. There are a number of provisions, but I think the House generally approves of its principle.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  ALLOTMENTS AND SMALL HOLDINGS (PUBLIC AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Dodd, Bill to amend the Law relating to the hiring and purchase of land by Public Authorities in England and Wales for Allotments and Small Holdings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dodd, Mr. Arch, and Mr. Price.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 247.]

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  Copy presented,—of Narrative of the Partial Mobilisation of the Fleet and the Manœuvres of 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, No. 1153 (Lorenzo Marques) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, Nos. 275 (Switzerland), 276 (Italy), and 277 (United States) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copies presented,—of Reports by the Board of Trade respecting the following Bills and their objects, viz.:—

  (1) Cork and Fermoy and Waterford and Wexford Railway Bill;

  (2) Guiseley, Yeadon, and Headingley Railway (Abandonment) Bill;

  1068

  (3) Midland and Great Northern, Railway Companies (Eastern and Midlands Railway) Bill

  [in pursuance of Standing Order 158A]; Referred to the Committees on the Bills.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to generalise and amend certain statutory provisions for the protection of persons acting in the execution of statutory and other public duties." [Public Authorities Protection Bill [Lords].
  EAST INDIA (CONSUMPTION OF GANJA).
  Return [presented 28th February] to be printed. [No. 97.]
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE (EXPENSES).
  Return [presented 2nd March] to be printed. [No. 98.]
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (METROPOLITAN LESSEES).
  Return [presented 2nd March] to be printed. [No. 99.]
  LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Fifty-fifth Annual Report for 1892 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, — of Forty-fourth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND.
  Abstract Account presented,—showing the Issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the year ended 31st March, 1892, for the Public Funded and Unfunded Debt, Civil List, &c., with the Report of the Controller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.