Commons Sitting of 19 September 1893

INDIAN CANTONMENTS.
MR. STANSFELD: With your permission, Sir, I should like to put a question as to the order of our Proceedings. I have been proposing to move the Adjournment of the House to-night, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the immediate duty of Her Majesty's Government with regard to certain practices in Indian Cantonments, as being in my view contrary to the Resolution of the House of Commons of June 15, 1888. I notice to day for the first time—having been absent from town—that there appears on the Paper a Notice of Motion by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Kingston Division (Sir R. Temple), who proposes to draw attention more or less, though not entirely so, to the same subject, but without assigning any definite occasion or date. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether I shall be in Order in making the Motion I had proposed?
MR. SPEAKER: I also noticed the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Baronet, and it would clearly act as a block upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman if the latter had proposed to move his Resolution to-day. Unless the hon. Baronet removes that block, it will not be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move the Adjournment, even to-morrow. If there be a legitimate occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman may take that course, it will be on the Question that I leave the Chair on going into Committee on the Indian Budget. That is the state of the case.
MR. WALTER M'LAREN: Would it be possible for the House to discuss this question on the Indian Budget without a Motion?
MR. SPEAKER: No; I do not think that would be in Order. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the fact that no day had been given for the discussion of the Motion by the hon. Baronet precluded the bringing forward
1580
of his own proposition. It is constantly held that a Motion which is down on the Paper, but for which no day has been fixed, acts as a block on the discussion of the question with which it deals before the date at which it is ultimately proposed to take the Motion on the Paper.
MR. WALTER M'LAREN: If the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Motion at the end of Question time, I presume the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax could go on with his Motion?
MR. SPEAKER: The Motion of the hon. Baronet cannot be moved to-day. It would come on to-morrow, on the Motion that I leave the Chair.
SIR J. GORST: As this is a matter connected with the administration of the Indian Budget, would it not be in Order to make speeches upon it, and to discuss it when the Indian Budget is under consideration without any definite Motion?
MR. SPEAKER: That would be anticipating the discussion to which the Notice on the Paper relates.
MR. STANSFELD: I do not quite understand whether I should have been in Order in moving the Adjournment of the House for the purpose I intended if the hon. Member for Kingston had not put a Notice on the Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: That raises another part of the question. I think that as a legitimate opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to take occurs on the Question that I now leave the Chair, it would not be permissible for him to raise the question on the Motion for an Adjournment of the House, the more especially as only a short time—only a few hours—will elapse before the subject can be legitimately discussed in the ordinary way.
MR. J. STUART: I beg to give notice that next Session I will call attention to the Report laid on the Table of this House by the Departmental Committee respecting cantonments in India, and move a Resolution.

QUESTIONS.

  ANTHRAX.
  MR. THORNTON(for Mr. MACDONA,): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether

  1581
  he is aware that a boy in Webb's Horse Hair Bedding Factory, Worcester, died about a fortnight since from anthrax, caught in handling horse hair which was imported from Russia through Antwerp; and. whether he can take any steps to guard against the danger thus shown to exist?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The report of the proceedings at the inquest on the case in question has been brought under my attention. The verdict of the jury was that the death was from anthrax. It appeared from the evidence that the bales of horsehair, unopened and whole, were thrown into tanks and boiled for three or four hours; and, according to the evidence of one of the owners of the works, further means of disinfection are proposed. The jury suggested that representations should be made in favour of some means of disinfecting the bales before sending them to England, but I am advised that no reliance could be placed on such means of disinfection as would be practised at the ports of Eastern Europe, &c, whence the hair is mostly exported. If such processes superseded the precautions now taken there would be greater danger than is now the case.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the distribution of a pamphlet, entitled Facts Concerning Vaccination for Heads of Families, which bears upon the first page the words "Revised by the Local Government Board, and issued with their sanction"; and whether it was revised and sanctioned as stated; and, if not, whether the Board will request the publishers of the Facts, &c, to drop the statement of the sanction and revision by the Board?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): I find that about nine years ago the pamphlet referred to was forwarded to the Local Government Board by the National Health Society, and that at that time a few corrections and additions were suggested on behalf of the Board. The Board have
  1582
  no information as to the present distribution of the pamphlet.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I asked whether it is sanctioned and revised by the Local Government Board in the shape in which my hon. Friend has seen it?
  SIR W. FOSTER: The only thing that was done was to make corrections and additions, which were made in the Office by one of the officials of the Local Government Board. There is no sanction and no revision by the Board as a Board.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Although it is so stated on the face of it?
  [No answer.]
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he will produce the Report of Dr. Ballard on the case of Emily Maud Child, of Leeds, an infant who was found by a verdict of a Coroner's Jury, on medical evidence, to have died of syphilis inoculated by vaccination; has his attention been called to the fact that Dr. Ballard's Report denied the fact, and left it to be inferred that the syphilis came from her parents, but that, on further inquiry by a medical authority sent down by the Royal Commission, it was found that there was no foundation for the imputation on the parents; and will he explain why Dr. Ballard did not attend and give evidence before the Royal Commission on Vaccination, as promised by the late President of the Local Government Board?
  SIR W. FOSTER: As was stated in the House by the late President of the Local Government Board, the Reports of the Inspectors of the Department in cases such as the one referred to are regarded as confidential, and it would be contrary to the practice of the Board to give publicity to them. The Report of Dr. Ballard was submitted to the Royal Commission on Vaccination, and, as the Board understand, it has been considered by them, and the case has been the subject of further inquiry by examination of witnesses and otherwise. The Board are not aware of the conclusions which have been arrived at by the Commission on the subject. Dr. Ballard did not arrive in Leeds until after the child had been buried. The medical men who attended the child were of opinion that she had

  1583
  died of syphilis, and Dr. Ballard accepted provisionally their judgment in the matter. His attention was first directed to ascertaining whether syphilis had been conveyed to the child in the process of vaccination, but he could find no evidence that this was the case. In this way it may be considered that it was left to be inferred that the syphilis of the child, if syphilis it was, had been congenital. A member of the Royal Commission who is accepted in scientific circles as the highest authority on the subject arrived at the conclusion which he has published—that the death was not attributable to syphilis, and that the child was entirely free from that disease. The case will no doubt be referred to in the Report of the Commission, and the conclusion at which they arrive with regard to it stated. Dr. Ballard has been most anxious to give evidence before the Commission, but unfortunately, owing to a most serious illness, he has been unable to leave his house in Chester for many months.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Has Dr. Ballard been ill for the last two years?
  SIR W. FOSTER: He has been ill, I know, for many months past.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer me one more question. He says these Reports are confidential. Is he aware that the answer given by Mr. Ritchie in this House conveyed an imputation on the parents that they had suffered from syphilis, and does not that, in my hon. Friend's judgment, release him from considering this Report as confidential?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I cannot take the view my hon. Friend does. I regard the Report as confidential.

  THE CHOLERA.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, having regard to the great loss and inconvenience entailed on the shipping interest, seamen, ocean passengers, and all connected therewith, by reason of exaggerated Press rumours respecting the prevalence of cholera in Great Britain and consequent unnecessary quarantine restrictions on British ships in foreign ports, he is in a position to inform the House officially whether there is any foundation for imputing a general epi-
  1584
  demic of Asiatic cholera in any part of the United Kingdom, and particularly at the Port of Southampton; and if his medical advisers consider that there is the slightest danger of infection from cholera in England on board a ship with a clean bill of health in that regard 14 days at sea from Great Britain?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: With the exception of three or four ports on the Eastern coast, all the ports of Great Britain have been throughout the year absolutely free from cholera, and the Local Government Board do not consider that there is any foundation for imputing a general epidemic of Asiatic cholera in any part of the United Kingdom. We are not aware of any case of cholera at the Port of Southampton. The medical advisors of the Board are clearly of opinion that there is no danger of infection from cholera on board a ship which has, since leaving a British port, been at sea for 14 days, and has been free from cholera and choleraic diarrhœa.

  COMPULSORY RE-VACCINATION.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether any, and, if so, what, statutory power is given by the Vaccination Acts to Boards of Guardians, Superintendents of Lunatic Asylums, Governors of Gaols, the Local Government Board, or any other Authority, to compulsorily re-vaccinate paupers temporarily under their control when such paupers do not apply for re-vaccination; and whether the cost of re-vaccinating pauper lunatics who do not apply for re-vaccination can he lawfully charged against the poor rates of the district in which the lunatic asylum, in which they are detained, may happen to be situated?
  MR. PIERPOINT: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also inform the House whether he believes that an opinion against vaccination given by a lunatic is of any value?
  SIR W. FOSTER: The Vaccination Acts contain no provision as to compulsory re-vaccination. If a pauper lunatic is re-vaccinated by the Public Vaccinator in whose district he is resident, and such re-vaccination is performed in accordance with the provisions of the Vaccination Acts and the Orders as to the duties of Public Vaccinators, the Public Vaccinator

  1585
  would be entitled to a fee for the operation if successful, and such fee would be payable out of the poor rate. I do not think that the supplementary question requires any reply.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say there is no power to compel re-vaccination at all?
  SIR W. FOSTER: No statutory power.

  TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what answer has been received from the Irish Board of Works to the communications he has addressed to them upon the subject of the Tralee and Dingle Railway; and whether the Board of Works have as yet appointed anyone to conduct the promised inquiry; if so, whether he can give the name of the gentleman selected to conduct the inquiry, and his qualifications, and state when the investigation will take place?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Board of Works have made a most careful and valuable Report on the subject of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, and, on the Board's recommendation, the Treasury have authorised the appointment of Mr. James Barton, M. I. C. E., to conduct the inquiry, and have asked that it may be undertaken with as little delay as possible.

  CARDIFF SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House if the liquidation as regards the Cardiff Savings Bank is completed; whether the last and final dividend is paid, or when it is to be paid to the depositors; whether the offer of the Marquess of Bute was accepted to contribute enough to repay all deposits to Friendly and Charitable Societies; and, if so, have the amounts been paid; and whether he can state to the House the total cost of the liquidation, inclusive of the Law costs, and what amount of the latter has been paid by the Treasury?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I am informed by the solicitors to the liquidator that the liquidation cannot be completed until after the Long Vaca-
  1586
  tion. It is anticipated by the liquidator that, subject to the approval of the Court, the final dividend may be paid some time in November. The liquidator states that he has obtained the sanction of the Court to accept, and has accepted, the offer made by the Marquess of Bute. The amount payable will be sent to the liquidator for distribution at the proper time. The approximate cost of the liquidation up to the present date is £8,300. During the earlier part of the proceedings legal costs to the amount of £2,447 10s. 3d were paid by the Treasury Solicitor.

  COLLECTORSHIPS OF CUSTOMS.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how far the recommendation contained in the Treasury Minute of 24th March, 1891, authorising an extension of the system previously prevailing of appointing surveyors to Collectorships of Customs, has been acted upon, and whether the number so promoted will bear comparison with the number of similar promotions for a like period prior to the issue of the said Minute?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The recommendation contained in the Treasury Minute will not be lost sight of, but no suitable opportunity has occurred since that Minute was published which, in the opinion of the Board of Customs, would have warranted the selection of a surveyor in preference to a collector in the ordinary line of promotion.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would state how long has Michael Fetherstone, of Ballintobber, County Roscommon, been confined in Sligo for contempt of Court for retaking possession of his holding; whether a settlement has been come to in respect to the holding in consequence of the dispute regarding which the imprisonment took place; and whether, under these circumstances, there is any reason for his further detention?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): Fetherstone has been detained in prison for contempt of Court since May 3 last, and I understand it is

  1587
  true that within the last few days a settlement has been arrived at in respect of the holding for the retaking possession of which he is now detained in custody. The discharge of prisoners in contempt cases—which is not a matter in which the Executive can interfere—is always dealt with by the Judge who makes the order of committal, and I have no doubt the Receiver who arranged the settlement in the present case will consider it his duty to bring the matter under the notice of the Judge.

  CHOLERA AND THE IMPORTATION OF RAGS.
  MR. THORNTON (for Mr. MACDONA): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Morning Post of the 15th instant, signed F. Taylor Simson, physician, a specialist upon microbes, in which he states that, from personal knowledge of other disease germs, he is of opinion that rags might occasion cholera, and is sure may convey other loathsome diseases; and whether he will take steps to ascertain the opinion held by medical men in England upon this subject, so that it can be seen whether English medical opinion is in harmony with that expressed by the Dresden Conference upon this important matter?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have seen the letter in The Morning Post to which the hon. Member refers. I can only, in reply, say what I have said on several previous occasions, that in all matters connected with the encroachment of cholera in this country the Local Government Board act, and intend to continue to act, on the advice of the Medical Officers of the Board; and if any medical man has any doubts concerning the action of the Board, I would suggest that he should write direct to the Local Government Board, where his communication will receive the most careful attention. It is not for me to differ from the expert advice that has been given to the Department, especially as that advice is concurred in by my Colleague, the Secretary to the Local Government Board, whose authority on questions of public health is widely recognised.

  ARMY EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. WICKHAM(for Mr. JEFFREYS, Hants, Basingstoke): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee recently appointed to inquire into the examinations held for admission to the Army have made their Report; whether he can now state the details of the future examinations for the Army; and whether, for the convenience of candidates, he will make these details publicly known as soon as possible?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The Committee appointed to inquire into examinations for admission to the Army has not yet reported. Regulations concerning the examinations for the future are, as I stated last night, in the hands of the printer, and will shortly be issued.
  MR. WICKHAM(for Mr. JEFFREYS): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some of the candidates for the Army at present in Sandhurst College habitually use eyeglasses; whether some medical examiners offer candidates the use of glasses when testing their sight; whether in the recent case of the rejection of G. M. Nicholson for the Army on account of a slight defect in one eye the medical examiner had refused to test his eyesight by means of a glass; and what are the instructions under which the medical examiners conduct these examinations?
  MR. WOODALL: It is probable that some gentlemen at Sandhurst do wear eyeglasses. In some cases it is necessary to use glasses in testing candidates, in order to determine the nature and degree of defective vision. The Regulations require that a candidate shall be able to go through certain tests of eyesight without glasses, and in these Mr. Nicholson failed. The examination is conducted under instructions laid down in the Medical Regulations, Paragraphs 777 to 780.

  THE COLLIERY RIOTS.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the effect of the verdict given at Castleford by the Coroner's Jury in respect of the death of a miner, James Gibbs, who was shot by

  1589
  the soldiers sent down into that district during the strike; whether, in future, he will, in such cases where possible, send additional police instead of soldiers; if he can state what number of police were employed at Doncaster in consequence of the races, and what number on the racecourse itself; whether it is any cheaper for the districts to employ Her Majesty's Forces to keep order than to employ additional police, and how far, in each case, the locality bears the expense; whether any official inquiry into the recent unfortunate occurrences at Castle-ford will be held; whether, if he should be satisfied that the deceased, or any of those killed or injured, were innocent of rioting, he would take steps to procure as compensation to those dependent on them in the case of the killed, and as compensation to themselves in the case of the wounded, a money payment from the national resources; if he will consider the propriety of, in all cases where life is in this country destroyed by the military forces or by the police, holding as a matter of course by some official of his Department an official inquiry into the circumstances; and if he would consider the possibility of issuing general instructions for the use of the authorities as to riots or expected riots, and the duty of such authorities in the case thereof?
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the truth of the allegation that the men who lost their lives in the recent occurrences at Featherstone were themselves wholly innocent of any share in the disturbances; and whether he can now state what decision he has come to with regard to holding an inquiry into the whole matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): In answer to the first part of the question, I have to say that the verdicts and the evidence at the inquests upon both men who met their deaths on the occasion in question are at present under my consideration. With regard to the second paragraph, the Secretary of State, when appealed to, always advises Local Authorities to employ extra police from neighbouring districts, if possible, in preference to soldiers, and in case of great necessity he lends detachments of Metropolitan
  1590
  Police. But there are occasions when, from the suddenness of the emergency, or the character of the disturbance, it is either necessary or preferable to employ troops. In reply to the third paragraph, I understand that on September 5, 207 West Riding constables were employed at Doncaster, and on the 6th, 267. The majority of these were apparently on the racecourse, or on the different approaches to it. Their employment was in pursuance of a long-standing practice, and the Chief Constable informs me that he had no reason to apprehend a disturbance, and least of all places at Feather-stone. (4) The whole cost of extra police is paid by the locality. When the military are employed, the statutory or regulated charges for travelling, billeting, and feeding are charged to Army funds, and any extra expense is paid by the locality. (6) If the circumstances were such as to justify the reading of the Proclamation under the Riot Act, all persons present were after the Proclamation under a legal duty to disperse. But I cannot go into this question until I have considered all the evidence. (5 and 7) The question whether there should be a further inquiry is engaging my serious attention. It does not seem to be generally known that, except under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, no Government Department has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses or to take evidence on oath. (8) I am considering this question. But it is to be observed that the difficulty in such cases is not in apprehending the law, but in applying it with promptitude and discretion to particular facts.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, except under an Act of Parliament, the Government has no power to secure the attendance of witnesses. Is it not the fact that Commissions of Inquiry are frequently held under the Home Office in the case of riot without Acts of Parliament?
  MR. ASQUITH: There have been cases in which Departmental inquiries have been held. My statement is perfectly accurate.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I do not question the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman. I really wish for information.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have given the information. If a Departmental Inquiry

  1591
  is held without an Act of Parliament that would give the body special powers. No witness who declines to attend can be compelled to be present, and none of the evidence to be taken can be taken on oath.
  MR. DODD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the relative cost to the district of the police and soldiers, or how much cheaper it may be to have soldiers rather than police?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. I have no information of that kind.

  AFFAIRS AT RIO.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS(for Mr. BANBURY, Camberwell, Peckham): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if proper steps are being taken to protect the interests of British subjects at Rio at the present critical juncture; and, if so, what steps; and whether the mail steamers are allowed to leave as usual with letters, &c.?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can give the House information as to the state of affairs at Rio de Janeiro, and as to what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to protect British interests there?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): There is nothing to add to what was stated in the House yesterday. There can be no doubt that British interests are being protected as far as it is possible to do so by Her Majesty's Minister, the Vice Consul, and the Commanders of Her Majesty's ships on the spot. Mr. Wyndham reported by telegraph on the 10th instant that mails and passengers on British vessels would be embarked and disembarked by Her Majesty's ships. I can give no information as to the motives of the revolutionists or as to the definite progress of the revolution.

  THE COLOMBO WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Labugarma main water pipe, which conveys water to the City of Colombo, is insufficiently large for the

  1592
  needs of the inhabitants of that port; that the Ceylon Government constructed the Colombo Waterworks, and by its Ordinance of 1886 enacted that the Ceylon Government should furnish a continuance supply of drinking water fit for human consumption; is he aware that the Ceylon Government further enacted in Section 10 that, for this construction and maintenance, the Colombo Municipality should pay annually for 35 years a sum of Rs. 130,000 and have the right to levy a water rate; and will Her Majesty's Government now insist that the Ceylon Government should fulfil its contract and lay down any additional piping necessary to furnish Colombo with a sufficient supply of water?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Proposals for improving the water supply are now under the consideration of the Secretary of State and the Colonial Government, and will no doubt be shortly carried out.

  BOY ENLISTMENT.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact, as stated in The Star of the 7th instant, that George Kine, a boy who is now 13 years of age, was in March of last year charged at the Stratford Petty Sessions with playing truant, and sentenced to be detained for four years in the industrial training ship Shaftesbury; that after being so detained for 12 months he was, without the knowledge of his parents or friends, drafted into the band of the First Royal Warwickshire Regiment; that the boy has since written several letters to his friends complaining of the way in which he was entrapped into the Army, and begging of them to buy him out; whether he will state what the Rule is in regard to the transference of boys from industrial schools into the Army; whether, if boys of tender age consent to enter the Army, such consent has to be given in the presence of their parents, guardians, or friends; and whether bandmasters or any other person receive a gratuity or fee for boys they get transferred from industrial schools into the Army?
  MAJOR RASCH: Before the Home Secretary answers, I should like to ask him whether or not he is aware that the boy in question was 14 and not 13, that he was not charged with playing truant, but with stealing, and that the Managers of these schools have the power of sending boys to the Army without reference to the parents?
  MR. ASQUITH: From inquiries I have made on this subject it appears that the boy referred to was committed for frequenting the company of reputed thieves after a previous conviction for begging. Before his period of detention had expired he was enlisted, at his own request, in the band of the Warwickshire Regiment at Aldershot. This was done under the provisions of the Act 54 and 55 Viet., c. 23, by which the Managers of a certified reformatory or industrial school may in the case of an offender or child detained therein, with his own consent, dispose of him in any trade, calling, or service, and such disposition shall be as valid as if the Managers were his parents. I have no knowledge of any letters written by the boy complaining of the way in which he was entrapped into the Army, and begging to be bought out. If he has written such letters he appears to have written what was not true. The transfer of boys from industrial schools into trades or callings (including the Army) is regulated by the Act above referred to. The Act contains no reference to the age at which an offender may give his own consent, nor does it require the presence of the parents. In my opinion, it should not be put in force in the case of children of tender age. I am making further inquiries as to the age of the boy. I am informed that the bandmaster receives a fee of 10s. for each boy placed in a military or naval band. I confess I think this practice open to grave objection, and I will see if it cannot be modified.
  MR. CREMER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be willing to receive evidence from the boy's father to the effect that the boy was bothered with questions from two or three officials to such an extent that he really did not know what they wanted him to do; that they promised him a week's holiday if he answered yes; that it was under the influence of that promise he
  1594
  so answered, and that he has bitterly complained since of having been so entrapped into the Army?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir; I will receive and consider any statement properly authenticated which my hon. Friend likes to submit to me.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct inquiries to be made concerning the allegations made by the Painters' Society at Windsor that the wages which are being paid by the contractor of the Windsor Barracks is not in accordance with the Resolution passed by the House of Commons, 13th February, 1891; and whether, in such inquiry, evidence from the Painters' Society, concerning the local rate of wages, will be considered?
  MR. WOODALL(who replied) said, the views of the Painters' Society are before the War Office Authorities, and inquiry is being made into their allegations.
  MR. CREMER: The hon. Gentleman has stated that there is to be an inquiry. Will the members of the Painters' Society have an opportunity of giving evidence as well as the contractors?
  MR. WOODALL: Yes, Sir; we shall welcome information just as much from the Painters' Society as from the contractors.

  THE MAGISTRACY.
  MR. A.C.MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether being a subscriber to the United Kingdom Alliance disqualifies a Magistrate from sitting and acting on the Licensing Bench at Brewster Sessions; and whether subscriptions to other Temperance Associations, or membership of such Associations, disqualifies a Magistrate from sitting and acting on the Licensing Bench?
  MR. ASQUITH: The answer to both questions is in the negative.

  A QUESTION AS TO AN ARREST.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether Abraham Mitchell, recently tried at Dumbarton, who was arrested in England upon a warrant issued in Scotland at the instance of the

  1595
  Procurator Fiscal and not endorsed by the English authorities, was accordingly brought to Dumbarton, bailed out and remanded for trial, before any authority or sanction for these proceedings was received from him or from the Crown Office; and whether such proceedings were regular and usual; and, if not, whether he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of such irregularities?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): This question rather falls to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. He has sent to Scotland for information, and may be able to answer the question on Thursday.

  MASHONALAND.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the communications between the Cape Colony and Mashonaland are free and undisturbed; and whether the authorities in Mashonaland have recently received any message from King Lo Bengula? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also state whether there is any confirmation of the telegram in The Standard of this morning which states that Matabele impis are slowly advancing towards Mashonaland, and that Lo Bengula himself is taking up a strong position midway between his kraal and the boundary near the Matoppo Hills, a range of granite kops about 30 miles east of Butuwayo?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have no confirmation at present of that statement; but I hope there has been some exaggeration in connection with it. As to the question on the Paper, the communications between Cape Colony and Mashonaland are, as far as we are aware, still free and undisturbed. The authorities of Mashonaland have not, as far as we are aware, received any message from Lo Bengula. We are expecting a message to the Queen from Lo Bengula, which I suppose we shall soon receive.

  THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to complaints that unfair and illegal deductions from the weight of coal have been imposed at two coal pits at Orbiston, in Lanarkshire,
  1596
  subsequent to the appointment of check-weighers at those pits; and whether he will inquire into these complaints, and, if they are well founded, take steps to enforce the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Inspector has been communicated with, and the matter is at present engaging his attention.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the objections to the Scheme for the Distribution of the Secondary Education Grant in Lanarkshire, submitted by the School Boards of Shotts and Clarkston, will be referred to the County Committee for their consideration, and whether they will also be carefully investigated and considered by the Education Department before the Scheme is finally approved?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The objections to the Scheme for the distribution of the Secondary Education Grant in Lanarkshire, submitted by the School Boards of Shotts and Clarkston, have already been referred to the County Committee, and will be carefully investigated and considered by the Department before the Scheme is finally approved.
  MR. HOZIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind any objection to the Scheme?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: All the objections will be looked into.

  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the fact that the Treasury has quite recently sanctioned the appointment of a clerk, who is not a Second Division clerk, to a staff post in the Science and Art Department, a post which had been specially reserved for the Second Division clerks of that Department; and whether the Rule that a staff post may be filled either from within or without an office, referred to in a letter dated 27th July last from the Treasury to the Department of Science and Art, is to be regarded as applying to posts which have been specially set apart for clerks of the Second Division?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No staff post can be specially reserved to any class irrespective of the question whether there is any member of the class in the De-

  1597
  partment who is qualified for appointment to the post. In the present case the Science and Art Department represented to the Treasury that there was no Second Division clerk whom they could recommend for the appointment in accordance with the conditions laid down, and in these circumstances the Treasury could not, in the interests of the Public Service, refuse to sanction an exception to the usual rule.

  JUDGES' ALLOWANCES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Attorney General since when it has been the practice to pay to Judges on Circuit a daily allowance of£7 10s. each, and on what authority it is granted, and whether it is also paid to Commissioners; whether lodgings and travelling expenses are provided at either local or public cost; and what is the special ground upon which such extra allowance is granted, and in consideration of what extra expense incurred by the Judges?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): The practice has existed since 1884, and the allowance is fixed by Treasury Minute. The same allowance is made to Commissioners going Circuit. The reasons for the arrangement were the increase in the number of Circuits and the desire to make uniform the remuneration of the Common Law and Chancery Judges. A part of the cost of the allowance is met by the Judges having given up their claim to the services of second clerks.

  THE WAR OFFICE AND CAB PROPRIETORS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is a telephone connecting the canteen of the camp at Colchester with the office of a cab proprietor, thus giving him an exclusive privilege, against which the other cab proprietors have appealed to the War Office, and obtained a promise that the use of the telephone should be allowed them; whether the Telephone Company have refused to make the connections; and, if so, whether he will take the steps necessary to carry out the promise, and put all the cab proprietors of the town on an equal footing so far as the camp is concerned?
  MR. WOODALL: In 1889 the South of England Telephone Company applied for permission to carry a wire on War Department land in order to establish communication between the camp and the Cups Hotel at Colchester. On the recommendation of the General Officer Commanding that the line would be a convenience to the camp, the Secretary of State for War granted the request of the Company. In 1892 several cab proprietors objected that this concession constituted a monopoly in favour of the Cups Hotel, and on the authority of the Company they were informed that on subscribing to a central exchange they would be supplied with similar advantages. It appears that sufficient subscriptions have not yet been promised, and therefore a central exchange has not yet been opened. The War Department has made no promise in the matter, and those who are anxious for the establishment of a central exchange should communicate with the Telephone Company. The War Department will then give further consideration to the subject.

  THE ASSIZES RELIEF ACT, 1889.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make any further statement to the House respecting the difficulties which have arisen in relation to procedure under "The Assizes Relief Act, 1889," and as to any steps which may have been taken by the Lord Chancellor to obviate those difficulties?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Lord Chancellor with regard to this matter, but am not at present in a position to make a statement.

  VENTRY HARBOUR.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Congested Districts Board Inspector on the occasion of his recent visit to Ventry Harbour did not inspect the site on which the inhabitants of Ventry, the Dingle Ratepayers' Association, and the fishermen of the Manx fishing fleet have repeatedly petitioned the Congested Districts Board to construct a pier; whether the Congested Districts Board Inspectors have ever inspected this site; if he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have had the

  1599
  question of this pier before them for the past nine months; and whether there is any probability of the application of the people of Ventry receiving attention from the Congested Districts Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Two members of the Congested Districts Board recently visited Ventry Harbour. They inspected the site of the proposed pier. My hon. Friend may rest assured the matter is receiving the careful attention of the Board. The Memorial from the Manx fishermen was not received by the Board until the end of June, so that it is not very old.

  THE CARRICK-ON-SUIR PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on Thursday last the usual fortnightly Petty Sessions should have been held in Carrick-on-Suir, but no Magistrate attended, and, after waiting the requisite 60 minutes, Mr. Kennedy, Clerk of Petty Sessions, had to make the necessary proclamation that the Court was adjourned for another fortnight; that there were 68 cases entered for hearing, all of special interest to the parties concerned, and many of considerable importance to the public; that plaintiffs and defendants, witnesses, prisoners for trial, policemen, lawyers, and others were put to much useless expense and loss of valuable time on this occasion; that there is not even one Magistrate in the whole town of Carrick-on-Suir; that on Thursday last the usual Petty Sessions were held in the town of Tipperary, and only one Magistrate attended there; that there are only a few Magistrates available for the Petty Sessions towns of Ardfinnan, Ballyporeen, Bansha, Cahir, Clogheen, Cappawhite, Dundrum, Golden, &c.; and will the Lord Chancellor of Ireland appoint Magistrates who will attend Petty Sessions, and will he give the people of the County Tipperary a fair representation on its Magisterial Bench?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper report containing statements to the effect mentioned in the question. The question, however, only appeared on the Paper for the first time to-day, and I have not yet had time to ascertain the
  1600
  facts. The matter shall have my immediate attention. Ten gentlemen have been appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the County of Tipperary since August, 1892, and the Lord Chancellor will be glad to consider the names of any other gentlemen brought before him who may prove suitable for the Commission.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [18th September] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

      CLASS V.
      Resolutions read a second time.
      Resolutions 1 and 2 agreed to.
      Resolution 3.
      That a sum, not exceeding £84,066, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for sundry Colonial Services, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1875,' and certain Charges connected with South Africa."
      MR. PAULmoved a reduction of the Vote by £100. He was, he said, reluctant to trouble the House on this occasion; but there was a matter connected with this Vote, and was recorded in the Blue Book issued the previous day on South Africa, which directly concerned the interests and the honour of this country. He wished to explain how he connected the matter with the Vote before the House. The case to which he desired to call the attention of the House was the conduct of an officer in the employment of the British South Africa Company. His conduct had come under the notice of the High Commissioner, Sir Henry Loch. The High Commissioner, whose salary was on this Vote, had expressed his opinion on this conduct, but had not taken any action, as he (Mr. Paul) contended he ought to have done; therefore, he submitted the subject was material to the Vote. He would tell the House in a few words what were the facts. It appeared that some time in the Spring of last year there were some thefts committed on a farm of Mr.

      1601
      Bennett, in Mashonaland. Bennett suspected that these thefts had been committed by the inmates of a kraal of a native Chief called N'Gomo. He remonstrated, and demanded his property back, but was roughly treated by the natives. His property was not restored, and he appeared to have been assaulted, but not seriously injured. Thereupon, Captain Lendy, of the Royal Artillery, who was in the employment of the British South Africa Company, issued a Proclamation calling upon this Chief, N'Gomo, to surrender himself before sunset in order to be taken to Salisbury. There was no evidence that that Proclamation was ever brought to the notice of N'Gomo. On the contrary, Captain Lendy was told that N'Gomo was absent in the fields; but without further preliminaries Captain Lendy proceeded to the kraal with a seven-pounder and a Maxim gun, opened fire upon the kraal, killed the Chief, his son, and 21 other natives, and carried off 47 head of cattle. There were several accounts of this transaction in the Blue Book, but he thought the clearest and most impartial was that contained in a Despatch written from the Colonial Office, by the direction of Lord Knutsford, to the Directors of the British South Africa Company. If the House would permit him to read the Despatch they would be placed in possession of all the material facts. The Despatch, which was signed Edward Fairfield, was as follows:—
      "I am directed by Lord Knutsford to inform you that he has received from the High Commissioner for South Africa copies of correspondence relating to an attack made by a party of the British South Africa Company's police and certain volunteers under Captain Lendy, upon the kraal of a native Chief named N'Gomo. It appears from the Reports embodied in this correspondence that certain natives belonging to N'Gomo's kraal were accused of stealing from the farm of a Mr. Bennett, and of assaulting him and his boy; that after an unsuccessful attempt to induce Manguendi, to whom N'Gomo is tributary, to send the latter into Salisbury for trial as responsible for these offences, Captain Lendy sent two messengers to N'Gomo directing him to surrender himself to be taken to Salisbury; that the messengers returned reporting that N'Gomo was away in the fields, and that Captain Lendy left word that the Chief was to come to Bennett's farm by sundown, and that if he did not do so he, Captain Lendy, would look upon it as a direct defiance of the white man, and that N'Gomo might draw his own conclusion from that. N'Gomo not appearing to surrender himself, it is
      1602
      reported that a force of police and volunteers were organised and proceeded with a seven-pounder and a Maxim gun to surprise N'Gomo's kraal. That after disposing his party for attack Captain Lendy opened fire upon N'Gomo's kraal without further summons or warning, and that after a short bombardment with shell and general firing the kraal was cleared, the Chief, his son, and 21 natives being killed. Sir Henry Loch, on receipt of the first Report of this affair, pointed out to the Secretary of the British South Africa Company at Cape Town the importance of keeping within the law in all dealings with the natives, and expressed his opinion that the punishment inflicted in this case was utterly disproportionate to the original offence. The full Report by Captain Lendy, subsequently received and forwarded, would, in Lord Knutsford's opinion, have justified much stronger terms of remonstrance than were used by the High Commissioner. There is nothing in the information now before his Lordship which affords any justification of Captain Lendy's proceedings, and, after making full allowance for the difficulties attending the establishment of a European Administration in a country such as Mashonaland, Lord Knutsford cannot avoid the conclusion that Captain Lendy acted in this matter with recklessness and undue harshness. It appears to his Lordship that proceedings of this character are likely to do incalculable injury to the British South Africa Company in public estimation in this country, and he would suggest that stringent instructions should be addressed to the company's administration in Mashonaland as to the steps to be taken for the prosecution and arrest of natives charged with offences in respect of which the Territorial Magistrates have jurisdiction."
      It appeared that Lord Knutsford had been approached on the question of the censure with the object of showing him that he was wrong, but he declined altogether to modify his opinion. Nothing had been done in consequence of that opinion; and when Lord Knutsford said circumstances would have justified Sir Henry Loch in speaking more strongly than he did, he (Mr. Paul) thought the House of Commons might feel inclined to say the circumstances would have justified Lord Knutsford in using stronger language than he did. The Report of Captain Lendy showed clearly that there was no danger, and that he made no serious attempt to arrest this man. The offence which Captain Lendy took it upon himself to punish was that of theft, and what did he do himself? He stole 47 cattle. These were not his property, nor the property of the South Africa Company which was alleged to have been stolen. He thought it was time that something more than a mere censure or protest should be directed against proceedings

      1603
      of this kind. The mild censure of Sir Henry Loch was far too strong for the superior officers of the company, and Dr. Jameson made an able defence of Captain Lendy's proceedings. It was stated that the punishment inflicted had no reference to the original offence. A more extraordinary statement he had never heard in his life than that this cold-blooded slaughter had no reference to the offence committed. Dr. Jameson, the Administrator of the company, issued a circular, the substance of which was that the natives might cut each other's throats as much as they liked, but it was only when a white man was attacked that the company were to interfere. He hoped they should have from the Under Secretary some stronger and fuller information than had yet been given as to the view Her Majesty's Government took of this transaction. He did not know whether there could be an insurrection against the Queen in Mashonaland. He did not know that the Mashonas were subjects of the Queen. But, in any case, nothing occurred which could be dignified with that name. The people who were shot down by Captain Lendy were not the warlike Matabeles, but the peaceful Mashonas. But the question had a legal aspect. Captain Lendy, he supposed, was subject to British law, and he supposed if that officer killed people who had done nothing to deserve it he committed some sort of crime. The blood of these people called not for vengeance, but for justice. Captain Lendy should be put upon his trial before a jury of his countrymen, and then they should authoritatively know whether these things could or could not be done under the shelter of the British Flag, and whether it was or was not a capital offence to be suspected of stealing from a farm in Mashonaland, or of not obeying the orders of a Captain of Artillery. A more serious state of things he could not imagine. He hoped that in every part of the Queen's dominions, and in every part of the world where this country had obligations to meet, there remained unrestricted and unimpaired as the last restraint of the powerful and the last refuge of the oppressed the sanctity of British justice and the supremacy of Imperial law. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out "£84,066," in order to insert "£83,966."—(Mr. Paul.)
      Question proposed, "That '£84,066' stand part of the said Resolution."
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member into the details of the case he had brought forward. The hon. Member belonged to a class of Radicals who took delight in seeking to attribute some evil conduct or malicious motives to British Administrators when they were placed in a perilous position. At this moment Captain Lendy was in very high command in Mashonaland, and upon his courage and skill largely depended the safety of 1,500 of our fellow-countrymen who were colonists in that country. Surely this was not an opportune time for the delivery of so bitter an attack on Captain Lendy and others who were guarding British interests. The situation in Mashonaland was becoming graver every day. Only that day the following news from Cape Town had appeared in The Standard:—
      "Mr. Colenbrander has received serious news regarding the movements of Lo Bengula's forces in Matabeleland, and has left Palapye to obtain further information. He has, however, already reported to Dr. Jameson, the Chartered Company's Administrator, that the Matabele impis are slowly advancing, and that Lo Bengula himself is taking up a strong position near the Matoppo hills."
      The British authorities in Mashonaland were under orders from the Government not to make an attack upon Lo Bengula without first consulting Her Majesty's Ministers. The whole country was, therefore, exposed for the present to these Matabele raids, and all the property of the colonists was in jeopardy. What was being done by the Government? The Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) said the other day that they did not wish to be rushed again into a South African War.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Not rushed.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Gentleman could substitute any synonym he liked. Such statements were to be deprecated. Ministers gave replies in the House for the purpose of pleasing the peace-at-any-price Party, but

      1605
      it was not to be forgotten that disastrous consequences might result from answers of this description when they were repeated to foreign, perhaps savage, potentates. If at the beginning of these troubles the Government had only given a firm reply there would be no prospect of war. This country was committed to the protection of British interests and British colonists in South Africa, and they could not go behind their past policy. He had received letters which showed the deep anxiety felt by the colonists in Mashonaland as to the position of affairs. He was not going to express an opinion whether a successful movement could be directed against the Matabele; but until the Government made themselves distinctly responsible for the safety of the colonists in Mashonaland, they had no right to tie the hands of our officers and administrators there, and tell them they should not make an offensive movement against Lo Bengula without first obtaining permission from Her Majesty's Government. The action of the Government was without precedent, and unjust to the interests of the colonists and the Empire. Either the Government must allow the representatives of the Chartered Company to attack Lo Bengula if they thought it necessary, or they must protect them in carrying out the purely protective policy which was forced upon them by Her Majesty's Government. If Lo Bengula was to be allowed to advance so as to be able to strike, the loss of life and property would fall upon Her Majesty's Government. There were 1,500 colonists out there; and he had received a great number of letters lately from persons who had relatives in Mashonaland, expressing the greatest anxiety respecting the present condition of affairs. The Under Secretary for the Colonies, in one of his statements, had rather led the House to think that the raids of Lo Bengula and the Matabele impis had ceased, or almost ceased, during the last few mouths. But it was not so; for as recently as July 19 the chaplain at Victoria found his church and parsonage surrounded by a Matabele impi who were massacring and mutilating the natives of the locality without mercy from a mere lust for blood. Were they to stand this?—were they to allow it to go on? What were the Government to do to provide for the in-
      1606
      terests of the Empire and the country? The Government had one of two courses before them. Either they could give the representatives of the Chartered Company and the officers in command of our armed Volunteers a free hand and attack Lo Bengula, if they thought it necessary to do so, or they must undertake to protect them in carrying out a purely defensive policy. If the present policy was continued, and Lo Bengula was allowed to advance closer to Mashonaland, and to seize a favourable moment for attacking and destroying the settlement, the responsibility for the loss of life and property that would ensue must fall on Her Majesty's Government. If our colony in Mashonaland were maintained in its strength, it was certain to become the centre of a vast region of civilisation. The countries to the North and West of Mashonaland were amongst the richest and most fertile in the world, and trade with them ought to be protected; for no one could say that the opportunities for developing British trade nowadays were too numerous. He trusted, at all events, that in the circumstances the Government would not refrain from making a clear and definite statement on the matter, which, considering the progress that had been already made in the country, the great prospects of future development in regard alike to commerce and civilisation, and the important interests at stake, was one of Imperial importance.
      MR. WEBBsaid, he had had some experience years ago of the way in which we treated savage tribes with which we came into contact, but he had never heard or read of a more outrageous case of cruelty than that which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh in relation to Captain Lendy. If they took simply the facts of the case as stated by the acting Secretary of the British South Africa Company, and as given in the Report of Captain Lendy himself, it was impossible to come to any other conclusion than that a shameful act of butchery had been committed in the name of the United Kingdom. From whatever point of view they looked at the matter, it was unfortunate and humiliating, and the act was ill calculated to advance our interests in the country. He hoped the Govern-

      1607
      ment would take steps to mark their sense of indignation at what had occurred. The hon. Member for Sheffield rode off on what people of his political opinions were so fond of riding off on—namely, an attempt to show that the Radical Party desired to disintegrate the Empire. The Radical Party did not want to do anything of the kind. They did not wish to support the Government in anything more than that which was well done. They certainly did not wish to support them when they were wrong. He thanked the hon. Member for having brought the subject forward. When he read the Report his blood had boiled, and he submitted that it would be to the eternal disgrace of this country if we did not attempt to put down these things.
      MR. MAGUIREsaid, that as he had been directly challenged in regard to the matter, he felt bound to say that while he regretted the loss of life that took place at N'Gomo's kraal, yet it should be remembered that Dr. Jameson was bound to take some such measure as he did to try to restore order in Mashonaland. The hon. Member who introduced the subject had read to them a letter from the Colonial Office, which was written before they were in possession of the incidents which led up to the attack on N'Gomo's kraal, and, with the permission of the House, he would read some extracts from the letter of the Company's Administrator of Mashonaland and the comments made on that letter by the Secretary to the High Commissioner. On page 32 of the Blue Book Dr. Jameson wrote that—
      "I would ask you to explain to His Excellency that the punishment inflicted had no reference to the original offence."
      The hon. Member seemed to think that that was an extraordinary circumstance, but the punishment was inflicted for resistance to the law as exercised in Mashonaland, and he believed that Mashonaland was not the only country in which resistance to the law was punished. Dr. Jameson's words were—
      "The much-to-be-regretted loss of 23 lives occurred in consequence of the armed resistance to the law on the part of the natives."
      He would suggest that it was no answer to say that the law would be considered unreasonable and unnecessary in England. But the circumstances of life in Ma-
      1608
      shonaland were very little in advance of those in Cape Colony in 1837, at the time the Cape Statutes Ordinance was passed by the Cape Parliament, and the hon. Member seemed not to be aware that the Cape Statutes to a considerable extent, and including the Ordinance, were in force in Mashonaland. It would, therefore, be found that the statement of the law by the Administrator was correct. Dr. Jameson went on to point out that the first serious trouble was in the neighbourhood of M'Gwendi's and N'Gomo's kraal, where a coloured driver of one of the Company's waggons, was killed, and a full Report of this murder would be found in the Blue Book—
      "The next disturbance reported was from the Victoria district, where, on the death of a Chief, his successor refused to acknowledge the white man's authority, and raided another friendly Chief, killing some of his people."
      He maintained that Dr. Jameson was bound to take into account the general disorderly state of the country and to consider what steps should be taken to meet resistance to the law. The Despatch he had quoted went on to describe the unruly state of the natives in the neighbourhood of N'Gomo's kraal after the murder of the Company's driver, but for which Dr. Jameson was unable to bring anyone to account. A party was sent to investigate, and Captain Lendy visited the paramount Chief M'Gwendi to try to insure a peaceful legal investigation of the charge. Captain Lendy conveyed to N'Gomo a message from Dr. Jameson that his safety would be guaranteed, and that after investigation only the culprit, white or black, would be punished. Dr. Jameson further pointed out that the death of the natives was due to their armed resistance to the carrying out of the law; Captain Lendy was warned that N'Gomo intended to fight, and Captain Lendy, Captain Williams, and Major Browne certified that the kraal was in such a strong position that to attempt to enter it in the face of a force of armed natives prepared to fire, and who did fire, would have been to court certain casualty. Dr. Jameson said—
      "Therefore, I think that His Excellency will agree that the course taken by Captain Lendy was the only one open to him."
      Dr. Jameson added—
      "I may say that I consider the relations at present existing between the white population and the natives in the country to be in a most satisfactory state."

      1609
      That was the authoritative statement of these transactions by the Administrator of Mashonaland. He would read the reply to this Report by the Acting Imperial Secretary under the command of the High Commissioner. Writing on July 4, 1892, Mr. H. L. Sapte said—
      "I am directed by His Excellency the High Commissioner to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, enclosing a Report from Dr. Jameson upon the causes leading to the loss of life at the late N'Gomo insurrection. His Excellency, after carefully perusing the Report and the previous Papers with which you have furnished him, is of opinion that, having due regard to the difficulties inherent to the occupation of a new country, and to the necessity for promptly checking any act on the part of the natives that might, if disregarded, lead to further trouble, the explanation by Dr. Jameson of the course adopted appears satisfactory, though it is much to be regretted that measures entailing a serious loss of life were unavoidable. His Excellency still entertains doubt as to whether the fire of Captain Lendy's force was not maintained much longer than was absolutely necessary, for, from the description of the engagement supplied to His Excellency, there seems good reason to suppose that Captain Lendy must have been early aware that the resistance offered by the natives was feeble in the extreme."
      Though he was not prepared to support every detail of Captain Lendy's conduct, he drew the attention of the House to the fact that Captain Lendy, though he may not have acted on every point in a judicious manner, was still carrying out the orders of his superior officer the Administrator, and that those orders were, in the circumstances, in the opinion of the High Commissioner, unavoidable.
      MR. DILLONconsidered it a humiliating spectacle that an Irish Nationalist Member should stand up in that House to defend the action of Captain Lendy, when Sir Henry Loch, on receiving the first Report of this affair, disapproved of it. On receipt of a full Report it was thought that the circumstances justified the use of stronger terms of remonstrance than were used by the High Commissioner. He felt that the hon. Member who had just sat down had not represented the views of his constituents.
      MR. S. BUXTONsaid, he did not deny, and he never had denied, that the position in Mashonaland was very grave, and day after day it was probably becoming graver. The hon. Member said that the speeches of the Under Secretary for the Colonies in the House were,
      1610
      and would be, reported to Lo Bengula, and that probably they would aggravate the circumstances by encouraging the Chief to resist. He thought it was much more probable that the speeches of the hon. Member were reported at Fort Victoria and Fort Salisbury, and the warlike speech which he had delivered that afternoon was calculated to further excite people on the spot who were already excited. Every hon. Member deeply sympathised with those who, situated as they were, were either suffering in body or in property; and the position was no doubt a grave and serious one for them. But if the position was a grave and serious one for these persons, it was still more necessary for the House of Commons to take care that no inciting action of theirs—no prospective action—should involve them and the House in what might be a very serious and dangerous war. The Government had said that the Chartered Company were responsible for law and order and for the protection of the colonists in Mashonaland. They had never repudiated the obligation, and they were ready to accept it; but they had also said that no precipitate and aggressive action should be taken without the assent of the High Commissioner. They had said that they did not believe that an aggressive war would have been in any sense justifiable, and they were pretty certain that it would not have been successful. The Government could not take the risk, in regard to Bechuanaland and other possessions, of allowing those on the spot, naturally excited and in a state of irritation, to rush them into a war. That was the position which the Government had taken up. They were prepared to undertake any responsibility which devolved upon them in consequence of that action; and their anxious desire was, if possible, to tide over the present state of tension, so that they might bring about a peaceful state of affairs. Lo Bengula himself was certainly in no sense anxious to go to war, and in present circumstances a war would not be successful on his part. The Company had now taken considerable trouble to make their position infinitely stronger than before. They had sent up forces of men, and now they had a force in that territory which was certainly

      1611
      capable of defensive action, and, if necessary, of offensive action. There was no doubt that if Lo Bengula chose to attack the Company's forts and to take aggressive action, the Company would be perfectly justified and right in making an offensive movement against his forces; but they must not do this without being morally certain of success in any action they might take. The House, he was sure, would feel that it was too serious a risk for them and this country to run not to be quite certain that in any operations undertaken this country should have success on its side, and he should certainly like to feel that it had justification also on its side for any aggressive action. He had more than once endeavoured to lay down the position they had taken up, and the House, he hoped, would feel satisfied that the object of the Government was, if possible, to maintain peace, but if they went to war to be certain of success. With reference to the case of Captain Lendy, it had been said that this was an unfortunate moment to raise the question; but he did not agree with that, seeing that Captain Lendy was in command at Fort Victoria. While, to a large extent, the safety of the inhabitants at Fort Victoria depended on that officer's courage and skill, the question also of peace and war would largely depend upon his tact and discretion. He was sorry to say that one of their difficulties at the present time was lest those on the spot who were not so discreet as the Government should desire might unwittingly or wittingly, get this country into war before the people here knew how they stood in the matter. As to Captain Lendy and the slaughter of the Mashonas, he, for one, should wish that that class of Radicals to whom reference had been made were more numerous. The hon. Member sneered at those Radicals because they wished to limit and reduce our Imperial interests. He could not conceive that because Radicals desired that a man in the exercise of great authority intrusted to him should carry out his duties with humanity, and with an absence of cruelty, they should be sneered at as endeavouring to reduce our Imperial interests. He was glad his hon. Friend had brought forward this question, because he thought that, in such a case as this—no doubt there had
      1612
      been cruelty, and there had been murder in connection with the attack by the Chartered Company's troops, commanded by a British officer, against the natives—publicity ought to be brought to bear in regard to those matters, because he believed that publicity did a great deal to diminish and prevent them. This particular case far exceeded the bounds of any possible discretion that ought to be placed in the hands of an officer in such a country as this, and the punishment was out of proportion to the offence for which it was inflicted. He was not going to re-state the case. He was bound to say that he did not agree in the attempt which had been made by the hon. Member for Clare to whitewash Captain Lendy. He thought it was quite clear that this action was a wanton attack on a native tribe. There was no question of assault upon or murder of white men—
      An hon. MEMBER: How about the unpunished murder?
      MR. S. BUXTON: That could not justify the slaughter of a Chief and 22 of his men. Captain Lendy was probably justified in going to this man's kraal and endeavouring to secure his person. What was desired was the person of the Chief, in order that he might be tried for theft; but Captain Lendy went with an armed force and Maxim guns and seven-pounders to the kraal.
      An hon. MEMBER: There was armed resistance.
      MR. S. BUXTON: At the last moment no summons was given. The evidence went to show that there was no fresh summoning. At the last moment they did not even read the native Riot Act. Captain Lendy had been censured, and in that censure he (Mr. S. Buxton) entirely and cordially concurred. The censure passed on him was the mildest that ought to have been passed. But when he was asked what further action was to be taken he replied that these events had occurred 18 months ago, and could not now be re-opened, as all the circumstances were considered at the time. He thought this Debate and the censure which had been inflicted would be of great value, and would prevent a similar thing occurring again. He knew that if he had to deal with such an offence again mere censure would not be considered sufficient.
      MR. G. BADEN-POWELLthought the late Government had acted wisely in what they had done. But he did not think this was an opportune moment for re-opening the question. But he wished to ask the Government if they had taken due steps for preserving the peace of the country in case the Company failed to do so? He thought they were under a moral obligation to the natives of the country, just as much as they wore towards the white men who had settled there. He also thought they should have an explanation, before Parliament rose, whether the Government were adopting sufficient means for the preservation of peace. They had, in the conduct of Captain Lendy, an example of what might occur, and he thought it was necessary that all precautions should be taken to prevent an outbreak of hostilities. He would like to hear if the Government were contemplating sending an armed force into Bechuanaland to meet the present necessity there. He knew from personal experience that African potentates were very much interested by what took place in that House, and any statement made by the Government even now would have a far-reaching influence.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he protested against the treatment of Captain Lendy in this discussion, and especially against the charges of cruelty and murder brought against him. He did not for a moment wish to defend Captain Lendy for what had actually occurred. Action of the kind described was very much to be reprobated, and, so far as censure went of what actually took place, he certainly agreed with the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) and his predecessor; but cruelty there was not, and murder there was not. He knew what took place on these occasions. The kraal was surrounded; there was an outbreak, and then, without realising what was about to occur, an order was given to fire, and, to the surprise and dismay of the officer in command, there were found to be more men inside than was expected. He admitted the justice of the censure, but he did not think anything had been proved which would justify hon. Members in bringing such serious charges as cruelty and murder.
      MR. LITTLEremarked that, in his opinion, if the facts had been correctly stated, Captain Lendy could be found guilty of murder or manslaughter. He was as satisfied of this as of the fact that he was standing in the House of Commons. If anyone would read the life of General Picton, he would see that an officer who acted contrary to the law when he was abroad was not beyond the reach of the law when he returned to England. Justice must be done to our officers or representatives if they transgressed the law, and no British officer should assume for a moment that he had a right to go and murder 21 persons. He used the word "murder" deliberately in its legal sense, after reading the papers and forming such an opinion as a barrister of 20 years' standing could form. The fact that the Government had censured Captain Lendy did not necessarily end the matter. Proceedings might still be taken against him on his return home. He (Mr. Little) only stated this view of the case, because he wanted to impress upon the House that, in his opinion, the language used by hon. Members who attempted to mitigate and almost excuse the action of this officer was, to his mind, exceedingly ill-advised. If there was anything which would induce the people of England to insist upon the prosecution of this officer, it would be the fact that any great number of Members of the House had attempted to excuse his conduct.
      MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, that no one who had looked at the morning papers could fail to see that matters in Matabeleland and Mashonaland were of a somewhat serious character. There were 20,000 fairly armed warriors of good physique in the Matabele tribe, and there were only a few thousand British settlers scattered about Mashonaland. It seemed to him that it would be very advisable for Her Majesty's Government to arrange for a massing of troops at Frieburgh, or some other accessible point, so that should an emergency arise, which the Chartered Company were unable to deal with, we should not have to deplore a repetition of the disaster that took place some years ago at Khartoum. Such steps certainly ought to be taken as would place beyond doubt the safety and security of British subjects in Mashonaland.
      MR. S. BUXTON: The hon. Member for Liverpool asked what we had done in regard to Bechuanaland. In order to be quite safe as regards our defences there, we have sent up a considerable number of reliefs, and have authorised Sir Henry Loch to increase the Police Force by 100 men. I may say, in reference to some remarks that have fallen from gentlemen opposite, that I did not use the word "murder" with regard to Captain Lendy, but I said that gentleman's action showed a palpable disregard for human life which was deserving of great censure.
      MR. GOSCHEN: Will a Supplementary Estimate be necessary for the extra 100 police? I know that the police of Bechuanaland is extremely expensive.
      MR. S. BUXTON: The Police Force of Mashonaland is very expensive indeed, and until the House allows us to have our railway it will continue to be expensive. The money will have to be provided in the form of Supplementary Estimates, or it may be possible to utilise savings from this year's Vote, and to include it in the Vote for next year.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. CREMERsaid, that last night he had asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether the Swaziland Convention would be laid upon the Table of the House before it was signed, so that Members might have an opportunity of considering the nature of the obligations we were liable to incur, and he received a very laconic reply. If the negative answer he received was to be regarded as the final decision of the Government, he protested against any Convention being entered into with regard to Swaziland until it had been submitted to the judgment of the House. Conventions and Treaties had been made in past years without Parliament having been consulted, and when difficulties arose Governments interfered, and justified the interference, by saying that they were bound to do so by the conditions of the Treaty. That was the way in which many of our little wars had been entered upon. The chances were that we should be landed before many years in a similar difficulty in South Africa, and the House had a right to know what obligations this country was about to incur
      1616
      there. The present Government were pacifically disposed, but they would not always remain in Office. At some time or other a less pacific Government might be in power and inclined to the opinions just expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield. He hoped, however, that the Lord would deliver us from a Government entertaining the selfish, warlike views of the hon. Member.
      MR. S. BUXTON: I hope my hon. Friend did not think I wanted to be uncivil in giving him a short answer on this point last night. I am afraid the only answer I can give now is that, under the present Constitution, the Government must take the responsibility on themselves of making such a Convention. If my hon. Friend wants to upset that system he must upset the Constitution, and not the Government. We have no power to alter it. It is for the House generally to decide whether this is the most convenient course for carrying such a Convention through.
      Resolution agreed to.
      Resolution 4 agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.
  Resolutions 5 to 7 agreed to.
  Resolution 8.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,315,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Commands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894."
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a question with regard to an answer he gave some time ago respecting projectiles. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that an order had been given to a foreign firm for projectiles for the Navy. He (Mr. Brodrick) asked whether firms had been invited to tender for those projectiles, and what was the difference in the tenders as between British and foreign firms? The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that it was not desirable, in the interests of the Public Service, that such particulars should be given.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: What I said was that it was not considered desirable to give the names of the firm, or the other particulars asked for in the question, and that I could only

  1617
  repeat that the foreign tender was more than 30 per cent. below that of any English firm.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that of course a good deal would depend upon what English firms were invited to tender. He thought that, having regard to the information which had been readily given to Parliament in past years, it was somewhat straining a point to keep secret the names of the firms or the prices. It was the falsest economy to depend upon foreign firms for supplying projectiles of which we ought to have a constant power of supply in this country. The late Government found themselves in a great difficulty in this respect, because they experienced a total paralysis of the trade in 1885 and 1886, when sudden demands were made upon it, and it was found impossible to obtain the necessary supplies because the machinery was not laid down, and there was no staff capable of making the projectiles. The policy of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton) was to build up the trade and endeavour to spread the orders over a number of years, so that a certain number of workmen might be employed, and that there should be a power of expansion. It was perfectly obvious that if our supplies were obtained from Germany and any contingency arose, we should be unable to obtain the projectiles we needed for the country. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Germany for these projectiles, we should not be able to draw supplies from that country if she was engaged in war. They had found a Sheffield firm able to supply these projectiles quickly, the only difficulty being that the Department were not able to give a sufficiently large order to keep the staff employed. If the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not get the supplies at home, no doubt he would be acting wisely in getting them from abroad. But a gain of 30 per cent. was infinitesimally small compared with the enormous extra charge we should have to pay if, in case of war, we should have to obtain these projectiles in a hurry from our own firms. The present was obviously not a time at which to get these projectiles from abroad. Just now there were large discharges taking place at Woolwich, and there were still more coming on. To get arms from abroad was bad policy at
  1618
  present; it would be absolutely suicidal in time of war. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what it was besides price which induced the Government to throw over the policy of their predecessors, who aimed at building up a trade within these Islands for providing warlike supplies.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he was very glad the hon. Member had brought forward this question, though he thought he had some right to complain that he received no notice of the fact till 20 minutes past 5.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, a notice on the subject had been on the Paper for four months.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that passing from that matter, he would claim for Her Majesty's Government the right to go to whatever market might be the best market and cheapest market for the purposes of buying what they wanted in the Navy. He thought also he might assert, as a general principle, that the question of price must be considered in buying munitions of war, or any other articles which were needed for the Naval Service. Some prices were prohibitive, and in this case the foreign tender was 33 per cent below that of any English firm. Such a difference in the price was a matter which could not be left out of sight, although he should presently admit that there were other points which they were bound to consider in connection with armour-piercing projectiles. There was another point even more important than price, and that was quality. He wished to say as little as he possibly could, and he hoped he should not in this Debate be driven to say more in respect of the quality of English armour-piercing projectiles. There was a special kind of steel required for the projectiles in the production of which the foreign makers, especially the French, had been much more successful than English manufacturers. It was of paramount importance to obtain projectiles which would pierce thick armour, and for a shell to explode inside the enemy's ship instead of outside. On the general question of quality and price he would quote an authority which he thought the hon. Gentleman would respect—

  1619
  "If the supply could be got in England without an increase in cost, it ought to be done, but it was not easy to get supplies. He hoped the Committee would support the Government, not because he wished to see an extension of the system of buying abroad, but because he thought the best supply ought to be got. The country could not afford to spend £400,000 or £500,000 a year more in buying at home, though if all things were equal the home producer should have the advantage "
  He was quoting from words spoken by the hon. Gentleman himself in Committee of Supply. Those were principles upon which the Government had acted in this case. The hon. Gentleman was then speaking of supplies of meat to the Army and Navy. He (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth) was now referring to supplies of munitions of war. He admitted that another argument came in. He admitted it was of importance that we should in tills country be able to produce those munitions of war, whatever they might be, of which we might have to get increased supplies in time of war. He admitted in such cases some sacrifice of additional outlay might be made if we got the full quality we required. But then the question arose—first, were the quantities required large? Because, if they were not large, then our stores would not need constant replenishment. If they were laying in a small stock which would not need replenishment in time of peace, a store of something which would only be needed in time of war, the question he had just mentioned did not arise. What were the facts in the case of armour-piercing projectiles? The quantity was small, for this reason—they were only supplied to battleships and first-class cruisers. In addition, these projectiles were never used in practice or in times of peace. They were simply stored up for use in time of war. It was extremely unlikely that any of these stores, unless in the event of a very long war, would need replenishing; therefore there was no waste going on, as in the case with other projectiles. Then came another question as to whether it was worth while for English firms, or for the Arsenal at Woolwich, to lay down plant for the production of some article of which only a comparatively small quantity was needed. Their experience was, it was very difficult to get contractors to lay down plant; and that it was very bad economy to lay down a quantity of plant at Woolwich for the production of an article of
  1620
  which only a small quantity was needed, and which Woolwich would not go on manufacturing from year to year. Those were his answers to the points raised. There had been the greatest anxiety on the part of the Admiralty, as much as on the part of the War Office, to encourage English manufacturers. Orders for armour-piercing projectiles had been given to English manufacturers for the purpose of encouraging them to try and enter into competition with foreigners, and produce what was wanted. But he was sorry to say that the experience of the Admiralty had not been perfectly encouraging. On that subject, as he had said, he did not wish to be driven into a statement on the subject of quality; he did not wish to say anything which might injure English manufactures in comparison with the products of foreign countries. Therefore, he refrained from entering upon that. He wished the House, however, distinctly to understand, and to remember, that the Government were not guided in this matter solely by the question of price. The question of quality had a great deal to do with the decision come to. Acting on the principle which he had just laid down, and desiring to encourage British manufacturers, if possible, to get munitions of war manufactured at home, the Admiralty had taken such steps as were in their power to assist their friends at Sheffield to produce these projectiles.
  An hon. MEMBER: Were English firms invited to compete?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The hon. Gentleman asked whether English firms were invited to compete. Certainly they were—not only one, but more than one—and the very firms with which they had had experience, and who had to some extent produced armour-piercing projectiles—
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: How many?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, to the best of his recollection, there were two or three, perhaps even more. He did not think it was good policy to publish to the world the names of firms who had been unsuccessful in a competition. It was not his intention to inflict an injury upon any of their friends, with whom they hoped to have relations in the future, in consequence of their not

  1621
  being able to produce what was wanted at the present moment. As to the name of the French firm who supplied the projectiles, it was important the name of a particular firm carrying out an order from the British Government should not be found out by any answer he might give in the House of Commons. Their experience was that if a Foreign Government discovered, on official authority, that a particular firm was supplying projectiles or munitions of war to this country pressure might be put upon them. Our interests at home might thereby suffer, and he would consequently refrain from giving the name of the foreign firm.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: It is perfectly well known.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he dared say such might now be the case, but he was not going to give the name officially. As to the efforts which had been made by the President of the Board of Admiralty to assist their friends in producing these munitions of war, the firm who failed to get this order because the French tender was 33 per cent. below their tenders was no doubt very much disappointed at failing to secure the order. He arranged that a special interview should be held with that firm, and the Director of Naval Ordnance gave to that firm, as he was prepared to give to any other firm in the United Kingdom, the fullest information that they could require on any point on which they needed information, and which would enable them to compete with foreign firms. He was present at the interview, and the fullest information was afforded. He was not aware that an interview of that kind had been held before. At all events, he could say this for the Admiralty, that every sort of information would be thus open. He thought it was fully understood at Sheffield that any British manufacturer would receive every information he wished. The hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) was a Member of the late Government. What did they do? He had in his hand a long list, which he could read to the House, of orders given year by year through the Department in which the hon. Member was Financial Secretary to foreigners for these very armour-piercing projectiles. In the year 1887 an order for £11,900 worth was given to a foreign firm. And
  1622
  he could give other cases of large orders to foreigners in several succeeding years. In all these cases there was not a difference of 33 per cent., or anything like so much, in the tenders of the foreign and the British firms. He thought, after that, he would leave the question to the judgment of the House. In conclusion, he might say that in this matter they had made no new departure, except in the pains he had personally taken on behalf of the Board of Admiralty to ensure the fullest information being given to British manufacturers, so that, if possible, they might have British firms capable of producing these munitions.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, the reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty to his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick) was of so unsatisfactory a character that he felt absolutely compelled to move a reduction of the. Vote by £100. The right hon. Gentleman had gone into the history of the order from a French firm of shell which ought to have been given to Sheffield manufacturers, and he had expressed great anxiety to assist "our friends in Sheffield." But the right hon. Gentleman had taken a most peculiar way of assisting "our friends in Sheffield" when he pointed out publicly in the House that the opinion of himself and his colleagues, was that French firms were capable of making much better shells than the houses in Sheffield, who had devoted so much capital and experience to the work. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a special kind of steel was required for the shells that were ordered from the French firms. But shortly afterwards the right hon. Gentleman stated that two or three Sheffield firms had been invited to, tender. If they had not been capable of making this special kind of shell, why were they invited to tender? It was clear that the firms who were invited to tender were capable of producing the kind of shells required. Specifications were sent to them, and the firms themselves thought they were capable of producing quite as good shells as the French firms. He would call attention to the fact that upon the express invitation of the Government Sheffield firms had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in preparing plant for the production of armonr-plate, shells, and other apparatus required by the Government, and this was the way in which

  1623
  their efforts to fulfil the requirements of the country were treated. They were invited to tender, and because the tender of a French firm was slightly lower than that of the English firms, and that mainly because of the rate of wages to be paid, the Government ignored altogether the home producer, and in this time of great distress gave the order to a foreign firm. The right hon. Gentleman said it was absolutely necessary to obtain these supplies from France. Where should we be if our relations with Foreign Powers were to change? Where should we be in time of war if we relied for our armaments and munitions of war upon France, Germany, and other Continental countries? Home manufacturers must be encouraged to produce what was required for the defence of the country, and for the independence of the flag in all parts of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted this to be the case, because he said if it were known to the French Government that a French firm had obtained this contract pressure would be put by the Government on the firm—pressure to do what? To make the munitions of an inferior quality, or to omit some details in the shells which would prevent them when firing from achieving their purpose. That was the pressure to be put by the French Government upon the French firm. The right hon. Gentleman thought he could conceal the name of the firm. He (Colonel Howard Vincent) knew the name, but as the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the Public Service not to mention it, he would refrain from doing so; but the name was perfectly well-known to every manufacturer in the country interested in the question, and it was perfectly well known to the French Government. He happened to be in Paris a few days ago, and he ascertained the name from the French authorities themselves. The Customs House invoice alone would show it, if there had been any difficulty whatever in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman prided himself upon the reduction of orders given to foreigners in recent years. A late Member of the House, Mr. Peter Macdonald, had moved for a Return of contracts given to foreigners in the seven years, 1879–85, inclusive. That Return
  1624
  showed the annual amount was £130,000. By the efforts of the late Government the amount was reduced to an average of something like £30,000 a year, but the moment the right hon. Gentleman's Party came into power they found the orders given to manufacturers outside the United Kingdom were precisely double the amount given by their predecessors. The Admiralty gave orders last year to foreigners amounting to £29,552, and the War Office gave similar contracts to the amount of £30,000.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the hon. Member to state the figures for 1892.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he had not got them.
  SIB U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Admiralty orders for 1892 were £25,880. I got that figure from the Return for which the hon. Member himself moved.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he would point out that the amount last year was considerably more than the preceding year. He had spoken of the whole Government, and the Return showed that, taking the Government as a whole, the amount given to foreign contractors was quite double what it had been in the preceding year. But a far greater question hinged upon the matter than appeared at first sight. The contract for these shells was given to a foreign firm, and the agents of the firm came to the arsenals and to the shooting grounds of this country, and the shells were tested in their presence, so that they had the advantage of seeing the progress which we had made in armaments of war up to date. Every facility and every advantage was given to them, facilities and advantages which were denied to the representatives of the home firms. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was anxious to encourage their Sheffield friends and home producers. What they wanted was not mere sentiment, but actual practice. Why had the right hon. Gentleman given this contract to a French firm? It was because he was influenced entirely by the question of price, because he could get these shells a little cheaper in France than in Sheffield, that he said—"We will go over the heads of the Sheffield firms; we will ignore the distress and want of

  1625
  work that prevails at the present time at Sheffield; and we will, in order to make a little saving in our Estimates, give this advantage to a foreigner, and take it away from our own countrymen." It was this act on the part of the Government, and many other like proceedings, which brought upon the Government today the very urgent and very pressing question of the unemployed. He intended to persevere in his Motion for the reduction of the Vote, in order to mark his sense and that of his friends of the action of the Government in taking advantage of this particular time to place a contract outside the Kingdom, more especially when the article was of such a character as that in question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTthought the House would agree that his hon. Friend the late Financial Secretary to the War Office had done good service in bringing this question forward. The policy of the late Government was to reduce as much as possible the amount of work given to foreigners by the Government Departments. That policy was early avowed and consistently carried out, and if a comparative examination of the amounts in value of work given to foreign contractors by the Government of 1880, and the Government which followed it, were made, it would be found that the amount actually given by the Conservative Government was much less than the amount given by their predecessors. The Secretary to the Admiralty seemed to pride himself on the fact that the amount of work given to foreigners by the Admiralty this year was only £29,000, as compared with £25,000 last year. He seemed to make little of this difference of £4,000.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTobserved that one of the Members for Sheffield encouraged the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty in that view. The right hon. Gentleman might be very brave on that subject in the House, but he should like to see him before an audience in Brightside upon it. The Financial Secretary seemed to make little difference between the two amounts, but it was precisely the sum which the Government asserted that they saved by giving this contract to the foreign firm. Now, what was this contract which had been given away? It was not for an
  1626
  ordinary manufacture. These shells were the most important projectiles that were made for the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman had laid great stress upon the fact that it was absolutely essential that we should have these armour-pierced projectiles in order that the shells fired from battleships and first-class cruisers, which were the vital strength of our Navy, should be able to penetrate the enormous armour and burst inside the ship. Did the right hon. Gentleman really mean that £19,000 worth of projectiles of this kind was sufficient for the Navy in time of war? He used as one of his principal arguments in justification for giving the order abroad that the amount was small, but did he really think that this amount would suffice in time of war?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Certainly not. The Conservative Board of Admiralty, of which the hon. Member was a member, ordered a vast number.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTdenied that the expression vast amount was justified. At the beginning of the term of Office of the late Government, and before the manufacture of armour-piercing projectiles was understood in this country, certain orders were given abroad. It was necessary; and one reason was that the projectiles might be tested, and that the process of manufacture might be found out; but the amount of the orders was not vast. But the point of importance of these orders was this consideration: These were most important projectiles for the armament of our battleships and cruisers, and according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—a most unfortunate state of affairs if correct—the French are more successful in making these projectiles than our manufacturers are, and according to his further argument it was almost impossible to induce our manufacturers to put down fresh plant for the production. The sending this order of £19,000 abroad would probably make a difference of £5,000, the cost of fresh machinery, but if this order of £19,000 had been given to an English firm they might thereby have been enabled so to improve their machinery that in the future they could produce projectiles equal to those manufactured in France. That was a very serious consideration when the House remembered that in case of

  1627
  war the necessity for these projectiles would be doubled, trebled, and very likely increased tenfold. The right hon. Gentleman made a very curious statement indeed, to the effect that the Admiralty were at full liberty to buy in the cheapest market at home or abroad. Had he in mind when he made the statement that the price of labour was involved in the cheapness of production? The question of labour was an important consideration in connection with this manufacture, and there was in operation a Resolution of the House with reference to the payment of labour in the execution of Government contracts. So that the Government, in giving these orders abroad for these projectiles, when they could be produced in this country, practically attempted to go behind the abstract Resolution of the House. To this point he wanted the attention of all Members representing manufacturing constituencies. He did not think there was any desire to press the present Board of Admiralty to make any revelation that would be injurious to British interests or to British manufacturers. If, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, these armour-piercing projectiles could not be made in this country, then it was of the utmost importance that the Board of Admiralty should give British firms every possible help, not only by way of advice, but even by paying a little more for these projectiles, so that manufacturers might be encouraged to lay down fresh plant. This was of the utmost importance, because his hon. Friend pointed out if to-morrow or next year we found ourselves faced by a naval war, or a war with France, we should be in this position, that our supply of projectiles would be cut off. Now was the time to encourage British firms to make these projectiles. This was a time of peace—it was to be hoped a time of prolonged peace—but all omens abroad were not peaceful, and by giving this order to an English firm it would have enabled the Sheffield firm to perfect its means of manufacturing these essential projectiles in England, and then, when we were faced by the dire contingency of war, our supply would not fail.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he did not generally agree with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Sheffield. He entirely dis-
  1628
  agreed with his general protective policy. He was of opinion that they ought to buy in the cheapest market. But there was another kind of protection which the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty seemed wholly to have forgotten, and that was the protection of British shores, the protection of British commerce, and the protection of the British Empire. Why should we have to depend for these projectiles on some foreign firm? There were some matters on which the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty ought to have given the House information. He ought to have told them in what particulars foreign manufacturers excelled English manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman ought to tell the English manufacturers where they were deficient, in order to enable them to produce these projectiles which were so essential to the Naval Service. How could English manufacturers be expected to lay down the plant for these projectiles when the Government on which they had to depend for custom gave them no encouragement and support?
  MR. MUNDELLA: As two Sheffield Members have spoken in this Debate, the House will, I am sure, allow a few words from a third Sheffield Representative. I am sorry, in the interest of Sheffield, this matter should have been discussed. It would have been better in the interest of Sheffield if it had been left alone, and I know that that is the opinion of the best contractors of Sheffield.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: No.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am speaking from their own lips.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: So am I.
  MR. MUNDELLA: No one has taken greater interest in the production of steel projectiles in Sheffield than I have. It. was due to my action that the manufacture of steel at Woolwich was stopped. Nothing could be more absurd than what we found in 1884. Lord Hartington, then Secretary for War, came to me and said, "I find that Woolwich is laying down an enormous plant at enormous cost for the production of steel, for they say Sheffield cannot make decent steel." Imagine a state of things like that, that Sheffield, close to the coalfields, with a reputation for the excellence

  1629
  of its manufactures, could not produce steel to meet the requirements of the Admiralty and the War Office. In the result, the manufacture at Woolwich was brought to a stand. What was the next point that arose? Before the late Government went into Office Lord Hartington and Mr. Brand, then head of the Ordnance Department, went to Sheffield, with Representatives of the War Office and the Admiralty, and arranged with Sheffield manufacturers to produce so many thousand tons of steel a year.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: That is not the point.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Gentleman will find it is to the point if he will give me his attention. The hon. Gentleman made an attack upon my hon. Friend for giving orders for projectiles abroad because they were 33 per cent. lower in price than projectiles from Sheffield, whereas, when he and his friends were in Office in 1891, they gave orders abroad when the difference was only 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. between the Sheffield and foreign prices.
  MR. BRODRICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the instance?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I know what I am saying.
  MR. BRODRICK: But can the right hon. Gentleman give us the facts?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I can if at liberty to do so. In 1890 there was a competition for certain steel projectiles, the amount of the order being £13,080. There were two competitors from France, and there were some from Sheffield. The order was given to a foreign firm, although the difference was that between £109 and £120. How can the hon. Member, therefore, decently make an attack on my hon. Friend because he had given an order abroad when the difference in price was more than 33 per cent.? Now, the facts are these. It has been felt at the Admiralty and the War Office that in the past they have given no assistance to English manufacturers. I have myself constantly complained of this. They have not given the required information, and the trials had not been fair towards the English manufacturer. He was asked to compete, not being told precisely the specific hardness of the article against which his projectile was to be directed, and then his projectile was condemned, and he was told that his pro-
  1630
  duction was not equal to the foreign production. This occurred again and again. Quite recently the late First Lord of the Admiralty told me that my constituents were not equal to the production—that they had not the technical knowledge. Over and over again I have heard this said.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: When?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Recently.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Was this a private or a public conversation?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentlemen will proceed if he does not give way.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have heard this said repeatedly. It was the same at the War Office, where there was the greatest difficulty in convincing permanent officials and others. The hon. Gentleman knows that I was constantly using my influence with them to convince them that Sheffield could produce as good steel as foreigners, as good steel as the War Office required, and we were in correspondence about it. I am thankful to say that we have at last got the officials to believe that Sheffield can, if its manufacturers have a fair chance, produce just as good projectiles, just as good steel, as any foreign country. But the difficulty was to convince the permanent officials and experts that the manufacturers of this country could do that. It has been made matter of reproach against the Government that they have in the year spent £60,000 in encouraging foreign trade, whereas the year before the late Government only spent something like £40,000. What was the reason for the difference? The hon. Gentleman opposite ought to know that last year the Government bought walnut butts for rifles to the extent of £30,000, and this timber grows in Roumelia and Spain, and the wood is necessary for rifle butt ends, but the late Government let the supply run low.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: The Return shows there was a purchase in 1892 under this head.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, there was, for £18,000 less than this year, and that was the real difference. The Government had to lay in butts and fore-ends to the amount of £18,000 more than the year before. With respect to projectiles,

  1631
  I have watched with the greatest possible interest the progress of steel manufacture for the last 25 years in connection with past supplies from Sheffield. What has been the result? The Government have recognised the importance of producing all war material at home, if possible, and have decided that the English contractor should have the chance of fair information, should know what he has to compete with, the specific hardness of the armour he is required to pierce. There is great conflict between the powers of attack and defence, and if we keep the manufacturer of projectiles in ignorance of the strength of the defence his missiles are to pierce, then his productions are brought into disrepute. I must say that it was a very unworthy thing to try to make political capital out of such paltry questions as this. The difference on this order of £19,000 is said to be due to difference in wages. Nothing of the kind. I sincerely hope that the steps taken by my right hon. Friend this year will have the effect that all manufacturers, and not the manufacturers of Sheffield alone, will be in a position to make Government independent of foreign supplies for armour and other raw material. I must complain again that an attempt should be made to make this a Party matter. The hon. Member for Ecclesall said, immediately the present Government came in, they began to spend more money abroad to the detriment of English trade. That is an untrue statement. Nothing of the kind has been done. We have diminished so far as we could the amount of supplies drawn from abroad, seeking to make the Services independent of foreigners in respect to armaments. The arguments used about the expenditure of £60,000 abroad are absurd. What a small amount this is out of an expenditure of 30 odd millions which we spend on the Navy and Army! The matter is almost beneath contempt. But I sincerely trust that we will take courage and develop supplies from our own people, so that in future we will not be dependent upon foreigners for either armaments or projectiles.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, as a matter of personal explanation he might say that the question of foreign supplies was never raised when he was at the War Office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he did not think the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman would be wholly satisfied with him. He told them that the men of Sheffield could make just as good projectiles as the foreigners, whereas the Secretary to the Admiralty said they could not.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I knew nothing about the matter till I saw the Return, and then I made inquiries.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Secretary to the Admiralty also told him that he claimed for the Government the right to buy in the cheapest market, but they were also told that they were not to sweat the labourer, and what he wanted to know was whether the Government were not buying sweated shells? If it was the principle of the Government to buy in the cheapest market they could get sailors, and Admirals, and Ministers of State abroad a great deal cheaper than they got them here. He, for his part, would be ready to pay a great deal more for our stores in order to keep them in the hands of the people of this country. He did not care which Party practised this system, but he was perfectly convinced that it was a dangerous thing to rely on foreign countries for the supply of their war material. The right hon. Gentleman said that not one of these armour-piercing projectiles was used in the course of ordinary practice on a man-of-war. Surely that was extremely dangerous. It was a rule of the Service that four rounds should be fired from every gun every six weeks. The object of that, of course, was to make the men acquainted with their guns and projectiles, yet it appeared that in the case of these projectiles that rule was abrogated. The Secretary to the Admiralty made a great affectation of secrecy in this matter, and said he would not disclose the name of the firm from whom these projectiles were ordered. It seemed to him a secret de polichinelle. They had been told yesterday by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) that the whole of the Cabinet secrets had been for years disclosed to the French Government. Why should they not know this one? For his own part, he was not content to think in the case of war England would send forth British sailors fed on American beef and

  1633
  armed with German cutlasses, and firing French shells. These shells were said to he 33 per cent. cheaper than the British; but he held that it was important they in England should know how to manufacture such shells, and how were they to know how if they did not have the opportunity? They could not rely on France in time of trouble—which might be with France itself—and he hoped the question would be considered with a view to their having justice done to the British workmen in these Departments.
  MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, there was one part of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade which should not escape attention. The right hon. Gentleman had practically admitted that English manufacturers had not had fair trials. That was an admission which practically had been dragged from the right hon. Gentleman. The probability was that if the right hon. Gentleman had not sat for a Sheffield constituency he would not have made that admission that evening. The right hon. Gentleman laid the blame on the permanent officials. He (Mr. Foster) hoped that this would be taken note of by hon. Members who had been saying all along that great reforms were needed both at the Admiralty and the War Office—that the permanent officials had too much power in their hands. If that discussion had done no other good, it was of value for this admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Foster) had held the opinion for a considerable time that it was a libel on the English manufacturer whenever a Member of the responsible Government of this country stood up and told not only this House and this country, but our competitors abroad, that foreign manufacturers were more competent to manufacture war material than our own manufacturers. Such a statement not only implied an injustice to the British manufacturer in the sending of orders abroad by the English Government, but it hindered British manufacturers in competing for orders from foreign Governments. He was reminded that on one occasion a great injustice was done in this respect by Lord Hartington (now the Duke of Devonshire), of course, quite unintentionally. His Lordship made a statement that our manufacturers could not do
  1634
  something which foreign manufacturers were doing. The foreign manufacturers at once seized upon the statement, and used it to obtain orders, to the prejudice of the British manufacturers. Such conduct was, of course, to be deprecated, whichever Party was in power. The utmost encouragement should be given to British manufacturers. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that could not be done, as the Question had already been put, "That the House agree with the Committee's Resolution."
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 20.—(Division List, No. 309.)
  Resolutions 9 and 10 agreed to.
  Resolution 11.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £231.000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894."
  MR. A. C. MORTONmoved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to the appointment to the office of Naval Adviser to the Inspector General of Fortifications. This office was held by Prince Louis of Batten-berg, and he desired to know what the duties were, and whether that gentleman was properly qualified to fulfil them? It was admitted that there had been favouritism in a previous appointment, and on that ground he took objection to this one. He objected entirely to foreigners being appointed to British offices, and he was astonished that military and naval officers in that House should coolly agree to such appointments. He did not know Prince Louis, but it was a fact, he believed, that other competent English officers had been passed over in his interest, and he thought they had, therefore, a right to inquire whether he was a competent person for this position. Unless the Government proved to his satisfaction that we had no officers capable of performing these duties they would have no excuse of appointing a foreigner. Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, and Welshmen had a right to be first considered with regard to these appointments. In his opinion, we had plenty of naval officers in this

  1635
  country who were better qualified in every way than foreigners possibly could be for filling such a position. In order to emphasise his opinion in regard to this matter, he begged to move to reduce the Vote by £700, the salary attached to this post.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£231,000," in order to insert" £230,300."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That £231,000 stand part of the said Resolution."
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he really need not detain the House for more than a very few minutes on this matter. This appointment was made in the ordinary course. The office, which was one of considerable value, though not of the highest rank or importance, was filled by a junior Captain, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, after considering the claims of different junior Captains for this office and their qualifications, came to the conclusion that Prince Louis of Battenberg, who had served with much credit in various stations and various ships during the course of his naval career, was, on the whole, the fittest person for the office, to which he was accordingly appointed. His hon. Friend put forward the argument that Prince Louis was a foreigner. The hon. Member was mistaken, because since the year 1868 Prince Louis had been a naturalised Englishman, and he entered the Navy shortly after his naturalisation. He served on the Britannia as a boy, doing exceedingly well, and he served with credit as a Lieutenant. In all his earlier career, when he proved himself to be an efficient officer of the Navy, he was no near relative of the Queen.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I said nothing about the Queen.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he might as well explain this fact, because some people might think it was by some special favouritism that Prince Louis of Battenberg had obtained the position he now held. He could only say, in common with everyone else at the Admiralty, that they had found him a most efficient officer, and peculiarly well qualified to fill the office. There was absolutely no favouritism in the appointment, Prince Louis having been
  1636
  selected simply on account of his high merit as an officer. His hon. Friend had asked what the duties of the office were. He had already explained that it was always filled by a junior Captain; therefore, it would be seen that it was not an office of the highest importance. Generally, an officer was chosen who had lately been employed on sea service, and that qualification Prince Louis possessed. The tenure of the office was usually for two years, and the duty of the officer who held it was to represent naval interests on the Defence Committee with special reference to commercial ports and coaling stations. This was an office which enabled touch to be kept between the Admiralty and the War Office on very important matters which necessitated the freest communication, and that a junior Captain should be employed in this way was exceedingly useful, and prevented any friction or any want of complete understanding between the War Office and the Admiralty. The appointment had proved of great benefit to the relations between the two Departments, and had facilitated the solution of questions between them, especially with reference to the important question of combined action in the preparations for war. There was no subject connected with the Admiralty or the War Office on which it was more essential there should be complete harmony between the two Departments than on that of combined action in, and preparation for, war. Those were the duties attaching to the post of Adviser to the Inspector of Fortifications which Prince Louis now held.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Does this junior Captain represent the Government in connection with war?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHreplied, no; but there were junior officers in the Navy who were capable of rendering service in the consideration of questions of this sort. Of course, the important decisions were taken by the Board of Admiralty and the Secretary of State; but where any junior officer, who was an efficient man, made valuable suggestions, he hoped and believed they would receive quite as much consideration as if they came from an Admiral or a Field Marshal. He had again to say that the office under discussion was a useful

  1637
  one, and was admirably filled by Prince Louis.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MAJOR RASCHwished to call the attention of the House to the continued injustice perpetrated on the sailors and fishermen of Kent and Essex, caused by the direct orders of the First Lord of the Admiralty. So great was this grievance and injustice that he proposed to divide the House on the question if he could get anyone to tell with him. For the last 18 mouths the Admiralty had been dredging the channel from Chatham to Sheerness in order that they might be able to bring ships of war down the Medway. The Admiralty took the deposit of mud which they dredged from the Medway, and they threw it broadcast on the fishing grounds of the Kent and Essex fishermen. The defence which the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty had always made was that the channel must be dredged, and the mud put somewhere. That defence was absolutely futile. Of course the channel must be dredged, but to say that the mud must be deposited on the fishing ground was about as sensible and reasonable as it would be to say it ought to be deposited in Old Palace Yard. The Admiralty had no defence, and they ought to shoot this mud where other contractors were obliged to shoot it—that was in deep water some 10 or 12 miles on the other side of the Nore Light. In consequence of the conduct of the Admiralty in acting in the way of which he complained, the fishing grounds were covered with débris, the fish were driven away, the men's nets were torn and broken, and practically these sailors and fishermen were being driven off the coast, which meant that some of the finest class of men were being driven out of employment and out of the country. The Admiralty had not the slightest excuse or reason for carrying on this practice. Under the Fishery Acts which were passed whilst the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) was at the Board of Trade, fishery districts were empowered to prosecute anybody who deposited refuse or débris on these
  1638
  grounds, and if any Public Body or Corporation shot mud on the fishing grounds they were very properly had up and heavily fined. Even such an august Body as the London County Council had to take its two sludge boats right out to sea and deposit the mud in deep water. But the Board of Admiralty, in defiance of all remonstrances and petitions, and flying in the face of the law, continued to take mud on to these fishing grounds, the excuse for their conduct, he supposed, being that they were a Public Department under the Crown, who were, therefore, above the law, and could do precisely as they liked. The matter had frequently been brought under the notice of the Admiralty. In June of last year he moved a reduction of the Vote for the purpose of calling attention to this very practice, and Memorials and Petitions had been sent in to the Board. Some little time ago a deputation waited on Lord Spencer, who promised a Committee of Inquiry. The gentlemen composing this Committee of Inquiry went to a place called the Lea; they sat for three hours, and, although they came with their minds made up against the fishermen, he believed they had drawn up a Report which was so hostile to the action of the Admiralty in this matter, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not dared to lay the Report on the Table of the House. Afterwards, when he (Major Rasch) called attention to the matter, the Secretary to the Admiralty treated him with a kind of accentuated harshness which was very much to be deprecated, and then moved the Closure in order, he imagined, to prevent him (Major Rasch) replying and defending himself. In order to bring the matter home to the right hon. Gentleman, and in the hope of relieving his own constituents of this nuisance for the future, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot move a reduction—that has already been done—but he can divide against the whole Vote.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, he would adopt the latter course.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid that, as this concerned the Works Department of the Admiralty, he might be permitted to reply, although the only answer he

  1639
  could give to the hon. and gallant Member would be a repetition of former answers on the point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was doing an injustice to the gentlemen who were sent down to inquire into this matter when he said they went down with closed minds. He had read their Report—which was a confidential one, and could not, therefore, be placed on the Table of the House—and it was not so conclusive as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. They did report that a certain amount of damage was done to the fishing ground, though nothing like the amount alleged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his supporters. The real answer was this, and he had given it before: This work of dredging the channel of the Medway was, according to naval advisers of the Admiralty, absolutely necessary, and it could not be discontinued. They must have the channel placed in such a position as to allow the passage of the largest ships in the Navy. But once the work was completed, as it would be in a short time, arrangements would be made whereby future dredging operations would be carried on in a manner that would obviate any possible objection on the part of the hon. and gallant Member and his constituents.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had given a most complete and satisfactory answer to everything the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not say, but no answer to anything he did say. Nobody ever disputed the necessity for this dredging, but what they did say was that it was not necessary and right to shoot all the refuse dredged from this channel on to the fishing ground of these poor people. It was surprising how easily and quickly a fishing ground might be ruined by such means, for the débris tore and cut the nets of the fishermen, and drove away or killed the fish, and thus the means of livelihood of many hardworking fishermen on the coast in question were being seriously interfered with by the action of the Admiralty. No answer had been given or attempted to be given by the Government, and under these circumstances he had no alternative but to vote with his hon. and gallant Friend.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 33.—(Division List, No. 310.)
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 12 agreed to.
  Resolution 13.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £956,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894."
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the pension arrangements and the manner in which the dependent relatives of those who were lost in such catastrophes as that of the Victoria were provided for. When the Victoria went down he endeavoured to get the Government to undertake the responsibility of providing for those who suffered by the loss. Unfortunately he did not succeed. He desired again to express the opinion that this obligation should be undertaken by the country. Whenever there was a great naval catastrophe the public responded very liberally, but there was a general desire among naval men to have an Insurance Fund, towards which the men might themselves make some voluntary contribution. The desire was that the fund should be an Insurance Fund for the widows and families when the men died even outside the Service. The feeling of naval men was that the country should give an assurance that in the event of any mishap overtaking seamen those who were left behind should be adequately provided for. To this might be added the funds now administered by various bodies, such as the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund. The naval men suggested that the Government should appoint a Committee to investigate the position of the various funds in existence, many of which were being administered by the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund. There were the funds connected with the Captain, £10,000; the Eurydice, £4,000; the Atalanta, £2,000; the Naval Exhibition Fund, and the Victoria Fund, from which latter it was estimated they would have a balance of £25,000. The feeling was that these funds administered by the Patriotic Fund Commissioners were not being adminis-

  1641
  tered in the way they should be. There was a sum of £42,000 available from these funds for the nucleus of such a fund as he suggested, and therefore he asked the Admiralty to seriously consider whether it was not possible to appoint a Committee. He would not impute any negligence to the Patriotic Fund, but it was not a popular body. It was too official, and out of touch with the spirit of the people for whom these funds were collected. Naval men were very strongly of opinion that the balances that had accrued should form the nucleus of this Naval Insurance Fund. He had an idea that at the time of the loss of the Victoria Earl Spencer was considering the advisability of appointing a Committee on the subject. There was also the question of meeting the claims of men who were within a few months of completing 20 years' service. He had also formally to call attention to the anomalous position of the chief petty officers in regard to pensions, and also to the question of allotment letters left behind by men on foreign service for the benefit of wives and families. The chief petty officers were in the position that, though promoted in rank, they had no advantage as to pension. This was a very great grievance, and one that ought to be remedied, he thought, without delay. These men should not be asked to assume greater responsibility than they otherwise would have without allowing them to have a corresponding advantage. On the other question—that of allotments—he thought it was known to most Members who were interested in the dockyards that the system as it existed at present was a serious one leading to great evil and mischief. He hoped that upon this matter the Government would take the right course, and throw over those official obstacles which had stood in the way of reform for so many years.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, it was a mistake to say that the Naval Exhibition Fund was administered by the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund. It was at first proposed that the Naval Exhibition Fund of £40,000 would be administered by them, but that course was not adopted.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, he was quite aware of that, and he had not stated that it was.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he certainly gathered the opposite from the words used.
  MR. CLOUGHsaid, he wished to support the observations of the hon. Member for Devonport as to the institution of an Insurance Fund for naval men, and he also wished to urge the claims of men to a pension who had not reached the maximum of their service of 20 years. There were many men who, having served 19 and 19½y years, ought to be entitled to consideration. As to the chief petty officers, he agreed that they suffered great hardship, and he hoped the question would be kept in view. A sergeant in the Army got £36 per annum, but these men got only £33, although the conditions of service were equal. He hoped that, at any rate, this matter would be looked into, and that the Army sergeant and the chief petty officer of whom he spoke would be placed upon an equal footing. This would be but fair and equitable. He agreed also with regard to what had been said on the question of allotments.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,)said, that the hon. Member would not expect from him any intimation of a policy in regard to an Insurance Fund. All that he could do now was to express his entire sympathy with the object, and his hope that something might come of the suggestion. He was glad to have the assurance that the men in the Navy were anxious that such a fund should be established, and he was sure that the sympathy of his Colleagues would be no less warm than his own with such a meritorious proposal. He would not enter into the question of the administration of existing funds, or into the system of the Patriotic Fund. The Admiralty had no official control over these matters; but, so far as the First Lord of the Admiralty was concerned, the suggestions he had made were in the same direction as that indicated by the hon. Member. Earl Spencer had distinctly kept open the possibility of the appointment of a Committee which should have for its specific purpose the gathering into one fund of all the dispersed balances that now existed for naval charitable objects. He had no doubt that the suggestion would bear fruit, and he hoped that it would be at no distant day. The experiment of admitting direct representatives of the men to the administration of

  1643
  the Victoria Fund had turned out extremely well. The Admiralty Fund had been distributed. Seventy-two claims had been made for pensions for widows, and 67 had been already paid. In 81 cases of dependent relatives 65 had received the maximum, so that practically all that the Admiralty could do with the Navy Vote and the Greenwich Hospital Fund had been done. Happily there remained the large sum given by the public, and which he hoped would be applied in eking out the somewhat slender assistance granted by the State.
  MR. BAKERsaid, if a man served 15 years and then renewed for 15 more he appeared to get no credit for his first term of service.
  MR. CLOUGHrose, but—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already spoken, and could not speak again, the House not being in Committee.
  MR. CLOUGHbegged pardon. He had forgotten at the moment.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, his point with regard to the pensions had not been replied to.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,)was understood to say he had taken a great interest in the question, and he wished that it might be possible to devise some system that would be satisfactory.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 14 and 15 agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Resolution 16 agreed to.
  Resolution 17.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,724,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid, this was a convenient time for calling attention to the subject of telephones, and endeavouring to ascertain the policy of the Government on the question. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that up to the period of the death of Mr. Raikes the Telegraph Department showed a considerable growth of revenue, even with 6d. telegrams. From that time, however, the revenue
  1644
  began to fall off. The Postal Authorities attributed the falling off to the increasing popularity of telephones, and in order to cope with what they seemed to have regarded as an evil, the House of Commons, at the fag-end of last Session, was persuaded to allow the Postmaster General £1,000,000 to buy up the trunk lines between town and town, leaving to the Telephone Companies the local exchanges in the cities and towns. Now it was plain that a grosser blunder was never perpetrated. It was a good illustration of the old story of dividing the oyster, the Government taking the shell and leaving the oyster to the Companies. What could be more foolish than for the Government to construct for itself a trunk line from London to Canterbury, leaving both Canterbury and London to be supplied by the Companies? It was clear that the Government had taken over the costly and unprofitable, and left the inexpensive and remunerative system to the Companies. What he would like to know was this: Had the Government ascertained what was the proportion of profits derived from trunk lines from town to town, to the profits realised in our towns and cities? The answer was that 500 local messages would be sent to one trunk line message. All the patents, or nearly all the patents, were exhausted, and there was a great opportunity for the Government to obtain control over them. On the other hand, he was informed that the National Telephone Company were extending their operations on such a scale that it would soon be impossible to buy them out. With respect to the cost of the Service, there was much to complain of. He was informed that the cost of telephone communication in Australia was £6 per house; in Sweden only £4 per house, but in England £20 per house. He would now direct attention to the administration of the Telegraph Department. He had laid it down as a principle that every person in the United Kingdom, whether near to or distant from a great centre of population, should be placed on an equality with the richest of his fellow-countrymen in the towns as regarded the enjoyment of postal and telegraphic facilities and payment for them. He thought people should not be punished for living in the country; and that the Post Office Authorities, with a surplus exceeding £3,000,000, and full command of the railways, should no longer punish a man

  1645
  with petty fines, under the name of "porterage," for the remoteness of his residence, thus adding yet another incentive to the migration of the rural population into the towns. Further, he contended that subsidies, or guarantees towards the cost of maintaining local telegraph offices, should cease to be exacted from private persons, such as farmers and shopkeepers, in sparsely-peopled parishes, and that in future all telegrams, like all letters, should be delivered free, irrespective of distance. On the subject of guarantees, he had received the following letter from Mr. W. J. Myatt, of Myatt's Hextable Horticultural Company, Swanley, Kent:—
  "March 9th, 1893.
  "May I, however, suggest as an addition that the present practice of making gentlemen who guarantee telegraph lines and offices liable for any deficit in a given year, notwithstanding the G.P.O. may have made profits in previous years, should be amended by taking in account the previous profits. I, with others, guarantee the Post Office an income of £28 a year on a short telegraph line from Swanley Junction to this place, which has, for two years, turned out profitably, but if from any unforeseen occurrence there should be a loss, it would be very hard upon us. The guarantee extends over seven years from the commencement, and the Department would not put up the line unless we subscribed these onerous terms."
  This shabby and rapacious system only brought in £19,000 a year to the Post Office. Although the Post Office realised such an enormous surplus, it was extremely sharp in small bargains with persons who could not help themselves. Mr. G. F. Chambers, of Northfield Grange, Eastbourne, wrote—
  "You are not perhaps aware of the extremely shabby trick of the G.P.O. in calculating how a telegraph guarantee is to be satisfied. They only allow outgoing telegrams to reckon, ignoring the fact that incoming telegrams yield earnings which would not be realised but for the existence of the telegraph office which is the subject of the guarantee. … Consequent upon the opening in his village of a guaranteed telegraph office, a Liverpool shipowner established the practice of having telegraphed to him rather for his satisfaction and pleasure, so to speak, a large amount of shipping news, which under the circumstances required neither reply nor acknowledgment. In virtue of this, his clerks at Liverpool spent on his behalf, in telegrams to his residence, which was in Herefordshire, many pounds, while the gentleman in Herefordshire spent only shillings at the rural office. It seems to me grossly unfair that only the local shillings for messages sent outwards should count in relief of the guarantors, and the Liverpool pounds for incoming messages be wholly ignored."
  1646
  He had questioned the Postmaster General upon this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman had argued that it would be unfair to count the revenue accruing at another place. It appeared, however, to be a clear case for applying the doctrine of "betterment," so much in favour with the right hon. Gentleman's Party. If the establishment of the guaranteed office improved the revenue at other points, surely that fact should be taken into account; just as, it was contended, the cutting of a new thoroughfare should be taken into account in rating the shopkeepers along the line of it. At all events, this keenness in small bargains contrasted strangely with the wasting of tens of thousands on such contracts as those with Messrs. De La Rue, with the Railway Companies (respecting "service" messages), and for the Calais-Brindisi service. Another subject of frequent complaint appeared to be the levying of excessive "porterage" charges for telegrams when the addressee lived outside a certain radius. In some country districts, peopled by farmers, this charge amounted to a denial of the privilege of telegraphic communication with markets, and the outer world generally. It had been proved that a boy would often earn for the Government perhaps 10s. for "porterage" in a morning, while his weekly wage only amounted to 5s. In the following case, however, the writer was a town resident:—
  "A5, Exchange Buildings,
  "Liverpool.
  "Dear Sir,—From the enclosed correspondence you will see that my residence is between two and three miles from the U.P.O. The message in question was delivered by a messenger who travelled by omnibus (fare 2d. each way, as I was informed by the messenger), and I was charged 1s. 6d. for this delivery; so it appears the P.O. made a clear profit of 1s. 2d. on the delivery, besides the charges paid by the sender for the transmission of the message.
  "Yours truly,
  "D. LE ROUGETEL."
  Mr. Thomas Heald, solicitor, of Greenfield House, Billinge, near Wigan, said—
  "I am glad you are taking action with regard to telegraph messages to villages. I live in the Local Board district of Billinge, of which I am Chairman, and for every telegram received from Orrell, three miles away, we pay 1s. 6d. for porterage. We have only one delivery of letters, and none on Sunday. Take

  1647
  another district, Parbold, near here, the same porterage is charged; and as to letters, postmen will not deliver them even 20 yards out of their beat unless paid extra for doing so."
  The following letter referred to the same subject. It was from Mr. Alfred Blomfield, of Orange Hall, Gasfield, near Halstead, Essex:—
  "I have the misfortune to live a few yards over three miles (by road) from the nearest telegraph office; and although it is little more than half an hour's walk by the fields, am charged the sum of 1s. 6d. for the delivery of telegrams. I cannot for the life of me see why we should be charged for the delivery at all. If it pays the Postal Department better to deliver the telegrams from the neighbouring town, rather than have a telegraph office in every village, let them do so; but every telegram, like every letter, should be delivered free. If not, those who live half a mile from the office should pay 3d., and those only a few hundred yards 1d., and so on. As it is, we whose business compels us to live in the country have to pay not only for the delivery of our own messages, but we also bear the cost of nearly all the telegrams delivered in the towns. It is in this way: A messenger can easily deliver a telegram here, and return to the office in an hour and a half (for which I am charged 1s. 6d.), and the rest of the day he will be delivering telegrams within the mile circle free. I happened to be in the office the other day and saw the lad take his wages for the week. I noticed that he was paid 5s., or about the same amount as would be charged for delivering three telegrams here, which could easily have been done in six hours. Other farmers are even worse off than I am. A neighbour of mine, although distant from here only about half a mile, by a good hard road, or footpath, cannot have a message delivered under 2s. 6d. There has been a good deal of talk of late about the depopulation of our villages, but this is not the way to make country people feel in touch with the towns. We should much more often get a wire as to the state, say, of the fruit and vegetable market so as to know when to send, and when not to send; but we have to tell our salesmen not to wire unless the matter be very important."
  The Department sometimes, however, caught a tartar. Thus, the Rev. H. W. Stewart, of Lumley Vicarage, Fence Houses, wrote—
  "It may interest you to know that the Post Office for 18 months charged me 1s. porterage on telegrams, and, consequently, I had the distance measured. They then invented a new road to my vicarage, going first in the opposite direction and then back again. They have now for a few months charged me 6d., without writing to me upon the subject of their decision."
  Those who love a hearty laugh ought to be grateful to the Post Office for the never-failing amusement provided for them in its solemn decisions as to the
  1648
  charges to be levied for telegraphing proper names. Some of these might have been laid down by Dogberry himself. But the broad humour of them came out best on comparing them, and endeavouring to trace the common principle on which they had been drawn up. The ground of the decision was in each case wisely kept back. There was an Emperor who declared himself to be above the rules of grammar. But it had been reserved for the British Postmaster General to set himself above the dictates of common sense. He proposed to give a few of the conflicting Rules that had come under his notice. The following was a list of places, the names of which passed as one word:—Breeze Hill, Cabbage Hall, St. Michael's Hamlet, Sandown Park, Toxteth Park, Druids' Cross, West Derby, Cressington Park, Fulwood Park, Princess' Park, Sefton Park, Stanley Park, Little Crosby, and Romney Street. The following counted as two words each:—Dingle Hill, Edge Hill, Low Hill, Mossley Hill, Old Swan, Rice Lane, The Brook, Victoria Park, Grassendale Park, Newsham Park, Shiel Park, Great Crosby, and Knotty Ash. Port Saïd was, by the Eastern Telegraph Company, counted as one word, in the General Post Office it was counted as two words. The British Postal Authorities counted ironworks as one word, steelworks as two words, 25½ as one word, 25A as two words, 12½r as one word, two-and-half as two words, per cent. as two words, and pro cent. as one word. Pitwood, blueblack, Ashton-on-Ribble, oatmeal, figurehead, coffee-mill, and broadcloth counted as one word; while spoolwood, blackwhite, cargo fleet, toll-end, bonemeal, augerhead, pepper-mill, and teacloths counted as two words. West Derby counted as two words, West Kirby as one word, some time (ago) as one word, sometime (future) as two words, Madame D'Albany as two words, Madame D'Orsay as one word, fishmarket as one word, cattlemarket as two words, Edge Hill (Liverpool) as two words, Edge Hill (Warwickshire) as one word. This list could be continued ad infinitum. The following letter appeared in The Standard:—
  "Sir,—In sending a telegram from Kensington to Tulse Hill not many days ago, 'Tulse Hill' was charged as one word. I had occasion to wire to a friend to-night from a Brixton Post Office, where they charged 'Not-

  1649
  ting Hill' as two words. Risum teneatis amici?
  ."I am, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant,
  "PERPLEXED.
  "June 21."
  Mr. W. J. Borrows, of 18, Llanbleddian Gardens, Cardiff, wrote to him—
  "I was sending a telegram of 11 words, and my initials 'W. J. B.' The official asked me for 7d. I gave him 6d., crossed out 'W. J. IV and wrote 'Borrows,' and wondered why they wanted l½d. for wiring three letters, when they were willing to send seven for ½d."
  Any compound word which could not be shown in a dictionary to be a single word was declared to be chargeable as three words. A recent writer in a newspaper said—
  "The word 'mother-in-law,' is declared to be chargeable as three words. The writer, who though at present he has not a mother-in-law, looks forward to a time when his position in this respect may be changed, is naturally anxious to know why, to the calamity of this relationship, a tax of the kind should unnecessarily be added. Possibly the frequency with which mothers-in-law figure in domestic telegrams may explain the apparent perverseness of the Department. It will be easily understood that the admission of the word into the privileged class of recognised compounds would involve a serious sacrifice of revenue."
  Messrs. G. G. Gilchrist and Co., of 3, Peter Street, Liverpool, wrote—
  "A telegram containing the letters 'gpo' in the text can be sent so as to count the combination as one word. If, however, a telegram is sent "Smith gpo Dublin" the abbreviation, as you will see by enclosed letter (from the General Post Office), is chargeable as three words."
  Again, "mp" written small was counted as one word, while "M.P." written with capitals was charged as two words. "Upstairs" was charged as one word, and "downstairs" as two words; and "De Vere" was still charged as one word, but "De Vere Gardens" as three words. The Rev. E. Ledger, of Barham Rectory, Claydon, Ipswich, said—
  "Five figures, or 91½, count as one word in a telegram; but 91A is two words."
  The Rev. H. W. Stewart, of Lumley Vicarage, Fence Houses, wrote—
  "I have to-day been charged an extra halfpenny upon the word 'Notting Hill,' which the Post Office consider two words. The complaint is made upon form T. No. 55, and is thus written by the clerk: "'Notting Hill" counted one;'—the hyphen being carefully omitted. I am at a loss to understand the meaning of this charge, as 'Fence-Houses' is always reckoned one word."
  1650
  The following information came from a Post Office employé:—
  "Telegraph messages handed in at Lothbury for Tokenhouse Yard, less than a dozen yards from that office, are not, as common sense would suggest, delivered thence, but are sent by pneumatic tube to the Central Telegraph Office—12 minutes' walk—thence sent again by tube to the telegraph office in Moorgate Street Buildings, where they are copied, and then delivered."
  He would now proceed to offer some suggestions, and to bring forward certain grievances in connection with the Telegraph Service. The words "reply paid" in a telegram should not be charged for. They were transmitted free in Australia, and other Colonies. Incredible as it might appear, there was no direct telegraphic communication between Dover and Calais. A message from Dover to Calais was first wired to London, thence to Paris, and thence to Calais. The result was several hours' delay, for want of a few miles of cable. He had questioned the Postmaster General on this subject in the House, but his reply was of a most discouraging character, St. Martin's-le-Grand would not stir a finger in the business. The following suggestion was so obviously reasonable that one wondered it should be necessary to offer it to the Authorities. Mr. E. H. Courbe, of 4, St. Paul's Place, Canonbury, N., wrote—
  "I would suggest that you should add to the list of your proposed reforms a direction to telegraph messengers to ask, when delivering a telegram, whether there will be an answer, and to wait a maximum time, say five minutes, to take back that answer. A case in point occurred to me recently. A boy brought a message to me at the above address, and did not wait. An immediate answer was required, and, at some inconvenience to myself, as I was very busy, I had to go to the nearest station about three-quarters of a mile away. When I got there, at about 8.10 p.m. the office was shut. I then had to go to the Central District Office—about one and a-half miles distant, in order to send my telegram. Now all this might have been saved if the boy had only waited. I understand they can wait if they like, but it is optional; in fact, it depends upon the taste and fancy of the boy. This seems to me to be absurd."
  The Post Office plumed itself on the pains taken to deliver an imperfectly-addressed letter, for which it received 1d. The following was one of numerous complaints as to the neglect of the officials to take similar (or, indeed, any) pains to deliver a telegram, for which at least 6d. was received. The letter was

  1651
  from a gentleman living at Club Moor, Liverpool—
  "On Saturday, July 24th, I sent a telegram addressed 'Day c/o Sullivan, 81, Broad Street, London,' from Ranalph Place Office, Liverpool. The message was accepted without demur. When I arrived home, about four hours later, I received a notice from a sub-office, stating that it had not been delivered because there were 'several Broad Streets' in London. I sent an additional address—namely, 'Broad Street, Golden Square'; and for these two words I was charged 6d. 'for re-direction.' By the time the telegram was delivered the person to whom it was sent had left London. I think you will agree with me that this was a most shameful proceeding on the part of the officials in London, as my wire was sent in c/o a well-known tradesman, and by simply turning up a Directory of London they could have instantly ascertained which Broad Street was required … But that is not all. This morning another 6d. was demanded of me. I am now expected to pay for sending the extra two words from Anfield Post Office to Liverpool (two miles), and 6d. is again the charge. This I have refused to pay. I said I would in the public interest put the facts before you; and if you say I should pay, I shall do so."
  Although the Post Office paid, as justice plainly required, some compensation in case of the miscarriage, owing to the fault of its employés, of a letter or parcel, it refused similar compensation in the case of a telegram. Thus, the Rev. J. Phillips Dickson, of Dudleston Vicarage, Ellesmere, Shropshire, wrote—
  "Having friends staying here, who were going up to town next morning, and from there abroad, I telegraphed to the livery stables which we are in the habit of using for a carriage to be here at half-past eight, a.m. I took the precaution to put the time in words, not in figures, and therefore paid extra to avoid, as I thought, the possibility of a mistake. The carriage did not arrive until 9·30, and so too late for the express train to town, which caused a waste of some hours, and untold inconvenience to myself and my party, as a result. I drove to the stables—some six miles away—and found the hour put in figures in the telegram, and the time given at 9·30.
  "The Department ultimately admitted their error. After considerable correspondence they informed me, 'There is reason to believe the error is attributable to carelessness on the part of a certain telegraphist, whose services have been dispensed with.'"
  "I made a claim for the additional expense I had been put to, and which, as a matter of justice, I considered I was entitled to; but, on the ground that there was no fund from which to meet such claims, it was not entertained. I was offered, however, the following very absurd consolation, which, needless to say, I declined:—'It is regretted that, for the reason given in the former letter sent to you, the sum which you claim as compensation cannot be refunded; but as the error appears to have rendered the tele-
  1652
  gram useless, instructions have been given for the amount prepaid for it to be refunded to you.' I pointed out the unjust and unbusinesslike nature of this treatment, but all to no effect. In a subsequent letter I asked to be informed how it is that loss sustained in the Postal Department can be made good, but loss sustained in the Telegraph Department is ignored. To this apparently simple question I have not been able to obtain an answer. The calm, unbusinesslike way in which such loss and annoyance are brushed aside by the Department is very trying. Under our present system I fear a Postmaster General is a mere mechanical red-tape figure-head, whose occupation of Office is too brief to permit of his instituting material reforms without strong Parliamentary pressure."
  Too often, however, when Parliament encouraged the Department to adopt a reform, much of the expected benefit to the public was intercepted by some pedantic requirement or unconscionable extortion. Thus when the privilege of the telegraphic remittance of money was tardily conceded, it was made to bristle with charges and commissions. A gentleman wrote from Smethwick Hall, Staffordshire—
  "Dear Mr. Heaton,—Will you kindly allow me to draw your attention to a matter in connection with the Telegraphic Money Order Service, which appears to me to constitute a grievance. I had occasion to make use of the above facilities to make a remittance of £3 the other day, and paid a commission of 8d. and a 'Telegraph charge' of fid. (1s. 2d. in all), thinking it would be delivered to the payee as an ordinary telegram would be. I found, after three days' trouble, however, that the expense of the remittance was further increased by a separate and distinct telegram having to be sent to the payee advising that the amount is lying to be claimed at their Post Office. This brings the cost of the remittance of £3 up to 1s. 8d., which seems extortionate. The 'Telegraph charge,' it seems, is simply an intimation to the Postmaster at the other end that a certain sum is to be paid to a certain person, no address being needed, as the remittance is not delivered, nor is any official notice given that the money is waiting to be claimed. It seems to me that the 'Telegraph charge' should include the notification to the payee that the money awaits him, his address being given by the remitter. I understand that this, or a similar course, has long been in practice in New Zealand.
  "H. LINCOLN TANGYE."
  In India, and on the Continent, the money was sent with the telegram to the residence of the addressee. This plan not only obviated all delay, but prevented fraud, for it ensured the delivery of the money to the right person. A correspondent had recently recalled his attention to the rapacious charge (against which he had so often protested) of 2d. instead

  1653
  of 1d. on the receipt given for a telegraphic message. The cost of transmission of the message itself was only 6d., yet a receipt cost 2d. They should bear in mind that a 1d. stamp was sufficient on a receipt for £100 or £1,000. When a telegraph clerk made a mistake in transmission, and an important word in the message was thereby rendered unintelligible, the Department charged for a repetition of the entire despatch, instead of charging for the undecipherable word. What would be said of a cobbler who charged the price of a pair of new boots for putting on a patch? Sir Arthur Blackwood, in a recent article, was particularly severe towards those members of the public who objected to some of the established charges for telegraphic transmission. The following communication from a gentleman well acquainted with the subject would, he feared, once more stir up his wrath:—
  "If a member of the public addresses a telegram to, say, Harrison, Coleman Street, London, E.C., the name will be traced in the Directory, and the message delivered. If it were addressed Harrison, 3 Coleman Street, E.C., and Harrison's were at 2, it would be charged 6d. for 'amended address,' though well known. Thus he who first saves a ½d. gives extra trouble, and has his telegram delivered for nothing; in the other case an additional ½d. is incurred, and the Post Office charge 6d. for taking a telegram next door. On the Continent, as you are aware, the names of the streets are one with the word street. Thus 'Koenig-strasse' (King Street). These words, rightly one on the Continent, are charged on the receiver as two. If the receiver will not pay, messages coming after will not be delivered to him until he pays an inherently unjust charge. This gives rise to much indignation, and rightly so. Words that are by the officials counted one in Italy, Belgium, Holland, Germany, &c, ought in equity to be counted one here."
  He had this information from a postal official, and it could be relied upon as accurate. He appealed to the Postmaster General to cease worrying the public with these petty Ordinances and Rules. He asked him to take a broad and liberal view of the public requirements.
  MR. THEOBALDwished to draw attention to the case of Mr. Durnford, a clerk in the Central Post Office, who had been recently promoted for what was called "special qualification." When he (Mr. Theobald) asked what the special qualification was, he was told it was shorthand writing. If it had been known by the clerks that a
  1654
  knowledge of shorthand writing would have led to such a rapid rise as this gentleman had had many of them would have studied shorthand writing. When his salary was £70 a year it was raised to £110, and very shortly afterwards it was further raised from £122 to £160. Although he had only 12 years' service, he was put over the heads of 400 clerks, many of whom had been 20 years in the Service. This was not the only case in which men had been pitchforked into higher places. When a former case occurred, and a question arose about it, no special qualification was mentioned. He hoped some explanation would be given of the Controller's power in this matter. There was also a question of an Assistant Superintendent, which affected the rights of first-class clerks to promotion, and it would be well in this as in other matters if the appointments were made on some basis that would be fair and reasonable.
  MR. BILLSONsaid, there were certain complaints which he had brought before the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped they would have the attention which he thought they deserved. With regard to the hon. Member for Canterbury, he wished to say that the whole community were deeply indebted to him for his energy and assiduity in bringing these matters under the notice of the Government.
  COLONEL BROOKFIELDsaid, he desired to call attention to the subject of the employment of discharged soldiers and sailors as telegraph and postal messengers. Last year the late Postmaster General made a slight change with the view to finding some suitable employment for the class to which he referred. There was a distinct desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to increase the connection between the Postal Service and the Army and Navy. Those who were trying to face this problem, which was becoming so very serious, of finding civil employment for soldiers and sailors, were very much indebted to the late Postmaster General for this important step; but so far as he (Colonel Brookfield) could ascertain, the present Postmaster General had taken measures which exactly reversed the policy of his predecessor. This was not so much a question of Departmental detail as a really serious question of policy in which the whole action of the

  1655
  Government might well be arraigned. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Morley), in a Circular which was recently issued, not only said that the enlistment scheme, as it was called, should be withdrawn, but be went on to say that all telegraph messengers, whether engaged before or after the 10th November, 1891, who were to be nominated for postmen's places, were to be regarded as having a prior claim to soldiers and sailors. Thus the right hon. Gentleman not only refused to assist his' colleague, the Secretary of State for War, and others who had taken up this subject, in finding suitable employment for soldiers and sailors, but to the extent indicated he said that to have served the country as a soldier or sailor was to be treated as a positive disqualification for the future. He (Colonel Brookfield) was well aware of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman could adduce in this matter. He feared that the most cogent argument of all which the right hon. Gentleman would use was, that soldiers had not the good fortune to have votes in the election of Members to that House. It was amusing to contrast the extreme deference—he might almost say the abject deference—which was paid to postal employés, who wore able to take political action, and the high and dry and cavalier manner in which soldiers and sailors were treated, who from the nature of the case could not as a matter of public policy have votes. It might be that many questions of semi-military policy like this might be explained by the theory that gentlemen on the Liberal side had a natural dislike for soldiers in any form. There was another explanation of their objecting to find civil employment for them, and this was likely to apply to the right hon. Gentleman. It was that they honestly believed that soldiers and sailors were not well suited for this particular class of employment. But was it fair to men of this class to assume their unfitness for any kind of employment before they had been properly tried? Some time ago the experiment was made of admitting women to be telegraphists. In his opinion that had been a complete failure, though many people thought otherwise. Those who objected were answered by the argument that at any rate the system must be tried. Well, he
  1656
  replied, that the system of giving employment to discharged soldiers and sailors had not been tried—had not received a fair trial. He believed that if it were fairly tried, there would be a play of cause and effect which would bring about success. When it became known and well understood that a few years in the Army and Navy would be a means of progress to the Telegraph Department a class of men would enter the Services who did not do so now. They would no longer only have Telegraph servants who wished to be soldiers. They would also have servants who wished ultimately to belong to the Telegraph Department. If the right hon. Gentleman had studied certain letters from Ambassadors at the four principal Courts on the Continent he would see the stress they laid—from their experience of Continental practice—on the desirability of employing soldiers in a suitable manner. They referred to the Postal Department as pre-eminently a suitable one in which this class of men could be employed. The hint they nearly all gave was that this would be a solution of a question which was particularly difficult in this country, where there was voluntary enlistment.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEwished to know whether the patronage exercised by Members of Parliament over the post of sub-postmaster was absolute? He asked this with special reference to the Hereford case, with the circumstances of which the right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, well acquainted.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, with reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for Canterbury on the telephone question, he would point out that the State might very often, as it had done before, undertake matters for the benefit of the community which it could manage to better advantage and more cheaply than the individuals themselves, and this principle applied to communications. Much, however, had happened since the subject had last been discussed, and the policy then adopted by the Government and with regard to the trunk lines could not be reversed. He also desired to say a word as to the interest the Municipalities had shown in the telephone. He considered that what was now proposed was not a restriction upon

  1657
  municipal action, but rather that Municipal Authority was reserved by the arrangement. He very often thought that for the purpose of having these great advantages conferred on the public additional powers should be conferred on the companies. They would thus have the means of providing cheaper communication than at present. As he understood, the Act of Parliament and the Treasury Minute on the subject were being followed, and he thought it would be acknowledged that the Telephone Companies had done their best to carry out the arrangement, the basis of which was already determined upon. In London the disadvantages under which the companies laboured were very great—they had both physical and artificial obstacles to contend with—obstacles placed in their way by those who knew nothing of this matter at all, or, at least, who took no interest in it. But, subject to this, there was no desire to restrict municipal action, if, on the other hand, conditional powers were given to the companies so as to lessen the great cost of wayleaves, and to facilitate underground wires, instead of obstacles being placed in the way. The companies did not even care then who did such work—themselves or the Municipalities—provided it were well done; and his own personal policy would be, in the interest of all, to serve the public in the best and cheapest way, with which objects very much of London had been already placed in complete metallic circuit. His hon. Friend was not correct when he said that the charge for the telephone was £20. Under the Swedish system there were better conditions than there were here. The charge there was £7 9s. 3d. per line—
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid, his figures were taken from the Report of the Consul to the British Government.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, then the Consul was wrong. There were differences in England. Here there was a royalty of 10 per cent.; then there were costly wayleaves and want of powers, and, altogether, there were greater difficulties. When all the circumstances—the number of wires in use and the length of the terms of take—were taken into account, he found that the average charge in London was £15 0s. 7d., and in the provinces
  1658
  £8 16s. 10d. per line. And a private house wire was only £10 per year for five years, and any second wire £12. He would take Hull as an example, and he said that the service there was more efficient under the company management than it had been under the Post Office. There the National Company had been against the Post Office, notwithstanding the efficiency of the latter service, and now, as a consequence of two systems, most people had to join both and pay double. He would not express an opinion as to whether a lower price would pay. His view was that the work should be done in the best form, in the belief that really good public service would in the end be most remunerative. The administration of the Department in this matter, both by the Postmaster General and by his Predecessor, had been such as to lead the companies to desire nothing that was not fair and reasonable. Their wish was to consult the public interest, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the negotiations in regard to the agreement they would do their best with him to arrive at a right and fair conclusion.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had some experience in reference to this matter, and his opinion was that the Telephone Companies wanted what was unfair and unreasonable. Their object was to secure, by the aid of the Government, a permanent monopoly. They had, it was said, an actual capital of £1,000,000 and a nominal capital of £4,000,000, and they asked them to accept their terms as if they had a genuine capital of £4,000,000. The hon. Member who had just sat down told them of the interests of the Municipalities in the telephone, but he did not tell them that there was a Bill before the House at present for the purpose of enabling the companies to have powers over the raising of streets in connection with the wires without the slightest authority being had from the Municipal Bodies.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I did not say that, because I am not aware of it.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he was sorry the hon. Gentleman did not make himself acquainted with the Bill before the House, for by that Bill the company proposed to take away from the Local Authorities the control of their

  1659
  streets, and it was not at all fair. They had to pay £20 a year for the use of a telephone in London, or give a guarantee for five years. He, therefore, did not want the Government to create any worse monopoly than at present existed. Whenever a new Telephone Company was started in opposition, this company purchased them up directly. He supposed that was the reason why the capital of the company was increased from £1,000,000 to £4,000,000. All he wished to say now was that the Act of last year was rushed through the House at the end of the Session in a great hurry. He did not object to the Government purchasing the main lines, but he trusted that the Postmaster General would do nothing to assist a monopoly, which was most unfair to the people of this country. All he asked for was fair play, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would take an open and public view of the matter. He did not say anything against Joint Stock Companies generally, because he thought they had done much good to the country, but against monopolies like the National Telephone Company he desired to speak most strongly.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, he desired to object to the extension of the system of employing soldiers in connection with the Post Office and other branches of the Civil Service. He would not object to giving soldiers a fair advantage; but his right hon. Friend would find that whatever might be said on behalf of Reserve men by military Members, there was a very strong opposition on the part of many Members to any great extension of the system to the exclusion of ordinary Civil servants. He could understand why Postmasters should desire to introduce the military element into the Service. The Reserve men would be more or less under the thumb of the Department; they would have their pensions to fall back upon, and would, therefore, be able to accept small salaries, and they would not have that independence which he desired to see enjoyed by the working classes of this country. The Reserve man had many able advocates in the House, and he would be prepared to second the efforts of these hon. and gallant Gentlemen if they endeavoured to make the position of the common soldier and sailor much better than it was; but he did not desire
  1660
  to see the Civil servants elbowed out of the way to make places for soldiers.
  MR. A. MORLEYsaid, the discussion had ranged over a variety of subjects, which he proposed to deal with briefly. He would first take the question of the telephones. He did not think he could fairly be asked to make a declaration of the policy of the Government on that question at the present moment. The recommendation of the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament which had been sitting would have to be carefully considered. There were, no doubt, recent developments that would have to be carefully considered. The question of statutory powers for establishing underground modes of laying wires was one point on which no decision could be given offhand, and he, for one, would hesitate very much to advise the grant of statutory powers, unless they were to be subject to the control of the Local Authorities who had charge of the streets. The negotiations now pending between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company had reference to carrying out the agreement practically arranged by the late Government. He thought that a strong case would have to be made out to justify the House of Commons in departing from that agreement, which was carefully considered by both Houses of Parliament, and by a Committee of the Commons. The hon. Member for Peterborough was not quite right in saying that the Act of last year was rushed through the House.
  MR. A. C. MORTONexplained that what he meant was that a great many Members were away when the Bill was passed, as the General Election was at hand, and that they, therefore, had no opportunity of debating the measure.
  MR. A. MORLEYreplied that that might have been the case; but the fact remained, that the measure was the simple embodiment of a policy which was discussed more than once in the House during last year. With reference to the subject of competing telephone systems, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Islington that competition in the same area was open to grave objection. He had used a telephone since the instrument had first been introduced, and he was strongly of opinion that two competing companies in one district would destroy half the value of the

  1661
  telephone. He therefore thought that Parliament should be very cautious in sanctioning any arrangement which would bring in competing systems in the same area. He also agreed with what the hon. Member had said with regard to wires carried over private ways. As Postmaster General, he had considerable difficulty in fixing up telegraph wires on private property. He thought that in these matters they attached too much importance to private interests when they came in conflict with the interests of the community at large; and he would be glad to see larger powers conferred on the Department for overcoming these difficulties—fair and reasonable compensation being, of course, paid for any inconvenience that might be caused, or damage done to property. He now came to the scheme as introduced under the late Government respecting Army Reserve men and telegraph messengers. The plan relating to the latter was, that telegraph messengers who entered the Service at the age of 13 or 14 should, upon reaching the age of 18, be turned out of the Service unless they consented to serve with the colours for five years. If they consented to serve, they were to have the right of re-entering the Service as postmen at the end of five years. Now, a number of parents had written to him protesting against this plan, and he had in consequence asked for Reports from the postmasters of Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham, and other large towns as to the working of the system. The Reports which he received were almost unanimous in declaring that the boys who were entering the Service were less efficient as a class and inferior in many respects to the boys who entered under the old system, and also that it was difficult to obtain a sufficient number of them. In these circumstances, he would have incurred very considerable responsibility if he had allowed the new system to continue. The scheme which gave Army pensioners and Reserve men who wished to become postmen precedence over other applicants remained in full force. He thought the working of the rule would require watching, but at present he saw no reason to depart from it, and had no intention of doing so. With regard to the appointment of sub-postmasters, the facts were not as stated by the hon.
  1662
  Member for Hereford. The Postmaster General had no power to appoint to these sub-offices except on the nomination of the Treasury. The hon. Member complained that he, as Member, received no communication in respect to one of these appointments made in his constituency. He was afraid the hon. Member would receive no communication of that sort under the present Government unless he came over to the Government side of the House. He did not defend the system. Indeed, as Patronage Secretary, he had been opposed to the system; but it was a system that had been in force for many years. In these cases the nominations were made by the Patronage Secretary, and he was bound to appoint on these nominations, provided that the persons and the houses were suitable, and that no damage would be done to the Public Service by the appointments. In regard to the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member, he had had a Memorial from the locality, and he ordered a careful Report to be made on the subject. He found that the Public Service would not be injured by the appointment of the person nominated, and he had, therefore, no option but to appoint him. With regard to telephone charges, comparison had been made by the hon. Member for Canterbury between London and such towns as Stockholm and Melbourne. It would be fairer, he thought, that the comparison should be with towns like New York or Paris. In New York in business houses the charge was £50, in residences £37. In Boston the charges were £37 and £28, and in Philadelphia £25 and £21. In these three towns, therefore, which were smaller than London, the charges were considerably higher than here. It had been suggested that the charge for porterage in connection with telegrams might be done away with. In view of the loss in the Telegraph Department, such a change could not be acceded to, involving, as it would, a surrender of Revenue estimated roughly at between £30,000 and £40,000. In the course of the discussion some conundrums had been put to him respecting the charges for compound words in telegrams. He thought he might be excused if he did not answer them in detail. In regard to the anomalies arising in reference to the words "mother-in-law," "upstairs," "downstairs," the rule was that the

  1663
  dictionary should be followed. But the words in question were each counted as one. "Downstairs" did happen on a certain occasion to be charged for as two, but the hon. Member was informed that this was due to a mistake on the part of a subordinate official, and not to any ruling of the Department. Yet he here accused the Department as though this explanation had not been given. Then, as to the names of the streets, which were under the control of the people in the localities, compound names were treated as forming separate words; but when the compound word formed the name of a town or village over which the inhabitants had no control, then the name was charged as one word. There were, doubtless, some anomalies, but it was difficult to lay down a general rule applicable to all cases. With regard to the extension of the Postal Telegraph Service in the country, the last point to which he had to refer, he could quote some figures which would show that the Department were doing their best to meet the increased demand. The number of additional telegraph offices opened in the year 1888–89 was 221; in 1889–90,321; in 1890–91,275; in 1891–92, 349; in 1892–93, 561; and this year, from April 1 to September 20, 450. During the latter period of six months, therefore, a larger number of offices had been opened than in any full year preceding that period, except last year, and this was a proof that substantial progress was being made in that direction. He had explained the case of Mr. Dunford some time ago. He had looked carefully into the case, and he did not think it was a case of injustice in the selection made. He was selected because he had special qualifications. He thought he had now answered all the questions put to him.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 18.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,140,175, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid, it was with no light heart he rose to criticise the Post Office Estimates, but he could not consent to remain silent when
  1664
  there were submitted to them these outrageous and shameless demands of the officials. Three years ago the postmen commenced an agitation for increased pay, and Mr. Raikes, who did him the honour of consulting him, agreed to give them the enormous sum of £100,000 increase. The result of that concession was that every official, high and low, claimed an increase, and to-day they were asked for £600,000, of which £420,000 was for increased salaries. There were 70,000 permanent officials in the Post Office, and this divided would give £6 extra per head. No one would accuse him of want of sympathy for, or of liberality towards, public servants. But he was sure that hon. Members generally, even those who were least disposed to pry narrowly into the details of Public Service expenditure, had, like himself, been staggered to find that they were asked to grant a total increase of more than £600,000 on the three Postal Votes; and they were told by the Secretary to the Treasury that this increase in expenditure was far more than "could be hoped to be met by growth of Revenue." The Chancellor of the Exchequer was equally astonished. He said, in his Budget speech—
  "As to the Post Office expenditure, that is an abyss which no plummet can sound."
  Now, they would like to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the Postmaster General how they intended to meet the difficulty. They confessed they had not seen the end of this increase of expenditure. What had the public got in comparison? Some beggarly concessions valued at £16,000, as against £422,000 granted for salaries. It was idle to pretend that this augmentation was inconsiderable. It would be found that the percentage of salaries to total Revenue had risen from 34 in Mr. Raikes' time (three years ago) to 39. They were, in fact, paying about £500,000 more for salaries than in 1890. They were told that much of this was an "automatic" increase. But he ventured to lay it down as an elementary maxim of Post Office finance, or of any other finance, that an automatic increase of expenditure must never exceed, as in this case, the automatic increase of Revenue. He had no wish to be accused of want of liberality towards the servants of the

  1665
  Post Office in the matter of wages, but the people of the country, who had to bear this burden, ought also to be considered. The proposed increase practically meant the addition of 1d. to the Income Tax. The normal increase of the Postal Revenue was equal to £200,000 a year, but the increased demand in the Estimates of this year was equal to three years' normal increase of Revenue. It was useless, however, to expect to cope with the question unless both sides of the House co-operated to make it one of a non-Party character. He repeated, that the automatic increase of expenditure of the Post Office should not exceed the automatic yearly Revenue. It was not a popular thing to resist the demands of the Post Office officials, but he thought the question of the increased demand ought now to be dealt with. It was said that the money given to the officials was not fairly divided, and that some got more than their share while others got less. Under those circumstances, he thought the Postmaster General would have been well advised if he had appointed a Committee of Inquiry into the matter. He proposed at this point to set out various suggestions for the improvement of the Postal Service, and to quote a few of the letters which he had received in support of such suggestions. Thousands of business men were asking, indignantly, why they had no Anglo-American Parcel Post. For a good many years he had been trying to get a Parcel Post established with the United States, but in vain. Although they had a Parcel Post to nearly all parts of the civilised world, they had none to the United States, their natural ally; and yet the Americans did 50 per cent. of their foreign trade with us. Who was to blame? The American and British Governments threw the responsibility on one another. The late Postmaster General, to justify his Department, invited him to move for the Correspondence, and he did so. It showed an utter want of the qualities required for such a negotiation on the part of the British officials. Their attitude could only be characterised as childish, and their objections as trifling and uncalled for. Judging from the American documents in this Return, he would undertake to settle the matter satisfactorily in 30 days. It was a significant fact that the United States,
  1666
  though unable to effect an arrangement with us, had established a Parcel Post with seven or eight of our Colonies, including Jamaica, Barbados, the Leeward Islands, British Honduras, &c. He would now say a few words about the harsh rule under which, while letters were redirected free, a charge was made for the re-direction of all other matter. To show the spirit in which it was interpreted, he might mention that the word "letter" was held not to include a letter-card. Here was a complaint—
  "9 Bedford Street,
  "Belfast,
  "8th June, 1892.
  "I venture to address you with regard to the re-direction of postcards, although I daresay you are probably aware of the fact that, whilst 'the charge for re-direction of letters has been abolished, postcards, book packets, &c. are still liable to re-direction charge when the second address is not within the same free delivery as the original.' This information has been supplied to me by the Post Office here in connection with the sur-chargement of a postcard delivered at my house a few days since. It may, of course, be quite reasonable that for the present book packets as well as post parcels should be charged for, but it does seem to be a rather miserable reservation that postcards should not be placed in the same category as letters."
  Men accustomed to the plain, broad principles of trade could not put up with these pettifogging distinctions. Here was a typical protest—
  "From Charles Moon,
  "Turn Bridge Mill.
  "Huddersfield.
  "Having carried business on at King's Mill for about 20 years, I removed some few hundred yards to this Mill about one and a-half years ago. I gave notice to the Post Office here of my removal. I have been engaged extensively in business in this town for close on 30 years, and my name being rather uncommon, and perhaps not another family of the same name in the borough, the letter sorters could in one-half the time they occupy themselves in redirecting halfpenny stuff which is mainly refused, put these amongst my batch of letters. You will easily understand, my name having got into a number of Directories, I have a large number of Prospectuses, Circulars, &c. which are simply no earthly use to me whatever, and I have had to begin and refuse these re-directed things, and I find I am occasionally refusing invoices, &c. of importance. I thought the Post Office, being a Public Institution, would be governed by common sense and for the public benefit, but under Radical control I find it is adopting fads which are against the true interest of the public."
  This rule was specially odious in the eyes of mercantile men; and one of them dealt with the history of it as follows:—
  "From Mr. Leonard Dobbie,
  "23, Kilmaurs Road,
  "Edinburgh.
  "Last July, as you are, of course, aware, the charge for re-direction of letters and their delivery at another address in any part of the Kingdom was 'subject to regulations,' after proclamation over the length and breadth of the country, abolished. The wording of The Postal Guide as to re-direction was altered to suit this change, but at the same time all reference to the new address, in cases of re-direction, being within the same postal delivery, was removed. Then two months later, as regards Edinburgh, and without a single word of warning, a charge was imposed on delivery, the same as the original prepaid postage, of all communications other than letters, re-directed and delivered at a new address, even although the latter was situated within the same postal delivery, and in my own case, even when 'after removal,' my new permanent address was only four doors off from my old one, and in the same street. The much-lauded 'concession' made with the right hand concerning letters was thus more than counterbalanced by the hole-and-corner withdrawal by the left hand of a privilege concerning all other communications of many years' standing, which, after all, is only a small privilege compared with what other civilised countries enjoy. I respectfully submit to you, however, that it is a disgrace to the British Post Office."
  The trick was exposed in greater detail by another correspondent, who said—
  "Letters, postcards, news, books, commercial papers, and samples, coming from a country of the Union, can, of course, be re-directed free. Until the 31st May, 1892, free re-direction was applicable to all postal articles, provided that it was effected by means of a servant of the Department, and that the new address lay within the delivery of the same office that the old one did. For this purpose the whole of the London District counted as within the delivery of the same office. On the 28th May, 1892, directions appeared in The Post Office Circular to the effect that on and after the 1st June letters would be re-directed free, but that the usual charges would be maintained in the cases of all other articles, with a temporary exception in favour of all such as were already the subjects of application for re-direction under the old rules, which exception was to last a year, i.e. applicants who had already given notice of removal received their newspapers, &c, without charge, for a year within the same delivery. The limit of the exception held good for articles except parcels, in favour of which that which had been a temporary exception was confirmed as an established rule. This was some time in the latter half of 1892. Hence the present Rules allow free re-direction for all letters, and a localised, limited one for parcels."
  Again, a gentleman connected with a well-known firm gave a case of glaring injustice—
  "From J. Schweppe and Co., Limited,
  "126, London Road. Liverpool,
  "22nd June, 1893.
  "The writer has been in the Westgate, Huddersfield, and the difference between the
  1668
  numbers 12 and 27 is that one is very little higher up on the other side. If we had put no number on the letter it would have been delivered. We have acknowledged the Postmaster's letter, and told him we think it a gross abuse of a Regulation meant to meet quite different circumstances than those of a well-known tradesman moving his business in a small street."
  He now passed to the cheeseparing rule which, by the exaction of a high fee, prevented the registration of millions of letters. It was to be regretted that the Postal Authorities had fixed so high a charge as 2d. for the registration of a letter. Out of the total of 1,767½ millions of letters posted in 1892 only 12,000,000—or 1 in 417—were registered. With a 1d. fee this number would be at least trebled, and the heavy loss in stolen postal orders, to say nothing of the temptation to the employés, would be done away with. Let the House hear what a correspondent had pithily said on this head—
  "The registration question is also of commercial importance. If we had 1d. registrations, and each letter registered per head, the office would gain gross £63,000: as it is, registration is at a standstill, while robbery goes ahead."
  Here was another illustration of the disfavour in which the very idea of registration seemed to be held at the Post Office—
  "From Herbert Bramley and Son,
  "6, Paradise Square, Sheffield,
  "18th August, 1893.
  "We beg to draw your attention to the Regulation laid down in The Post Office Guide, page 14, paragraph 4, for the registration of letters, which runs as follows:—' Every article to be registered must be given to an agent of the Post Office, and a receipt obtained for it; and it must on no account be dropped into a letter box. If, contrary to this rule, an article marked "registered" be dropped into a letter box, it will, if directed to any place in the United Kingdom, be liable to a registration fee of 8d., less any amount prepaid for registration, instead of the ordinary fee of 2d.' And to give you an example of the working of this particular regulation when a 'registered' letter is posted against the rule: On Monday last, the 14th instant, our office boy, by mistake, posted a 'registered' letter marked 'registered' duly stamped with the registration fee of 2d., and 1d. for ordinary letter postage, in the usual way, by dropping it with other letters into the box at the Sheffield General Post Office; and, although our firm is well-known at the Post Office, and the envelope in which the letter was enclosed bore our full names and address on the back, the letter was surcharged 6d. Had the letter been posted without having had the word 'registered' on it, or with only a 1d. stamp on it as an ordinary letter, it would have been duly forwarded with-

  1669
  out surcharge, or even if the letter had been posted unstamped and not marked 'registered' the surcharge would only have been 2d."
  Among the Regulations which seemed to have been ingeniously devised for the express purpose of worrying trade was that fixing the minimum of the Pattern or Sample Post at 1d. A book-packet weighing two ounces might be sent for ½rd., but a sample weighing two ounces cost 1d. An enterprising manufacturer, who desired to scatter broadcast small shreds of linen as patterns, had thus to face an expenditure for postage of nearly four guineas per 1,000 shreds. He naturally shrank from submitting to such extortion, and refrained from pushing his trade. On this subject, a valued correspondent (Mr. J. H. Rawlins, of 15, Kelvin Grove, Liverpool) wrote—
  "The restoration of the ½d. sample post to the world-wide ½d. which we paid for two ounces for a whole year from 1870 to 1871 is necessary for trade purposes. It is not quantity or weight that is the main object in sending samples, and two ounces are generally ample. At present, a two-ounce sample sent to the nearest English town costs as much as to the Pacific."
  And Messrs. Richardson, Tee, Rycroft, & Co., manufacturers, 3, Portland Street, Manchester, said—
  "By the same post we received the two letters enclosed [orders for linen goods]. Both were surcharged, on the ground that, having a pattern attached, they became liable either to the full letter-rate, or to the pattern-post rate, the lowest of which is 1d. Our contention is that the small pattern attached to an order is an essential part of that order, and cannot by any stretch make it into a letter. And that it cannot be subject to pattern post, because it is not a sample sent to induce a purchase, but merely a description in an order. One of the enclosed orders is a form, containing the printed name and address of a firm, and the words, '1 piece 48-inch apron linen to pattern 8d.—1s. 4d. It was posted in an open envelope, with a ½d. stamp. The envelope is marked 'Liable to letter-rate pattern—1d. The other order is a similar one, and the envelope is similarly marked. In my opinion, it never occurred to the official gentlemen who framed the Post Office Regulations that anybody would wish to enclose a sample when ordering goods, and, consequently, no provision was made for such a case. The remedy, obviously, is to extend the privilege of the Pattern Post to the enclosing of patterns with orders."
  Finally, Mr. A. J. Tonkin, Park Street, Bristol, wrote—
  "When you are successful in getting your Committee to revise the Postal Regulations in the public interest, will you try and get them to include traders' samples of materials at circular rates? At present, a trader selling
  1670
  paper of any description, or cardboards, can send samples by ½d. rate, and print prices on. But if it be a linen—as pattern enclosed—or a woollen material, it is not allowed this privilege. It seems the ½d. rate may be extended to fabrics with advantage to all parties."
  It was impossible to contemplate with patience the effects of the Regulations respecting the registration of newspapers. In order that a publication might be "registered," and thus become transmissible by post at the cheap ½d. rate, two 17th century conditions must, amongst others, be complied with—
  "1. The publication must consist wholly, or in great part, of political or other news, or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics, with or without advertisements.
  "2. It must be printed and published in the United Kingdom, and in numbers at intervals of not more than seven days."
  Both of these absurd Rules, based upon a legislative enactment, would long ago have been abolished, with the newspaper Stamp Duty, the tax on paper, and other hateful imposts, if the Departmental Chiefs had only taken a firm stand on the question with the Treasury. The effect of them was to place a formidable obstacle in the path of those who disseminated useful and entertaining information in larger proportion than accounts of current events. A paper consisting wholly of market prices was, in effect, subsidised, while a religious, scientific, or educational periodical was fined at each appearance. Many proprietors of periodicals actually padded their columns with bald discussions of "current topics," so as to become qualified for registration. Thus the editor of The British and Colonial Druggist said—
  "You may, perhaps, be amused to hear that, when special issues of this journal take place, we are obliged to increase the weight of each copy by about two ounces, in order that it may go at the newspaper rate. And, although this was brought to the notice of the Post Office officials by me years ago, the Regulation which compels this still continues."
  Again, Messrs. Oscar Sutton & Co., of Preston, said—
  "It is necessary to take out the tiny tissue paper pattern that is given as a supplement once a month with The Queen to prevent surcharge. It is stated on the front page of The Queen, 'Postage without pattern ½d., with pattern, 4½d. or 5d.'"
  Again—
  "4, The Lees,
  "Folkestone.
  "Dear Sir,—Another absurdity is, exacting a postage of 1d. on a monthly periodical, however small, because it is published monthly, instead

  1671
  of weekly. A little paper weiging only 1 oz. if it be monthly is subjected to double the impost made upon that lumbering weekly paper, The Field. Now, both the foregoing instances appear to be so ridiculous and devoid of any reasonable support, that I trust you will be able to squeeze them in amongst the many reforms you are endeavouring to obtain for us. When I once wrote to Sir Arthur Blackwood, to point out the inconsistency of the charge as between the weekly and monthly periodicals, I could get no explanation, beyond confirming the fact
  JOSEPH ALLEN."
  "J. Henniker Heaton, Esq., M.P."
  Once more. Mr. J. Williamson, of 290, High Street, Lincoln, October 17, 1890, said—
  "I venture to trouble you with this short statement of a monstrous injustice and absurdity in a small way. I supply to the Branston Reading Room, as per enclosed wrapper, eight newspapers, and Tit-Bits, which I now for the first time discover to be not registered for transmission as a newspaper. These nine publications were in one wrapper. The four penny stamps cover the postage of the eight newspapers, and the ½d. stamp was to cover the Tit-Bits, which weighs under 2 oz. But on delivery the Post Office charges 6d. (sixpence) over and above the prepayment, because the Tit-Bits is not registered as a newspaper, and they say should not be in the same packet as newspapers, although, as stated before, it is actually within the weight. If done up separately, it is carried and delivered by the Post Office for the ½d. Therefore, the Post Office prefers the trouble of sorting and carrying and delivering two packets instead of one for the same remuneration—namely, 4½d. This is, surely, an outrageous piece of officialism and red-tape."
  And, lastly, Mr. Mayson M. Beeton, of 39 and 40 Bedford Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.,. December 6, 1890, wrote—
  "I take the liberty of drawing your attention to the anomaly which exists in the charges made by the Post Office in the carriage of monthly as compared with weekly publications. The point is probably quite well known to you, and I think all agree that in any Bill for Post Office Reform the equalisation of rates should be one of the first things to be dealt with."
  It had been pointed out how jealously the officials watched for anything resembling a "communication in the nature of a letter" on the cover of a newspaper. In one case the matter of fact details, "published every Saturday: One penny," "Offices: 2, Bridge Street; Works: Bankside, Darwen," were printed on the cover; and for bearing this announcement, each newspaper was pronounced liable to full letter postage. Surely absurdity could hardly be carried farther. When a man paid letter rate, he paid for the privacy of his communi-
  1672
  cation—there was no other consideration for the extra charge. In this case there was no attempt at concealment, and the matter printed was an essential part of the contents. The fine could not be regarded as a punishment intended to keep the address on the cover free from other matter, for it was distinctly divided from the space reserved for the address by two ruled lines. Moreover, the sender of a newspaper was already permitted to write or print on the cover "a reference to any page of, or place in, the newspaper." It seemed unreasonable that one might write on the cover: "See round seventeen of 'Great Fight,' top of p. 4," or "See Gladstone's peroration, bottom of p. 5"; and not "published every Saturday; one penny." Again, the "name and address of the sender" might, according to The Post Office Guide, be inscribed on the cover. In this case the publisher was the sender, yet he was not allowed to add his address. Into this trap many an unlucky publisher must have fallen. These were the particulars of the case referred to—
  "Darwen, Aug. 15th, 1892.
  "Dear Mr. Heaton,—We are having some bother with the Postal Authorities, and I told the Postmaster here that I intended communicating with you. The Post Office object to the enclosed wrapper. They say we have no right to put on the second and third lines, that it is contrary to the Rules, and that they must be obliterated. There may be an objection to the second line, but to the third any objection seems monstrous. Will you kindly tell me if the Post Office objection is fatal?
  C. J. L. ABBOT.
  The Darwen Post.
  Published every Saturday, One Penny. Offices: 2, Bridge Street; Work: Bankside, Darwen."
  The postage on newspapers sent to the Continent was a serious check on the circulation of the larger journals. Thus Messrs. W. H. Smith & Son, of 186, Strand, London, W. C., on the 25th February, 1890, wrote—
  "Sir,—Our charge for supplying The Times on the Continent complete is £1 13s. per quarter, or with portion cut away to bring it under 4oz., £1 9s."
  The next complaint needed no introduction. It would be seen that the Post Office Authorities regarded an old handbill, used for a newspaper wrapper, as "a communication in the nature of a letter," and fined the recipient 2d. Hitherto people had used such scraps for the sake of economy. The Department dis-

  1673
  couraged such thrifty notions, and required a new special wrapping sheet in all cases:—
  " S. Mark's Rectory,
  "Strandtown,
  "Belfast,
  "June 7th, 1892.
  "Dear Sir,—Knowing the good work you have done and still hope to do in connection with Postal Reform, I enclose you proofs of the petty annoyances and blackmailing we are obliged to accept at the hands of official incompetency. About 10 days ago I sent a newspaper to a lady resident in Frederick Street (or Place), Edinburgh. I used as a wrapper for this paper an old and quite out of date handbill, which I took from a waste paper basket. You will note on the companion handbill now enclosed that the date of this emergency wrapper runs between March the 26th and March the 30th, 1892. I also enclose the piece of the actual wrapper used by me, and used afterward by the Edinburgh Postal Authorities as a means for extracting a fine from the lady who received the paper. I do not suppose this charge has been legal, but I imagine similar fines have been and still may be imposed."
  This was the formal letter condemning the use of handbills—
  "From Sir S. A. Blackwood,
  "General Post Office, London,
  "15th June, 1892.
  "Madam,—With reference to your application of the 12th instant, I beg leave to inform you that the Rule to which your attention has been drawn applies as much to printing or writing on the inside of the wrapper as to printing or writing on the outside; and the fact of the printed side being turned inwards only makes the wrapper more difficult to examine. The use of handbills as wrappers for newspapers is clearly contrary to the Rule, and renders the newspapers liable to charge.
  "I am, Madam,
  "Your obedient Servant,
  "S. A. BLACKWOOD, Secretary.
  "Mrs. M. Hamilton."
  As the elephant's trunk could be used to lift a tree-trunk, or to pick up a pin, so the Post Office, which netted millions of profits, did not disdain to reap a little extra from small fines. When an envelope, or cover, bearing an embossed stamp, had been spoilt, one was not allowed to cut out the stamp and paste it on fresh paper. Thus the Post Office was in the invidious position of acepting money for a service which it eventually refused to perform. But they could cut a stamp from one telegram form and use it for another. This grievance was succinctly dealt with by Mr. J. Loder, bookseller, stationer and printer, who wrote from Woodbridge, on March 6, 1890—
  1674
  "Here is another official piece of nonsense. I spoil an envelope—I cut the stamp off and use it on another, and the recipient is fined 2d. Good, is it not? "
  Of course, to the official mind such a rule was the perfection of wisdom and expediency. Thus Mr. Sifton, of the General Post Office, London, said, on 26th May, 1893—
  "In reply to your letter of the 19th instant, I am directed to inform you that the Post Office Act of 1870 (Sec. 19), provides that it shall not be lawful to affix to a letter, by way of prepayment of postage, an embossed stamp cut out from the cover on which it was embossed, and the Department has, therefore, no power to authorise the alteration which you desire. The Regulation was made with a view of preventing the use a second time of embossed stamps which might accidentally have escaped obliteration during transmission through the post, and it no doubt serves a useful purpose."
  After this, Mr. Sifton may be recommended to imitate the Judge who never gave reasons for his decisions. Another case of hardship to a poor man and meanness on the part of the Post Office was this: On September 30, 1892, M. bought two halfpenny newspaper wrappers from the Post Office for 1½d. He found he had no use for them, and, wishing to send a letter, he cut the two halfpenny stamps from the wrappers and pasted them on to a letter. This was against Postal Regulations, and the receiver of the letter was fined 2d.—namely, 1d. postage and 1d. fine, and, in addition, the Postal Authorities stamped over and destroyed the ½d. stamps for which the sender had paid the Government l½d. Mr. E. A. Phipson, Selby Oak, Birmingham, also wrote—
  "It really requires a lifetime to find out all the tricks which the ingenious officials of the Post Office take such pains in devising to entrap the innocent public. Only to-day I discovered that if a letter is sent in a newspaper wrapper the embossed stamp does not count. The letterpress on the wrappers is a masterpiece of cryptography, but the most natural and common-sense meaning is that, if a letter is enclosed, full letter rate must be paid. Otherwise, why does it not state that the original stamp is not available? Yesterday I received the return half of a reply postcard with no less than two postmarks stamped on it at the receiving officer so that only a small part of it was available for the reply. That this is an intentional device to limit the space is evident from the fact that no postmark was placed (over the writing) at the receiving office here."
  The following insistance on the letter, while transgressing the spirit of the law, would revolt a special pleader; and the

  1675
  fair complainant's censure was thoroughly deserved. The letter was from Miss Isabella M. Cooper, of All Hallow's Mission House, 127, Union Street, Borough, S.E.—
  "I wrapped up a parcel of magazines in a halfpenny wrapper, and as I wished them to go by parcel post I added 2½d., and took them into a post office. The officials there and in another refused to count the halfpenny on the wrapper as anything, and required the whole 3d. to be in adhesive stamps. I wrote to the General Post Office; the reply was, that was the rule. What possible difference can it make to the Post Office; for the same stamps are used for letters, books, and parcels? And the use of a wrapper is a convenient way of doing up some parcels. I trust your efforts to make the Post Office Authorities more reasonable will be successful."
  With respect to the lady's question—"What possible difference can it make to the Post Office?" he pointed out that it derived some profit from mistakes of this kind, made by the unwary. Here was another case from Dr. John Brown, of Burwood House, Bacup, June 3, 1893, who wrote on the same subject—
  "The following occurred a few days ago:—My brother-in-law lost a boy, and wrote a letter to convey the sad intelligence of his death. Having no penny postage in the house, and the Post Office being closed, he cut out a penny stamp from a letter card which he had, and gummed it on. I was charged 2d., because it is not 'lawful to affix' a stamp from an embossed stamp. It is manifestly dishonest to charge me 2d. when the Post Office have already been paid 1d. My brother-in-law was ignorant of the law, and I was mulcted in 2d., but I refused the letter and wrote to my brother-in-law, and had a reply next morning. The Post Office Authorities had the pleasure of taking the letter back for nothing."
  He had now arrived at the subject of the innumerable petty fines imposed for slight breaches of the Post Office Regulations. Perhaps there was no Regulation which earned so little revenue and so much hatred for the Department as that prescribing a fine where a corner of the stamp or of the cover on a bookpost packet happened to adhere to the paper enclosed. Here was a specimen of the letters sent him on this subject. It was from Mr. A. H. Maxwell, of Glenlair, Dalbeattie, N.B.—
  "A parcel of tracts addressed to a relative per bookpost, and weighing under 6oz., bears the following postal imprints:—' More to pay, above 4 oz. letter rate, 2d.,' and 'closed contrary to regulations, N.P.R.' Now the whole affair is a falsehood. The packet is in a wrapper, and open at both ends—nothing whatever is
  1676
  closed. I have often in a newspaper wrapper put the stamp so that it might help to keep the wrapper on, and never heard that such adhesion was a closure; but you can judge for yourself the inference drawn. A book-packet becomes a letter, apparently because the penny stamp is partly outside the wrapper. I do not think I have ever met with a more odious attempt at imposition."
  The Postmaster General seemed to think it was sufficient to urge that a Treasury Minute prescribed the fine. But the Treasury always consulted the Post Office in such matters, and, if he chose, he could get this and many other irritating Rules abolished to-morrow. Again, Messrs. F. Charles & Co., Advertising Agents, sent a similar case of meanness—
  "The following may interest you as a piece of absurdity on the part of the Post Office, which is probably unequalled in any civilised country. We get daily a large number of newspapers, among other things a copy of The Hull Daily News, a little halfpenny paper. In the copy delivered to us to-day, probably through hasty work in doing up, or through a damp letter bag, or by the stamp of the Post Office, one corner, measuring about a quarter of an inch, of the wrapper, slightly adhered to the newspaper itself. It was, therefore, tendered to us with the charge of 2d., as not being open to inspection. A more grotesque and wilfully malicious. action on the part of the Post Office we cannot imagine. Assuming, the paper being a file copy, it were taken in by us, we should have to pay, plus the ½d. already on it, four times that sum. The chief feature of interest, however, is, that this shows that the Post Office Authorities go a long way out of their way to create difficulties, and go to an immense needless expense in the course of the year; firstly, in looking through every newspaper to see that in no case the stamp stands on the paper to the extent of a 16th of an inch, or that the wrapper of a ½d. newspaper, of which thousands are posted at a time, has not been crookedly folded to the extent of a 16th of an inch, and thus adheres to the paper; and, finally, it cannot but create dissatisfaction on the part of a sender and receiver, and all for what purpose? Simply because the Post Office are too lazy, if they want to inspect the paper, to inspect it by putting the 16th part of a finger against the little corner which adheres to the paper, and thus raising it, and gaining the inspection they want."
  Again. Joseph Peacock, 31 Parliament Hill Road, Hampstead, London, N.W., on March 15, 1893, wrote—
  "I recently received a single copy of The Scottish Leader, containing the announcement of the death of an old friend, and for which you will observe I was charged 3d. in addition to the ½d. stamp put on by the sender. I called at the North West District Post Office to ascertain why this extra charge was made, and was informed that it was because the ½d. stamp was affixed partly to the wrapper and partly to the newspaper, thus closing it against inspection

  1677
  and making it liable to double the letter rate. This does seem a very vexatious regulation."
  He would now give illustrations of the nice distinctions drawn by the official who prescribed to the various postmasters what fines should be levied. He thought he had cured the Post Office Authorities of the habit of fining the public for politeness, such as the use of the words "please," or "esteemed" (order) in book-post matter. However, he had received the following complaint, which showed them to be incorrigible:—"Nearest can do to order" at the foot of an invoice would go for a halfpenny postage. "Nearest we can do to your order" at the foot of an invoice was "of the nature of a letter," and required 1d. postage, or was surcharged. "Why do the Post Office tax pronouns?" he was asked. He was unwilling to add a word to this pathetic inquiry. Another Draconic Ordinance was the one providing that double the deficiency should be exacted from the receiver of an insufficiently paid letter. Being unable to punish the real offender, the sender, the postal officials visited his negligence on the innocent receiver. So the Arab in the proverb, having been beaten by his master, revenged himself by kicking a stray dog, which, being afraid to retaliate, bit a passing child. There could be no justification for levying more than the actual deficiency. The following was a typical letter on this subject—
  "Dear Sir,—As you are the recognised champion of sufferers by Post Office extortion, I hope you will soon lake up the question of the unjust practice of charging over-weight double deficiency. This morning I received a letter from Christiania, the weight of which is ½ oz. plus 3–40 oz. I, the innocent receiver, am charged 5d. for the neglect of the real culprit (the sender) to affix an additional 20 Öre stamp (value 2½d.). I cannot be expected to spend an additional 1d. on a foreign postcard to demand this overcharge of 5d. from the party who has let me in for it, particularly as she is my wife's aunt, who sends me the formal announcement of her daughter's approaching marriage with a young captain in the Norwegian Army. I should, perhaps, willingly pay the Post Office 2½d. for this interesting news, but why 5d.? The system of overcharging doubly for deficiency ought to be put a stop to, or the penalty laid on the real offender.
  "Believe me, dear Sir,
  "Yours very truly,—
  "The surcharges on letters for the U.S.A. are very irritating. We have to pay some by every mail—sometimes 4s. 6d. on a single letter. Moreover a 1d. inland registration fee and a
  1678
  ¼d. inland ½oz. trade-price circular rate interest us in particular."
  He was quite willing to agree to a fine of ½sd. on inland letters, and 1d. on foreign letters, but thought it monstrous to charge double the deficiency; for, say there was 1s. short, the fine would be 2s. Every effort was made to increase a fine when one had to be paid. Colonel Clementi, of 1, Mornington Avenue, West Kensington, January 19, 1893, wrote—
  "The letter, the cover of which I enclose, was just over-weight; the deficient postage was, therefore, 20 pfngs. But how the Post Office can turn 20 pfg. into 2½d., and so charge 5d. for delivery of the letter, I cannot understand. The result is that the Post Office make, and I am defrauded of, something over 1d. by their method of calculating exchange. Surely it is time that this system of punishing receivers of letters for the errors, inadvertent or otherwise, of the writers of them, should be abolished."
  No mercy was shown in fining the recipients of newspapers insufficiently stamped. The Department would fain suppress periodical literature altogether. Thus W. H. Everett and Son, Salisbury Square, Fleet Street, London, E.C., wrote on March 28, 1892—
  "Whenever by accident a newspaper gets through without the ½d. stamp being affixed it is mysteriously transformed into a book and double the letter rate surcharged, so that we frequently have to return to our customers from 8 to 20 times the amount for which originally the Post Office were willing to transmit it. We have pegged away on this question for years, the only result being that we learn that when the proprietors attend to register a newspaper they sign an agreement in which a clause is inserted that this course shall be adopted in case of omission to prepay. Any refusal to sign would of course mean that the paper would not be registered. Consequently, we have to suffer, although we are no parties to this unfair compact."
  One of the most obstinately persistent postal perversities was the dead set made at all kinds of "halfpenny business," as it was elegantly called. This was probably connected with the Secretary's mistaken belief that there was a loss on all such business. Not content with refusing to Englishmen the privilege enjoyed by foreigners of sending any card of the proper size through the post with a ½d. stamp on it, the Authorities had drawn up a bewildering list of 46 different charges for postcards, the smallest being ¾d. for a single card. The term "halfpenny postcard" was, in fact, a misnomer in this country; our

  1679
  Post Office knew of a ½d. postcard (the smallest and dearest in the world), but nothing so vulgar as a ½d. could be tolerated. When postage stamps were introduced, the clerks of the Department formally remonstrated against the indignity of being required to sell these tiny adhesive labels, at 1d. each, across a counter, "like any common grocer or draper." One would have expected this wealthy Administration, whose thousands of croupiers were raking in gold for it by millions, would have disdained to wring an extra farthing from a poor man or woman applying for a postcard. But a corporation had neither a nose to be pulled nor a conscience to be pricked. The following letters might here be read:—
  "Last year 217,000,000 cards were delivered, of which thick and thin were half and half. The one weighs 4 lbs. for every 1,000, and the other about thrice that weight, and the average will be about 8 lbs. The size is the smallest of 20 offices in various countries. The actual weight of paper in the 217,000,000 cards, at 8 lbs. per 1,000, is close on 1,750,000 lbs., which, at 3d. per lb., is about £22,000. But the sum charged over postage at ¾d. for every 10 will be found to be over £66,000, or treble for the small cost of printing large sheets with the stamp, &c. It is a very large margin. The paper is, or was, entirely supplied from Germany, and the thick cards will be found, on burning them, as I have done, in a platinum crucible, to contain 22½ per cent. of china clay. The thin cards are less 'loaded,' as it is termed in the trade,"
  Mr. R. D. Williams, of Bristol, wrote—
  "May I draw your attention to the fact that postcards are only obtainable in tens and at an extra charge of ½d. or 1 per 10. This is a great hardship on poor people, to whom even the paper and envelope of a letter is an object. These cost 1d., stamp 1d.—2d.; 10 postcards, 5½d. Therefore, it is better, from a poor man's view, to buy an envelope, piece of paper, and stamp, though one postcard, value ·55d., would be sufficient."
  Formerly many stationers brought their sheets of cards to be stamped as postcards (paying the Government the face value of the stamps, and a charge for stamping), and then sold these postcards to the public at lower rates than those fixed for the sale of the official postcards. As the Department made a profit on its postcards, the sale of stationers postcards was stopped by the simple process of increasing the charge for stamping them. Now, if the stationers had a right to sell their cards, the Department was clearly acting unworthily in depriving
  1680
  them of that right by a trick of this kind. A letter on the subject came from The Midland Counties Herald Office, Birmingham—
  " February 27, 1891.
  "Until the Postmaster General reduced the price of quantities of postcards issued by the Post Office the Inland Revenue Department printed 'private cards' at 9s. per gross of boards—that is per 6,048 cards, as 42 cards are printed on each board (42 by 144 equals 6,048). But simultaneously with the announcement of reducing the price of postcards issued by the Department, the Inland Revenue charge for printing 'private cards' was raised from 9s. per 144 boards (a gross) to 15s., a most monstrous charge, as we trust we shall be able to show you, and this has practically put a stop to the printing of 'private cards.' We are large printers, and we do good work, and we are prepared to guarantee that we would print official postcards sent to us in quantities at 1s. per gross (please observe the official price for printing 'private cards 'is 15s. per gross); but as once the blocks from which the printing is done are 'made ready,' the actual cost to the Department, with a large profit, ought not to exceed 1s. per gross, which would yield a profit of 30 per cent. on the operation of printing. We should be very glad to undertake this work at these prices, and would give all necessary guarantees for the work being properly done."
  A second letter was from Messrs. A. Ritchie & Son, 51 York Place, Edinburgh, on June 14, 1892—
  "For many years we have been in the habit of sending cardboards to Somerset House, London, to be impressed; these boards contain 42 post cards on each, and the charge for printing the Government stamp has been at the rate of 1s. 6d. for 24 boards, in addition, of course, to the ½d. for each stamp. They now demand 2s. fid. for every 24 boards, which raises the price considerably. We may mention that we print various forms upon these cards, and that we use a large quantity annually. Some time ago Government reduced the price of postcards from 8d. per dozen to 6d. for 10. They also issued an order requiring, as to all stationers who had been in the habit of sending cards to be stamped, that in future they must procure a licence. All this action seems to point to a complete monopoly, forcing us to use their cards and preventing us from meeting the requirements of our customers who desire a cheaper card. We would respectfully urge that this is against the principles of free trade, and an interference with the traders' rights. We have been in the habit for many years of sending various printed forms, such as receipts, &c, to be stamped, for which no charge is made, and we fail to understand why in the matter of stamping cards so prohibitive a charge should be made. What we desire is, that the old price for stamping—namely, 1s. 6d. for 24 boards—be charged, which seems more than sufficient to recoup them for actual cost."
  He next gave a typical instance of what he called (borrowing from Sir A. Black-wood's vocabulary) "Post Office mean-

  1681
  ness." It would be seen from the following correspondence with the late Postmaster General that our Postal Authorities, not content with an annual profit exceeding £3,000,000, had contrived to turn an honest penny by clipping the postcards which they supplied for transmission to foreign countries. To clip a postcard—the poor man's only vehicle of communication with his friends in the Colonies—was, to his mind, hardly less hateful than to clip the coin of the realm. The British postcard to send to foreign countries or the Colonies was sold to them (or was until lately, he was told) composed of 30 per cent. of clay; and it was at once the smallest and dearest sold in the Postal Union.
  "House of Commons.
  "Dear Sir James Fergusson,—A number of correspondents have written to me complaining, in more or less indignant terms, of the action of the Postal Authorities in reducing the size of the Postal Union 1d. postcard. I send you three of the letters. May I ask whether there is any difficulty in restoring the postcard to the size sold in foreign countries, or at least in keeping on sale a certain number of the larger size for those who specially wish them; and whether any advantage has been gained by reducing the size?—I remain, most obediently yours, J. HENNIKER-HEATON."
  "Post Office.
  "Dear Mr. Henniker Heaton—In reply to your letter of the 19th instant, I should remind you that, until recently, three different rates of postage were chargeable in this country for postcards sent to places abroad—namely 1d., l½d., and 2d. In carrying out the scheme of uniform postage to all places abroad, it was decided to abolish the l½d. and 2d. postcard rates and make the 1d. postcards available to all destinations; but it was found necessary to accompany the concession with a slight reduction in the weight of the cards, the payments for the transit of cards through foreign countries and the Colonies being made by weight. In the two months of April and May during which the cards have been in use, six individuals have written to the Post Office on the subject of the reduced size; and the answer given by the Department has apparently been accepted as satisfactory, for nothing more has been heard from them. I am rather surprised, therefore, that you should have received many indignant letters on the subject. The size of the new cards was, of course, fixed with due regard to the reasonable requirements of the senders in the vast majority of cases. There is no reason to doubt that they satisfy those requirements. These explanations were given in answer to Mr. Webb in the House of Commons on the 12th instant, and I do not see my way to alter the size. The enclosure forwarded in your letter is returned herewith.—Believe me, yours sincerely, JAMES FERGUSSON."
  "House of Commons.
  "Dear Sir James Fergusson—In your letter on the subject of reducing the size of foreign
  1682
  postcards, you express surprise at my having received many letters on the subject, and mention the fact that, during April and May, only six persons wrote to the Department, complaining of the change. This fact mentioned by you does not surprise or impress me. Some years ago, I called Mr. Raikes's attention to the numerous complaints as to the large number of missing illustrated and other journals posted for Australia and India. He retorted that only two complaints had reached the Department on the subject during a whole year. A few days afterwards I asked, from my place in the House, the actual number of illustrated and other newspapers posted to Australia which had been, on one ground or another (chiefly through being insufficiently stamped), stopped in the British Post Office and destroyed during the year in question. The reply was, 25,000! Yet the Postal Department officials said there were only two complaints. This might be interpreted as showing that the public, when annoyed by an oppressive Postal Regulation, recognises the futility of complaining to the framers and defenders of such Regulation. (At the same time, to my knowledge, the victims have, in frequent instances, made oral complaint at their local offices.) But the impression is generally prevalent that any complaint to the Secretarial Department at St. Martin's-le-Grand will merely produce one or more of those courteously worded, but inflexible, printed Circulars with which we are all so familiar. To obtain redress, or reform, public opinion must be brought into play. Your letter puts forward two explanations of the reduction in the size of these postcards. In one place it is stated that the size was 'fixed with due regard to the reasonable requirements of the senders,' the inference being, that the Department knows the requirements of the public better than the public itself, which complains of the reduction or clipping of the cards. Elsewhere it is admitted that the real reason of the change was the desire to reduce the weight of the cards and so to lessen the payments, calculated according to weight, for the transit of the cards through foreign countries. I confess I do not appreciate this objection. Even if the weight of the old and favourite card were to affect the payments for carriage to any notable extent, they might surely have been brought down preferably by employing a lighter material, or, better still, by inducing Foreign Governments to revise their scale of transit charges. In the case of a post card, the space for writing is so limited, that any diminution of it largely impairs the usefulness of the card. And I would urge, with much deference, that the Public Service should be the paramount consideration, and that the convenience of the public should not, in the smallest detail, be sacrificed in order to effect a petty economy.—Believe me, yours most sincerely,
  J. HENNIKER HEATON."
  He had long urged the Department to permit the transmission through the post of any card whatever of the Regulation size, bearing an adhesive halfpenny stamp. By adopting this plan the Post Office would save many thousands a year, since they would be free from the neces-

  1683
  sity of providing postcards, the manufacture of which cost £283 per million. On this subject he read the following letter, one out of a great number, to the same effect:—
  "Dunmore, County Galway.
  "Sir,—I perceive by the Parliamentary Reports in the daily papers that you are making a determined fight in the interests of the public with the Postmaster General, and that, in one instance at least, there is a possibility of his yielding to your pressure—namely, to allow the use of private postcards with an adhesive halfpenny postage stamp attached. About 12 months since it was freely mentioned in the newspapers that the Postmaster General had sanctioned this concession, and on the face of such statements I got a large parcel of cards printed for my own commercial use. (I enclose you a specimen card.) In so doing I was sadly doomed to loss and disappointment, as the Postal Authorities declined to allow them to pass. Thanking you for your efforts to remedy this vexatious grievance,
  "Yours faithfully,
  "M. MCDONNELL."
  Mr. Rawlins, of 15, Kelvin Grove, Liverpool, said—
  "As a paper-maker, I can state that the material of the 217,000,000 cards, averaging 81bs. to the 1,000, only costs the Government £22,000. But they receive (for thick and thin cards) £66,000. The thick cards contain 22½ per cent. of china clay."—Mr. Rawlins's letter to The Liverpool Mercury.
  "The size is the smallest sold by 20 offices in various countries."—Mr., Rawlins's letter.
  Why, he asked, should the Government make a profit on selling stationery? They made £20,000 a year by selling postcards above their face value. The Pest Office would not allow a slip of paper to be gummed on the face of a post card, though a slip with the address might be gummed on the back. How could a slip be objectionable on one side, and not on the other? Mr. C. Inman, of 4, Park Hill, Richmond, Surrey, said—
  "24th June, 1893.
  "It frequently happens to me, and most likely to others, that there is a short paragraph in a newspaper you would like to communicate to a friend or relative, but you cannot cut it out and gum it to a postcard, for it is 'Contrary to Regulations,' though you may print as much as you like. An extract on a postcard would be much less weight than a newspaper for their servants to collect and deliver."
  Another person was fined for gumming a chess problem cut from a newspaper on to a postcard. The most urgent reform in connection with Postal Orders was to prevent thefts of them while in
  1684
  course of transmission. In his opinion this could best be accomplished by adopting the Mandat- Carte used on the Continent, and recommended by the Postal Union. By this system the remitter purchased a card endorsed with the amount required; and that amount was delivered, together with the card, at the addressee's door. There was accordingly no risk of delay, fraud, or mistake. It should be possible to transmit Postal Orders from one part of the Empire to another. This reform, which was urgently needed in the interests of trade, and of the poorer classes here and in the colonies, seemed to be highly obnoxious to the Postal Authorities. The Colonial Governments would willingly agree to adopt a uniform type of Postal Order such as was used throughout the United Kingdom. There was no great difficulty in the matter, for we already received and paid Postal Orders from at least seven British Possessions, including India. British orders were payable at Malta and Gibraltar. He pointed out also that while it cost only 1d. to remit 10s. from Hong Kong, India, or Newfoundland to England, it cost 6d. to remit 10s. from England to Hong Kong, India, or Newfoundland. The following letter puts the matter in a nutshell. H. J. L. wrote from Slough—
  "Sir,—Postal Orders can be sent from India, Strait Settlements, Hong Kong, and Newfoundland to England, but not from England to those countries—see Postal Guide for July 1892. Time occupied for a letter from Hong Kong is about 40 days, and from Singapore to this country is about 36 days—not much less than from Sydney or Melbourne to justify the refusal of their use between Australia and England when it is granted to the other countries mentioned. One great security for the sending of Postal Orders would be that the issuing officer should write in the name of the town where alone it is payable, and if any alteration should be made in such name it should be refused payment until proper inquiries had been made respecting it."
  At a great conference of Australian Postmasters General this year, a memorial was drawn up to the English Postmaster General asking him to establish Postal Orders between Australia and England. A peremptory refusal was given. The only reason assigned was the fear of forgery, which reason would equally prevent the circulation of Bank of England notes. It was pure obstruction on the part of the English officials.

  1685
  Mr. Alfred R. Wallace, Parkstone, Dorset, sent the following sensible suggestions:—
  "I have been reading with interest and approval your article on Post Office Reforms, and wish to suggest for your consideration two other cases in which the present system seems to me irrational and needlessly complex. 1. In Postal Orders the cost and trouble to the Post Office is exactly the same in all sums from 1s. to £1. Why, then, should a different charge be made? The money is paid in advance, and balances from unclaimed or delayed Postal Orders must be constantly in the hands of the Post Office. At all branch Post Offices the receipts and payments of orders must average about the same, and I can see no sense whatever in making three separate charges—½d., 1d., and 1½d.—for sums between 1s. and £1. If ½d. covers cost of Postal Orders for 1s. 6d. it must do so for all amounts. If not, then the uniform charge should be 1d., and that should cover all amounts (to even sixpences) between 1s. and 20s., whether made up by one, two, or three orders. For Money Orders also the charges are most extravagant. They should be uniform—say, 2d. or 3d. for all sums from £1 to £10."
  There was one common feature in all the diversified petty tyrannies practised by the Post Office on the public—they all tended to swell the Postal Revenue. The dodge exposed in the next missive was particularly neat, and specially profitable. A. M. W. wrote—
  "As one of the many thousands who are already very grateful to you for your efforts for Postal Reform, I venture to acquaint you with a piece of 'sharp practice,' as I consider it, by which it seems the Department makes a gain by its own negligence. My servant yesterday at Charlsbury Post Office asked for a Postal Order for 3s. They said they had none, and persuaded her to take one for 2s. and one for la. and pay l½d. poundage, thus gaining ½d. As it was their fault, not hers, they should either have given her two for 1s. 6d. each, or, at any rate, not charged more than 1d. This is not the first time this trick has been played there. In your most amusing list of negligences which the late Postmaster General ought to have signed I do not think this particular grievance was mentioned. Though Parliament is not sitting, I give you the information to do what you like with."
  On this he pointed out that it was to this day more expensive to send 9s. 6d. by Postal Order than 10s., and dearer to send 19s. 6d. than 20s. For five years the country had been complaining of this needless anomaly. He had also vainly urged the Postmaster General to issue guinea Postal Orders, which he declined to do. Very great convenience to the public would result from the adoption of a suggestion by Mr. Ernest Pitman—namely, that permission should be given
  1686
  for the remittance of stamps up to the value of 11d. by sticking them on a postcard, to be afterwards removed and used, or cashed by the addressee. The commission on these small sums would be saved, and no trouble given to the Post Office. Mr. William Wicking, of 54 High Street, Sevenoaks, wrote—
  "I would suggest that a useful change in the size of Postal Orders would result from reducing them in width to the size of this paper (large post 8vo). This could easily be done by increasing the depth very slightly. To business men this would be of value, as 90 per cent. of them use this size—consequently the order would just fit, instead of leaving the odd piece to turn in. I send this to you instead of the Postmaster General."
  The Post Office was rich and powerful enough to be able to acknowledge a blunder, and offer fair compensation; but this duty was only discharged in the most grudging and ungracious manner, and in no case without compulsion. The following letter from Mr. S. Watson, of 11 Dale Street, Liverpool, was addressed to the Postmaster General by Mr. Watson from Carlsbad:—
  "Sir,—I have received here a Post Office Order from the London Chief Office for £3 8s. 8d. This represents a Post Office Order for £3 9s 0d. I sent to my son in Freiberg, Saxony, about 12th July last, which, however, never reached him, owing to some mistake on the part of the Post Office. In the letter handing the Order you say—'In compliance with your application, I enclose herewith a new order (less the usual commission) in exchange for the order transmitted by you.' This may be the official mode of covering a blunder, but it is not the fact. I asked for no new order, but simply a return of my money, owing to your error; and on this plea of 'exchange of order' you have the temerity to charge me a commission of 4d. As the mistake was purely that of the Post Office, and so admitted by the officials in Liverpool, I see no reason why I should be mulcted even to this small extent. I therefore claim back the 4d., and in addition 1s., the original commission charged for Order to Freiberg, as you did not fulfil your undertaking, and consequently did not earn it. Further, the non-receipt of the money was a matter of great inconvenience and expense, for my son, who was expecting it to cover part of his expenses home, had to telegraph the non-arrival, was detained a day or two, waiting for it, and I had to wire him what to do. In addition, therefore, to the 1s. 4d., I claim from you the cost of the wires to and from the Continent—14 words—which, speaking from memory, I think is 2d. a word, 2s. 4d., or say in all 3s. 8d. My case is so plain that I have no doubt you will recognise the justice of it at once; and I may observe that on mentioning it to Mr. Henniker Heaton, who is stopping here, he has kindly undertaken to take note of it, in case I am

  1687
  troubled with any of the curious excuses or peculiar tactics of the Post Office."
  He believed the average time taken by the Department to deal with a complaint of this kind was one month. In this case, however, the sum claimed was sent without demur within three days. Our Post Office was content to leave us without the means of remitting small sums to several important countries. Thus, The British Quarterly Trade Review said—
  "There is no exchange of Post Office Orders with Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Spain, and several other countries which do a considerable trade with England. As an instance of the delay and costliness of the existing arrangements, it may be mentioned that it usually takes from four to six days to transmit from the Continent the amount of the annual subscription to this journal, and at a cost, exclusive of postage, of from 10 to 15 per cent. of the total sum. The trade journals of this country have between them several hundred thousand foreign subscribers who are unjustly taxed in this way."
  We might bear with equanimity the losses of foreigners here referred to, but, unfortunately, the evil cuts both ways, and our own people suffer still more than the foreigner. He wished now to direct attention to a rule plainly based on the theory that the public convenience was as nothing compared with that of the postal staff. A postal order could be obtained at any time while a post office was open; but a money order could only be had between the sacred hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. The reason seemed to be that certain mystical entries and "advices" were required in the case of money orders. But this reason was a poor one. In the majority of cases the same clerk performed the money order business and the other business of the office, and was perfectly able and willing to issue money orders up to the last moment; but the clerk was bound hand and foot with red-tape. Of course, the result was that a great demand was created for postal orders, and the temptations to dishonest sorters and letter carriers were multiplied. He asked a question on this subject, but could obtain no promise of amendment. In yet another instance our officials lagged behind the age. He alluded to the unnecessarily high charge made for commission on foreign and colonial money orders of small amount. The smallest fee which the Department condescended
  1688
  to accept was 6d., which covered the transmission of a sum not exceeding £2. Now it frequently happened that a person residing in this country wished to order a newspaper or other small article from a foreign country, or some place in the Colonies; or, as in the case put by his first correspondent on this subject, he might wish to ask a question and prepay postage on the reply. He had to pay in commission six times the price of the desired newspaper, or if he wished a sixpenny magazine, the commission increased the cost of it by about 100 per cent. The effect of this fleecing was to kill small trade of the description alluded to, and to place a further obstacle in the way of the circulation of the best colonial and foreign literature in this country. That it was sheer rapacity which prescribed these heavy fees was proved by the simple fact that very much lower—in fact, quite fair and reasonable rates—were charged by France in such cases. A second writer pointed out how injustice occurred in another way—by setting up a faulty standard of exchange. F. M., Boulogne, wrote—
  "I wish to direct your attention to the excessive commission charged by the Post Office for small sums sent by Post Office Order abroad and to the Colonies. The commission remains the same whether the money order be for 2d. or £2; it is 6d.—rather a high rate to pay, 10 per cent. on a 5s. order; for small sums it is an official swindle. Fancy someone in England requiring an answer to a letter from Japan having to obtain a Post Office Order for 3d. and have to pay 9d. If I sent you 5s. from here it would cost me 6f. 30c, plus 10 cents (Of. 40c.—5s. 1½d.)the commission charged between France and other countries (with the exception of one or two), which I suppose is in force thoughout the Union on the Continent at least, being at the rate of 1 per cent. It is an impost levied solely by the English Office, to which the Foreign Office is no party, nor does the latter benefit."
  C. H. Bradford wrote—
  "In the United States and Canada the commission on foreign money orders is 10 cents; in this country it is 6d. For Spain exchange is reckoned at 25 pesetas or francs per £, whilst exchange is quoted at 40¾d. per duro or pesas of 5 pesetas or francs, a depreciation of 15 per cent. I can buy Spanish books from Spain direct (at less than) half the price at which they can be bought here. If I buy here, my choice is limited to the publication of one Leipsic house, mostly one author, and even here my choice is limited to perhaps half-a-dozen volumes. If I go beyond these, I must order unseen, and do not receive them more promptly. My opinion is, that the new measure only subserves the interests of a few dealers—plays into

  1689
  their hands. If this be the situation in Bradford, what must it be in other towns? No wonder the study of languages is in a backward state, where obstacles are met with at every turn."
  If the public hit upon any device for accelerating the delivery of correspondence, not bearing the official imprimatur, it was promptly tabooed. Thus a gentleman wrote to him from the Carlton Club—
  "Formerly I used regularly to send a stamped letter to the railway station, and 1d. with it, which was handed to the guard, and the guard took it straight on to his destination. Now a Regulation has been issued against this, and I have to pay 2d. to the railway authorities, besides the 1d. on the stamped letter, and they put a ticket on it, and it goes into their parcel office, and is often not delivered till several posts afterwards. In France and Germany, in all through trains there is a railway letter-box. Why cannot we have such a convenience attached to all our trains in this country?"
  He went farther, and asked why should we not have a letter-box on every tram-car and omnibus, to be cleared at the terminus? The incredibly absurd Regulation referred to by the next correspondent would be found at page 35 of The Post Office Guide for July, 1893. The Rev. E. Ledger, of Barham Rectory, Claydon, Ipswich, wrote—
  "One cannot send a letter by train with 1½d. on it to be posted, say, at Liverpool Street, and catch evening mails—i.e., one cannot put the extra ½d. on; it must only have 1d. on. Nor may I send a letter with, say, 2½d. on for a foreign country—though such a privilege is just what might make it worth while to pay 2d. for the railway carriage."
  The privilege of sending a letter by railway, so as to save initial delay in sorting, &c, was largely impaired by the exaction of a fee of 2d. in addition to postage. A well-informed correspondent, Mr. H. J. Luff, of Arbour Vale, Slough, wrote on this subject—
  "Respecting railway letters. There is one point I am desirous of mentioning—namely, that when I was striving many years ago to get the system brought into use, I adopted 1d. as the compensation to the railway. My reason was that they carry single copies of any newspaper between any two stations, irrespective of distance, for ½d., which must be prepaid by the sender affixing a stamp to the paper; and I thought if ½d. was sufficient for a newspaper, surely double that amount should be ample for a letter weighing not more than one ounce."
  The existing arrangements between the Post Office and the Railway Companies should be inquired into; especially those
  1690
  referring to the remuneration of the companies for the conveyance of mail matter, and their right of sending any number of telegrams from station to station without payment. What had been done in this direction? Did the old contract apply to new lines of railway? He would next devote a few words to a reform which had been of unspeakable value to business men in various parts of the world—the Cash on Delivery system. The Postmaster General would render a vast service to trade if he would persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sanction the institution of this system. Under this, the postman who delivered a parcel of goods at the same time received the price of them, which was then paid over by the Post Office to the tradesman who sent them, a small commission being deducted. Every shopkeeper would hail the introduction of this plan, which was in full force in several great countries, including India. In Egypt, indeed, the Post Office actually collected bills and debts on commission. The advantages were obvious. Here was a picked, trained, trustworthy Civil servant passing every door in the Kingdom at least once a day. He was accustomed to the collection of fines for deficient postage, under Rules which rendered mistake or fraud impossible. All that was required was an extension of this existing system to the Parcel Post, and in a moment five-sixths of our tradesmen would be made independent of vans, porters, messengers, and carriers; while customers would receive their purchases more quickly. A post card would convey an order to a shop, and by return of post the book, or other article demanded, would, without further trouble to him, be laid on his table. No one would question that the Post Office Revenue would be largely swelled by the adoption of this reform; but there was a disposition among the officials to be alarmed at the possible growth of postal transactions, in this and other directions. So long as it was remunerative business, however, there was no need for alarm. He believed that in 1839 a postal official objected to Inland Penny Postage that the building at St. Martin's-le-Grand would not be large enough to contain the correspondence that might be expected. "Then it must be enlarged." was the reply. If there were one direction in which, by general

  1691
  consent, the authorities had neglected their duty, it was in the postal service of rural, and especially out-lying, districts. From all directions complaints poured in of the neglect with which country residents were treated. Letters took a day to reach them from London, while London letters reached Paris or Brussels in eight hours. There were but one delivery and one collection a day, always at the most inconvenient hours. Thus be knew of one case in which the outgoing post started 20 minutes before the incoming one had arrived, so that nobody writing to that village could expect a reply until the next day, or third day. It was unwise to add to the disadvantages of provincial life. We all lamented the crowding of country folk into the congested centres of population; and here was the Post Office doing its best to drive the remaining population of our hamlets and farmhouses into the towns. Its policy should be to diminish the sense of isolation which now weighed on the countryman; to bring him into close connection with the intenser life that flowed through our streets, and to give him a greater share of the benefits which steam, electricity, and human energy had enabled the Post Office to confer. He should not, in a word, be punished because he voluntarily remained in a position wherein he rendered the State greater service than if he joined the swarms that overburdened the Metropolis and the great manufacturing boroughs. There was, moreover, a growing tendency in the postal administration to neglect the less remunerative branches of the Service. It seemed to be an established rule, for instance, that remote and sparsely-peopled localities should not be supplied with a telegraph office, unless the householders would guarantee the Department a certain sum per annum, and the consequence was that nobody who wished to keep in touch with the markets, or to feel the pulse of trade, would reside in such districts. Such a policy intensified the discomforts incidental to residence in out of the way places, kept away capital, and drove the labouring population into the towns in search of work. It was a policy unworthy of the country to which the world owed the electric telegraph, and of a Department which drew a clear profit exceeding £3,000,000 per annum
  1692
  from its business. He gave a few words from a country rector about this matter—
  "Avering Rectory,
  "Stroud, Gloucestershire.
  "Dear Sir,—
  "May I ask if you can kindly give me any facts, or other information, which would help me in an application to the Postmaster General for a telegraph office in this parish? We have a population of 804, mostly within a mile of our village office, and yet we have to send a distance of three miles for a telegram message, a savings bank, or a money order, while our own Post Office close at hand could afford us all these needed facilities. The Secretary of the General Post Office requires a guarantee of £28 before he will grant us a telegraph office. But the residents in the village decline to give the guarantee, on the ground that the General Post Office should give us this facility without a guarantee. Three of our residents have houses in London, from which they pay largely in telegrams. The Government make large profits out of the telegraph wires in the towns, and we think they should give our neglected villages the benefit of a slight share of those profits in a wire at Avering. Having heard that you take such interest in the working of the Post Office, I have not scrupled to trouble you with this letter.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "F. DE PABAVICINI."
  The following letter called attention to another example of the mischievous effects of Post Office blundering. It would be seen that, owing to the excessive charges made for the conveyance of parcels over small distances, trade was diverted from small country towns to the Metropolis, and the Postal Revenue was, on the whole, a loser. His correspondent's pathetic picture of the half-ruined tradesman seeking half-bricks, not to throw at his persecutors, but in order to make his parcels more ponderous, and so defeat the Regulations, ought to touch the hearts of the magnates at St. Martin's-le-Grand. Mr. G. W. wrote to him—
  "Seeing your name so often in connection with reforms in the Postal Service, I have ventured to address to you a few lines with regard to a grievance which exists in the rural districts, particularly in connection with the Parcel Post. I am a tradesman in a country town, which is the centre of a large agricultural district, and, of course, what affects me in this respect affects my fellow-tradesmen in this and other small towns, and, probably, in large towns, too. I will give you one or two instances of how the Parcel Post works with us: Our customers in agricultural districts are widely scattered, extending, in most cases, as far as the limits of the rural postal district—say, six, seven or more miles in each direction. Supposing a customer of mine wants a particular article which can be got either from a local

  1693
  tradesman or from London—a 7 lb. parcel would cost Is. in coming from London. In this case the Railway Company would get 55 per cent. of the Is., the remainder going to the Post Office. If the customer sent to the local tradesman—say, six miles—it would cost Is.—just the same amount as from London; but the Post Office would get the whole Is. This is, however, not the only difficulty, for the customer would receive the parcel from London as soon as he would from the local tradesman, because the letters or orders brought by rural postmen to the town are not delivered until next morning, after the rural postmen have left the town on their day's journey, and thus a day is lost; and the London tradesman, who will receive his letters at the same time, is on a level with tradesmen living only a few miles off. The following two cases happened to me last week had a parcel about 7 lbs. to send to a customer three miles away. The mail cart passes the door, but I could not send it for less than Is. It so happened that the article was returned next day for a slight alteration, which cost another Is., and had to be sent again after the alteration, costing still another Is. The second case was similar in all respects, except that it was another postman, who said that if I would make it over 11 lbs. weight with a brick or stone he would take it for 3d. I could give you more cases, but hope these will give you some idea of how the Parcel Post works for country tradesmen. Previous to the Parcel Post being established, the rural postmen carried parcels—as many as they liked. Since the Parcel Post was started, it has been the custom here for the younger men to run the risk of carrying parcels under 11 lbs; the older men have not dared to do so, on account of the risk of losing their pensions, but would carry them if made over 11 lbs. Lately, however, an Inspector has been here and given strict orders that all parcels under 11 lbs. must go through the post. It cannot be called anything but an imposition to charge Is. to carry a parcel six miles, and carry the same parcel 300, 400, or 500 miles for something less than 6d., which is the Post Office's share after paying the Railway Company. Besides, why should tradesmen be put to the trouble and annoyance of having to seek bricks and stones to over-weight parcels? We are handicapped in the race with large centres like London, Manchester, &c. Uniformity of rates, as of everything else, is very beautiful in theory, but does not always work so well in practice; and this, I venture to suggest, is a casein point. Are the Post Office people the masters of the public, or are they the servants of the public? If the latter, I think it a great shame that in all these years there has not been, so far as I know, the slightest inquiry made into the working of the Parcel Post in rural districts, although it has been brought under the notice of the Inspectors. I hope, Sir, if we can only enlist your interest in the matter, you will be able to waken them up a little. I think it ought not to be a very difficult thing to adopt a local rate for short distances—say, where a parcel does not touch the railway, make the rate one-half of the present rate; have two prices for local parcels to make it more simple; carry a 6 lb. parcel for 3d., and 12 lbs. for 6d.; and also arrange for a delivery of letters after
  1694
  the rural postmen return from their journeys. The most ridiculous part of the present system is, however, that the postmen can carry a parcel, no matter what weight it is, if only above 11 lbs., for 2d. or 3d."
  It must be unpleasant for the Postmaster General to receive such letters as the one that followed. It was addressed to his predecessor, on June 1, 1891, by the Rev. C. H. Brocklebank, of Bolton Hall, Gosforth, Cumberland. After giving a list of delayed and missing letters, he proceeded—
  "We have no post-box nearer than Gosforth, more than a mile off—a long way to have to send the letters every day. Telegrams are sent viâ Seascale—porterage 4s. At several of the farmhouses and cottages near here the letters are not even delivered. It is impossible to get one's Sunday letters even by sending to the Gosforth Post Office for them."
  Or take this case. Mr. M. Robertson, of Crabble House, River, near Dover, wrote—
  "In a Berkshire parish (Suthamstead Abbots) only seven miles from Reading, where I have recently been living, we were two days' post from every place except those on the main Great Western Railway between London and the West, and even so from some places within a drive. We were also three miles from a telegraph office, the messages from which often reached my house one and a-half hours after they had been received at the office, because, as they said, they only had one boy."
  A correspondent at Plymouth called his attention to another grievance. Without giving his letter he would briefly state that the Post Office charges for the despatch of parcels to India were 8d. per pound, and to Australia 9d. per pound, while the shipping agents only charged 3d. per pound. The only possible explanation of such an excess charge was, that the Post Office would rather not be troubled with parcels for the Colonies, although it was worth the while of private firms to advertise for the carrying of such parcels. A parcel of shells was sent from Brussels to the British Museum for 2d., to be examined. On returning the parcel, the Museum authorities had to pay Is. 6½d. The French Government allowed 320 gr. to be sent for 2½d. He now approached the subject of the Express Letter Service, which was forced upon the Postal Authorities by public opinion, and which they undertook with about as much grace and cheerfulness as a bucking horse displayed while being saddled and mounted. Not only were the porterage charges, as in the case of telegrams, far too high in

  1695
  comparison with the wages paid to the messengers, but the service was hampered with the necessity of filling up a complicated form, writing certain words on a particular part of the cover, and, above all, attending at some post office to hand the message over the counter. This last provision was puerile and vexatious. Why could not an express letter be stamped with a special crimson stamp, or a stamped crimson envelope used and posted in the nearest pillar box overnight, so as to be delivered the first thing in the morning, as in a country where common sense governed the postal administration? He appended an envelope so posted, on which a fine was charged, and also a pregnant note from a correspondent—
  "The White House,
  "Chelsea, London, S.W.
  "Sir,—Having occasion to post an express letter I found it much more difficult than in Belgium, besides being 300 per cent. dearer. I enclose the two methods for your own use.—Tours truly. A. MACKENZIE Ross."
  "England:
  I sent express letter addressed to 'City,' found nearest P.O., did not forward express letters; had, of course, to take it to one that did, which was some considerable distance away. Had to pay 1s. postage."
  "Belgium:
  Express letter would only require to be posted in first' bus passing. Postage 3d."
  Another complaint was that an express letter sent from here to France or Belgium on Saturday evening was delivered on Sunday morning. But a letter from France to England posted on Saturday evening on business of life and death was not delivered until Monday morning. The next case was not one of extortionate charges, but of neglect to secure the same privilege of registration of valuable parcels for Englishmen which foreigners enjoyed. Mr. F. Powell, of Iddlesleigh Villa, Egham, wrote—
  "18th June, 1893.
  "Sir,—I am a lapidary, and have to maintain a severe struggle with the Swiss and French cutters, who work somewhat cheaper than we handicapped English cutters can, and who send large parcels of cut stones to London by post every day registered. I, however, possess a little special skill, which induces a few even of the best French houses to send their stones to me to be cut; but, after cutting and presenting to the Post Office as a foreign registered packet, I am told my unset stones come under the head of 'Jewellery,' and cannot be sent per post. Consider, Sir, how this operates against the unfortunate English in favour of the foreigner."
  Here was another legitimate grievance. A person ordering a small article from the Colonies, or desiring a reply to a letter, could not buy in our Post Offices two or three stamps of the country of destination to send to his correspondent. The subjoined was a case in point, from Mr. Barlow, 21a, The Crescent, Salford—
  "Whilst writing you upon the matter of surcharges, may I also bring under your notice the great convenience that would result if postage stamps of Canada—Australia in particular—could be obtained at the general offices? It is constantly coming under my notice that persons corresponding with places desire to prepay replies by enclosing the necessary stamp; and disappointment is often expressed. It is very general not to receive replies from the person or firm written to from this cause. I am sure advantage would be taken of such a boon, not only in this country, but by the people of other countries; and it would be the means of greatly augmenting correspondence with these countries."
  The Post Office would not use its despotic power to soften and refine the manners of the people; and anything in the nature of politeness introduced into a paper sent by book-post was pounced upon as a pretext for a fine. Such a document must contain only the skeletons of sentences; it must demand a debt with brutal frankness, and convey descriptions of quality and indications of route with military brevity and mathematical precision. The subjoined was a case in point—
  "Deptford, London, S.E.
  "Dear Sir,—Referring to your letter in The Times, re Post Office punishment for politeness, we are very pleased to see you have taken this matter up, and it may interest you to know that some few years ago we had printed at the foot of our invoice forms the words 'The above sent to your esteemed order per …' The Post Office Authorities objected to our invoice form being sent at circular rate, on the ground that the above printed words were regarded as of the nature of a letter. We could put simply 'Sent per ….'(which we now do), and it would be allowed to go at circular rates. We think you will agree with us that the authorities made a distinction without any real difference, we only putting it originally in a more polite manner, but for which same politeness we found our customers had to pay a fine of 1d. in each instance.—Yours faithfully,
  FREDERICK BRABY & Co."
  Here was an instance of the way in which our Post Office regarded the exchange of literature with our Colonies: A person sent 10 copies of "Horner's Penny Series" (each of them a thin pamphlet) to Australia, and the postage was l0d. At another time he sent 20,

  1697
  the cost of which was 1s. 8d., and was charged 2s. for postage. Mr. Wedderburn Maxwell, Glenair, Dalbeattie, N.B., also wrote—
  "Dear Sir,—Could you not get the ½ oz. Indian and Australian postage single letter weight increased to 1d. oz.? It would be a matter of convenience, as regards using decent paper instead of flimsy stuff, and as steamboats and railways carry the bulk of the mails the extra weight would not be a burden. "Weight does not seem to come in, when heavy letters are charged at less comparative postage rates, in this country. The public are deeply indebted to you for your successful toils in getting reduction of postage, the loss on which will doubtless be recouped in time."
  On this subject also the Rev. F. T. Cole, of 38 Burlington Gardens, Acton, W., February 17, 1893, said—
  "Let me call your attention to the cheap Indian postage. A letter is conveyed to any part of India, 2,000 miles, for half an anna, in reality ½d. The Government sell embossed envelopes for ½d. and post cards for quarter of an anna, i. e. one farthing."
  Mr. E. O. Walker, C.I.E. (late of the Indian Telegraph Service), of 144, Queen's Road, Bayswater, W., wrote—
  "In India, where I have served for many years, one can send a letter equal in weight to half a rupee (or tola) for half an anna to any part of India or Burmah—perhaps over 2,000 miles. Again, letters, papers, cards, book-packets and parcels are re-addressed over and over again, without additional charge. My argument is, that if these concessions can be made in a country where the distances are so vast, there should be no difficulty in making them in the British Isles. Newspapers, parcels, book packets, and printed papers, legal and commercial documents—in fact, all articles and communications dealt with by the Post Office should, as well as letters, be re-addressed free of charge."
  Mr. Ivor Phillipp (Junior Army and Navy Club) said—
  "The Indian Government conveys a letter from Peshawur or Quetta to Calcutta (1,500 miles, by rail), then to Rangoon (3 days by sea), and then to Bhamo (700 miles) for ½d. (½ anna); or a postcard for ¼d.—3,000 miles."
  He now turned to the subject of postmarks. Some time ago he presented to the then Postmaster General a Memorial signed by 210 Members of Parliament, asking that the hour as well as the date of collection, &c, might be stamped on all postal matter. This was done, with much advantage to the interests of business, in several British Colonies and foreign countries, and was formerly done in England (to 1818). The Postal Authorities, however, refused to make
  1698
  this concession, the reason of their refusal doubtless being that it enabled the public to trace, check, and control the movements of correspondence—in other words, to bring home unerringly to the officials any negligence of which they might have been guilty. As a correspondent lately wrote to The Times—
  "Any lawyer or man of business can testify to the importance of postmarks. I enclose some of the colonial and foreign postmarks for your inspection, and would call special attention to their clearness and legibility, as contrasted with the blurred smudges too often found on British letters."
  With the great towns sucking the population from our rural districts, and paying £30,000,000 a year to the foreigner for dairy and garden produce which British cultivators might supply, it would seem good policy to furnish exceptionally cheap postal facilities to our own country. He had proposed an "Agricultural Parcel Post" rate of 1d. a pound, but the postal officials exhausted themselves in finding objections to it. A correspondent, farming 4,000 acres, wrote—
  "I believe that, if properly worked, an Agricultural Parcel Post would do more than anything to make small holdings profitable."
  And others pointed out that when the present postage had been met, the price secured for the articles referred to did not cover the cost of production. A collection of these letters would be found in The Mark Lane Express for May 18th, 1891. Before leaving this subject he urged that an Agricultural Parcel Post would be a wonderful auxiliary to make profitable small allotments and holdings. He now referred to another subject of irritation. At some post offices the fee for a private box was £2 2s., as the fee went to the Crown. At others it was £1 1s., and went to the Postmaster. There should be a uniform charge, not exceeding £1 1s. Several correspondents had written to him complaining of the double charge for double weight. Now, he maintained that the chief items in the cost of letters to the Post Office being sorting, despatch, and delivery, it was absurd to charge double postage for double weight. This was recognised as regarded inland letters, but not for foreign. Why not? The half-ounce was often necessarily exceeded by a trifle owing to an enclosure; the cost to the

  1699
  Post Office, owing to the extra weight, could not be more than ½d. additional, yet we were charged 2 ½d., or the receiver 5d. Surely, if it was necessary to restrict the foreign letter to the half-ounce for the single postage of 2 ½d., it should increase only by ½d. per half-ounce. This was the more reasonable, as printed matter was carried abroad, as at home, at T ½d. per two ounces. Hon. Members would agree with him that the fine for each inland letter should not exceed ½d., and for a foreign letter 1d. The heavy hand of the British Post Office fell even on such harmless and graceful sciences as that of conchology, as witness this racy protest from a gentleman of more than European fame (whose letter was written before the institution of the uniform 2 ½d. letter rate to the Colonies)—
  "Budleigh Salterton, Devon.
  "Dear Mr. Henniker Heaton,—A foreign savant lately sent me a box of shells for my identification, as they are New Caledonian species. He is publishing a splendid work on them. He paid about 2d. I replaced the shells in the box, reversed the paper, retied the string, so the weight was the same, and had to pay 1s. postage, besides being called upon to fill up and sign two declarations of value, contents, name of sender, and address ditto of consignee, &c, &c. Now, is not this too absurd? I am writing to all my old shell correspondents giving them my address. I have paid different postages—2 ½d., 3d., 4d., 5d., 6d.; and, I think, 3 ½d. Every other country seems to have an uniform postage of 2 ½d. There must be something rotten in the state of England if we cannot do the same. More power to your elbow I—Believe me, yours faithfully,
  "E. L. LAYARD."
  It was abundantly clear, from what had been said, that it would require the memory of Porson and the acuteness of an old special pleader to have dealings with the Post Office without infringing one or more of its multitudinous Rules. And a curious point was, that where one of these Rules had an exception, the exception was sure to contain a new trap for the public. The following instance would suffice to show their insidious character. Messrs. Day & Co., 21a, Berners Street, London, W., wrote—
  "We are allowed by the Postal Authorities to send batches of letters and circulars unstamped to the head and different district offices provided that the postage does not amount to less than £1, and then they are stamped in red as on enclosed envelope. The postage in England and everywhere else all over the world being alike for book packages, in addressing from various lists we no longer separate the foreign from the English addresses, with the
  1700
  result that the authorities take our money for the postage, stamp our circulars as paid, and then return them because the payment is not made in stamps. If instead of sending the circulars to the Post Office to be marked as paid we put ½d. stamps on them, the same ½d, stamps would cover them everywhere, so that in the case I refer to the stamping of the foreigners cannot enable the authorities to keep any special account of them."
  Messrs. Dick Radclyffe, Limited, of 128, High Holborn, W.C., wrote that the Post Office accepted a sum of money to stamp the payment of postage in ink on a bundle of circulars. The officials afterwards altered their minds, and required adhesive stamps to be affixed, but declined to return the money first paid. A curious system was in vogue that only circulars for the United Kingdom could be stamped "postage paid." What was the objection to having this done for circulars to be sent abroad? The next communication irresistibly recalled the story of the conscientious Scottish innkeeper who would only supply small glasses of punch on Sundays, sternly replying to all remonstrances—"We dinna sairve large glasses on the Saw-bath."
  "6, Wedderburn Road,
  "Hampstead, N.W.
  "Dear Sir,—The Post Office is open all Sunday for sale of stamps, &c. I asked there this morning (Sunday) for a packet of reply postcards, and was told that ordinary post-cards were sold there on Sundays, but no reply postcards! Wishing you success in your efforts to make our Post Office arrangements more sensible,
  "Yours truly,
  "JOSEPH KING."
  What explanation could the Postmaster General offer for this stupid Regulation? He would now ask, when would the Postmaster General issue a popular Post Office Guide? When should we have a Post Office Guide written in the interests of the public? The Regulations were now obviously drawn up in the interests of the Department as a collector of Revenue. The principles of interpretation ordinarily adopted were reducible to two: (1) Read the regulation as unfavourably as possible to the public; and (2) Never alter a decision once pronounced. In the United States Guide 40 pages were devoted to suggestions to the public to guard them against error and fines. Mr. T. R. Bridson, of Rock End, Torquay, wrote—
  "I have spent three winters at Pau, during which my solicitors have frequently occasion to

  1701
  send me by post, deeds, leases, &c, which had also to be returned. I will give one instance. A package weighing 11 ¾ ounces reached me from Liverpool. On this the British Inland, Postage would be 4d.; the French Inland Postage fcs. 3.60, or a little under 2s. l1d.; total, 3s. 3d. But the postage charge at Liverpool was 5s. Thus the cost of transit from Dover to Calais was 1s. 9d."
  A very reasonable suggestion was, that letters should be received at the London District Offices on Sundays, for transmission by the evening mails. Letters posted at the General Post Office, the West Strand Telegraph Office, and the various railway termini were so forwarded, an extra fee being charged; and there could be no reason why residents in other parts of the Metropolis, as well as those living near the favoured spots, should not be similarly accommodated, as very little extra labour, of man or horse, "would be involved. A man staying at an hotel in Northumberland Avenue had merely to walk round the corner and despatch an urgent letter; whereas millions of Londoners were miles away from the nearest point at which such letters were collected for despatch on Sunday. Turning to Northern Australia, he commended to the authorities the following letter from Mr. Edwin Luxton, of Port Darwin:—
  "Allow me to inform you that in this part of the world we receive our goods before we get advice of them. And as it is a great disgrace to the British Post Office that such a state of things should exist, I trust you will pardon me addressing you on the subject, knowing well, with everyone else, that you take great interest in postal matters. The General Post Office could easily make up a bag for this port, and send it viâ Hong Kong or Singapore, as we now have three lines of steamers running to these ports."
  He had still to complain that a series of extravagant bargains had been made with the Governments of France and Italy respecting the conveyance of our mails between Calais and Brindisi. Under these agreements we were paying about £60,000 a year more than the market price of the service, which money went as a kind of subsidy from British to French and Italian taxpayers. Yet the Post Office loftily refused even to communicate the existing contract to Parliament. Where was our control of expenditure if the officials could render us liable, on a secret contract, for any amount they pleased? The Postal Authorities positively declined to lay the
  1702
  contract on the Table. He maintained that they were acting illegally in declining to do so. Next, he met with a piece of brilliantly red-tape. It would be seen, from the official letter annexed, that a person could not drop an important letter into the bag of a postman who had just emptied a pillar-box. He must march to the next pillar-box a yard in front of the postman, and drop in his letter just before the latter came up. The actual facts of this case were that a gentleman asked a country postman returning from his round to take a letter for him to the post office, as there was no messenger available. Of course, in view of the Regulation, the postman declined to run any risk. He could not see why a postman should not allow his bag to be used, on emergency, as a collecting receptacle for letters—
  "Child wall Lodge, Wavertree.
  "Sir,—Pray excuse my bringing the enclosed under your notice as a very energetic Post Office reformer, to whom we all owe much. I asked a Post Office official going to the General Post Office, Liverpool, to drop me a stamped letter in the box there. I was, perhaps, distant a short quarter of a mile. He said he could not do so. I drew the postmaster's notice to the occurrence, saying that doubtless it was according to some Regulation, and of course I in no wise blamed the man, but I added I hardly thought the Regulation could be meant to apply to such a case, and if it was so intended I hardly thought it worthy of a Department claiming to be progressive. His reply I enclose. Pray don't trouble yourself to reply or to return the enclosed. I simply draw your attention to a fact, and beg you to accept my apologies for thus intruding, as a stranger, upon your notice.—Yours truly, ARTHUR EARLE."
  Here was the reply from Mr. J. D. Rich, Postmaster, Liverpool, to the complaint of his correspondent—
  "Dear Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 26th ultimo, I beg leave to state that the postman concerned acted in strict accordance with the Regulations in declining to take the letter which you offered to him in the street on Thursday last. The Rule on the subject is as follows:—' A postman is forbidden on pain of dismissal to carry or deliver, either singly or in parcels, ordinary letters of any kind, whether stamped or unstamped, which have not been regularly posted.'—I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, J. D. RICH, Postmaster."
  He had long been impressed with the necessity of adopting some means of preventing the numerous thefts from pillar-boxes and letter-boxes. Some mechanical check for this purpose was required. Such a contrivance, of simple yet effectual construction, had been shown

  1703
  him by Mr. Wilberforce, and a second invention of the kind had also been brought to his notice. The Post Office had refused to make a trial of either. He commended to the Postmaster General another suggestion on the subject of the trouble and delay so often experienced in the registration of births and deaths. A correspondent sent a suggestion, which was well worthy of consideration. Humanity dictated that we should render the duty of registering a death as easy as possible to the relatives of the deceased. His correspondent wrote—
  "Town Hall, Chorlton-upon-Medlock,
  "Manchester.
  "Sir,—Your success and efforts for further facilities for the public lead me to ask your assistance for the purpose of throwing open the post offices of the Kingdom for the Registration of Births and Deaths. The present system is out of date, and costs £80,000 a year, which might be saved. It is monstrous that the occupiers of country districts should have to walk 10 or 20 miles to register a birth or death, when this State duty might be performed in five minutes at the village post office. To say nothing of the great inconvenience, waste of time and money to the public, it is very unwise to impose delay of interment in cases of infection, or where, as in the labourer's cottage, accommodation for the living is restricted. Can you help in this desirable reform?—Yours, &c,
  "G. BENNETT."
  There were a number of other suggestions to be considered. He could not hope to see all these reforms carried out by the Postal Authorities, and he therefore, as a means of solving the difficulty, advocated the passing of the following Motion:—
  "To call attention to the friction, obstacles, and delays invariably attending any effort to procure the acceptance by the Postal and Telegraph Authorities of reforms, or changes in their rules and methods, called for in the public interest; and to move, That there be established a Postal and Telegraphic Consultative Committee, similar to that existing in France called La Commission Consultative des Postes et des Telegraphes,' to consist, as in France, of 26 Members, selected from the Members of both Houses of Parliament, Presidents of Chambers of Commerce, Chairmen of Railway Companies, and representatives of the principal commercial, industrial, and social bodies, the Postmaster General to be President of such Committee. That it be the duty of such Committee to invite, consider, and report upon suggestions for the improvement of the Postal and Telegraphic Services."
  In conclusion, he should like to sum up briefly the chief reforms and improvements of the Postal and Telegraph Services for which the public was waiting. He would do this by enumerating the
  1704
  various subjects to which the Postmaster General should devote his special attention. They were as follows:—

  "1. That a Parcel Post should be established between this country and the United States.

  "2. That the public be allowed to supply its own postcards, adhesive halfpenny stamps being affixed, as in other countries.

  "3. That the 'foreign' postcard should be restored to its former dimensions.

  "4. That letter-boxes should be attached to all through trains.

  "5. That the rule against the use of discarded printed papers for newspaper covers should be abolished.

  "6. That postmen should be authorised to allow mail-matter to be dropped into their bags.

  "7. That excessive 'porterage' charges for telegrams should be abolished or greatly reduced.

  "8. That 1d. should be charged on the receipt given for a telegram.

  "9. That conventional terms and phrases of courtesy in circulars, statements of account, &c, should not be taken to be 'of the nature of a letter.'

  "10. That the charges for telegraphic money orders should be reduced.

  "11. That an 'Agricultural Parcel Poet' should be established, at special low rates, for dairy produce, poultry, vegetables, fruit, &c.

  "12. That where a post office is at present open on Sunday all articles sold there on week days shall be obtainable during the hours of business on Sunday.

  "13. That the rules requiring a registered newspaper to be published at intervals not exceeding seven days, and to contain a certain proportion of news and articles of a particular character, shall be abolished.

  "14. That postal officials shall undertake the registration of births and deaths.

  "15. That the tariff of charges for the transmission of telegrams shall be purged of such anomalies as I have exposed.

  "16. That any written or printed or typewritten matter which merely states the price, size, or place of publication of a newspaper shall be allowed to appear on the cover of such newspaper.

  "17. That the fine for insufficient postage should not exceed the deficiency.

  "18. That the Express Letter Service should be simplified; and that 'Express' envelopes should be sold, which may be posted in any pillar box by day or night.

  "19. That the minimum charge for the sample post should be ½d. (for 2 ozs.)

  "20. That the charge for the registration of a letter should not exceed 1d.

  "21. That more postal and telegraph offices, and more frequent collections and deliveries, should be provided in country districts.

  "22. That letters addressed to the Colonies or foreign countries should be stamped in batches on payment of the postage, without the necessity of affixing adhesive stamps.

  "23. That postcards and stamped envelopes should be sold, as in other countries, at the face, or nominal, value.

  "24. That the Parcel Post Service in the country towns should be improved and accele-

  1705
  rated, and the charge for short distances reduced.

  "25. That Postal Orders should be freely transmissible, at a moderate commission, between all parts of the Empire.

  "26. That the commission on postal orders should be reckoned on the total amount purchased, and not calculated at so much for each order.

  "27. That in the carriage of outgoing mails the most direct routes and swiftest steamships should be employed.

  "28. That the parcel rates to the Colonies should be reduced.

  "29. That the commission on foreign and colonial money orders should be reduced.

  "30. That money orders should be obtainable at any time when a post office is open.

  "31. That it should be permissible to trim the edges of a postcard so as to allow of its being enclosed in an envelope.

  "32. That the chief office in each district should be open until the latest possible moment for the receipt of letters with an extra fee on Sunday.

  "33. That the wording of the Regulation as to inserting the name of the page in a postal order shall be amended so as to make it clear that the name of a firm or company may be so inserted.

  "34. That the 'mandat-carte' system of Switzerland shall be substituted for the inland postal order system, the money being delivered with the 'mandat' at the payee's residence.

  "35. That naturalists' specimens shall be conveyed through the post at a nominal rate.

  "36. That the hour of collection should be stamped on all documents posted, so as to enable the public to check, control, and trace the movement of correspondence.

  "37. That when a mistake is made in telegraphing a word, that word only, and not the entire message, shall be repeated.

  "38. That it shall be permissible to cut out embossed stamps and use them for postage.

  "39. That the Post Office arrangements with the Railway Companies should be revised.

  "40. That the charges on telegraphic money orders should be reduced, and the money sent with the order.

  "41. That the charge for a private box at any Post Office should be £1 1s.

  "42. That the 'Cash on Delivery' system should be introduced.

  "43. That the arrangement under which the French and Italian Governments pocket some £60,000 a year, over and above the actual cost of transit, for the conveyance of British mails between Dover and Calais shall be revised, and the contract submitted to Parliament.

  "44. That Imperial Penny Postage should be instituted from the United Kingdom to the Colonies.

  "45. That our Government should propose the employment of an International stamp for transmitting mail-matter or small sums of money, and should keep on sale the chief foreign and colonial stamps.

  "46. That all Post Office expenditure for sites and permanent improvements should be carried to a capital account, and spread over several years, instead of being defrayed out of one year's income.

  1706

  "47. That privately-printed postcards should be stamped at cost price.

  "48. That 'query' postcards (for question and answer on one card) and letter-cards should be introduced.

  "49. That one-guinea postal orders should be supplied.

  "50. That the Continental system should be introduced of placing a locked box in each postal pillar, with a perforation adjusted to that in the pillar, so that the postman has only to collect the boxes, and cannot touch the letters.

  "51. That 'cartes-télégrammes' should be introduced (i.e., correspondence should be transmitted from one part of a city to another through pneumatic tubes).

  "52. That the Post Office accounts should be kept in a businesslike manner, and that full and clear estimates for all expenditure, without exception, should be submitted annually to Parliament.

  "53. That fall accounts should be annually published of foreign and Colonial correspondence.

  "54. That registered Benefit Societies should be permitted to open current accounts at the Post Office Savings Banks.

  "55. That the names and addresses (not exceeding eight words in all) of the sender and addressee of a telegram and all compound names should be transmitted free.

  "56. That the right to advertise on the backs of the 300,000,000 telegram forms annually consumed should be sold, the money so raised to be devoted to increasing the salaries of postal and telegraph officials.

  "57. That direct cable communication should be established between Dover and Calais.

  "58. That telegrams should be sent to France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany for 1d. per word, to the rest of the 'European system' and to Egypt, India, Persia, and the Straits Settlements for 6d. a word, and to the countries in the 'Extra European system' for 1s. per word.

  "59. That the Government should, either from its own resources, or in concert with the Indian and Australian Governments, purchase the existing cable system of the Eastern Telegraph, the Eastern Extension, and the Indo-European Companies, and the allied associations, and lay such additional cables as may be required, in order to provide a cheap cable service for the Empire.

  "60. That the minimum number of copies produced in imitation of typewriting, and transmissible at the book post or circular rate, shall be reduced from 20 to 4.

  "61. That the weight of a letter carried to India, Australia, and the Colonies generally, should be increased to one ounce for a single stamp."

  MR. J. BURNSsaid, he regretted, at this stage of the Estimates, to have to trouble the House with a few remarks upon the mail cart service of the Post Office. He must say that the Postmaster General and the Government were to be congratulated on having conceded the right of meeting and the right

  1707
  of combination. He also commended the Department for having restricted overtime, and for having restored the men who engaged in a strike some three years ago. They had been told that a large sum had been added in the last few months by reason of higher wages, but he would like to point out that that increase did not arise from an increase of the wages of individual postmen and officials. He would remind the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the increase in the expense of the Post Office was mainly due to the additions which had been made to the various staffs. He was afraid that some of the money had gone to officials who received over £300 a year instead of to the postmen and the lower grade employés who were in receipt of less than £100 a year. He desired to raise a question as to whether the Government should in future place the carriage of mails by road in the hands of a contractor instead of doing this work by the direct employment of men who should be, like postmen, the directly paid officials of the Postmaster General. Every London Member would agree with his criticism of the dirty and scandalous condition of the mail carts in London, and to criticise the condition of the mail cart service in London he must deal partly with a firm. One of the firms was that of Macnamara. This firm in 1887 was in a very bad condition. The horses were overworked, the harness was dirty, the men were overworked and underpaid, and the vehicles were in a ramshackle and shameful condition. In 1877 a company was formed to take over the business of the firm of Macnamara. The vendors of that company got £54,000 for the good-will of the particular business, besides £50,000 they received in exchange for it as a going concern. The capital of the firm was watered very much. It was over-capitalised, and the result of that was that the men had to work scandalously long hours and received very low wages indeed. The Postmaster General himself had admitted that the men worked 12 ¾ hours per day, but the men maintained that they frequently had to work 14, 15, and 16 hours a day. In a private Report of one of the Manager Directors of the company it was stated that the horses were not in a good working condition, and that one-twelfth of
  1708
  them ought to be sold at once and replaced by new ones.
  MR. A. MORLEY: What was the date of that Report?
  MR. J. BURNS: August, 1892. The same condition of things prevailed at the present time as he was told by the men who drove the horses, and who, with all respect, knew more about the matter than the Postmaster General or the permanent officials of the Post Office. This was a record of the horses which either died or were killed or sold as worn out through overwork. During the year ending June, 1389, 40 per cent. of the stud; in 1890, 27 per cent; in 1891, 18 per cent.; 1892, 35 per cent. The heavy mortality for the year ending June, 1889, was explained in this way. It was stated that during the year then the horses were overworked and underfed in order to show a good return in the first year's working. In fact, the business generally was starved. The Government made a considerable profit out of the Post Office, and they ought not to allow work to be done by contractors who cruelly overworked their horses and underpaid their men to a disgraceful extent. That House ought to prevent these abuses, and they ought to prevent a Government Department being used for Stock Exchange manipulation to an extent that was known to every man on the Stock Exchange and outside of it. That was a condition of things that the House ought under no circumstances to tolerate, and he appealed to the Postmaster General whether he could not arrange, between now and the expiration of Macnamara's contract, to follow the example of other Government Departments and every Local Authority throughout Great Britain. They found the horses in the Army well cared for, fed, stabled, and groomed. There they had the direct employment of horses and the direct employment of men looking after them with advantage to the State, and without cruelty to the animals. If Artillery and Cavalry horses could be kept for the service of the State for drawing guns, he did not for the life of him see why direct employment should not be insisted upon for the permanent work of drawing letters and mails for the Post Office along the roads to the railway stations. There was no doubt that in London between

  1709
  now and the next five or six years they were going to see a considerable increase in the number of deserving unemployed. Contract labour always meant working overtime, low rates of wages, and a restriction of the area of employment, but by direct labour there was a stopping of overtime and a better distribution of labour employment being provided for a greater number of men. He urged the Postmaster General to terminate the contract system as soon as possible, to have depots and stables in different parts of London, and well-equipped vehicles. As an instance of the success attending the system of direct employment he alluded to the Weights and Measures Department of the London County Council, where the horses and vehicles were in excellent condition and the men employed contented. Turning to another point, he suggested that when supernumeraries were required at Christmas and New Year time, and at other busy seasons, the Postmaster General should not employ for that purpose sergeants and Inspectors of police and other persons in receipt of high wages or pensions to the exclusion of deserving unemployed men. He appealed to the Postmaster General to put a stop to the contract system, and to take over the whole system of direct employment as soon as possible.
  MR. A. MORLEYsympathised with the hon. Member in regard to many of the facts he had mentioned. With reference to the question of contract versus direct employment, he would take care that the matter should be most carefully considered. He did not think, however, that allegations of cruelty to horses could be made against the Post Office. He would take care that the matter was investigated. He had paid a surprise visit to the stables at the end of June or in the beginning of July, and did not think that the condition of the horses bore out the statements of the hon. Member, which he had quoted from a Report made a year ago. With regard to the drivers of the mail vans, he would inquire into the question of the hours of work, but it was only fair to state that the men had not the heavy work in loading and unloading to which other carmen, such as Pickford's, were subject. It was very easy employment, and, though the hours seemed long, it could not be suggested that those hours were fully employed in actual driving all the time,
  1710
  for the men had several hours for rest. With regard to the County Council Weights and Measures Department, he thought that the County Council could exercise a greater control in that sort of work than a great Government Department like the Post Office. As to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office should take the Mail Van Service under its direct control, he confessed he had serious misgiving about adding a new Department, with a large staff of officials, to the present enormous staff of over 130,000 persons in the Postal Service. But he promised that the question should be fairly considered, with a view of seeing whether the evils complained of in the present system could be remedied, or, if not, whether the Government could take the matter over themselves. He agreed that supernumerary appointments at Christmas and New Year time, and other busy seasons, ought to be given as much as possible to those whom it would really benefit as not having regular employment, provided only that a proper class of men could be obtained for the work, and he had already made arrangements for the appointment of such men. The hon. Member for Canterbury began his speech by making a statement which was wholly and absolutely devoid of foundation. He said that an increased amount of £600,000 had been paid in salaries during the past year. That was an exaggeration of about 30 per cent.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I read the exact words of the Secretary to the Treasury, who stated that, taking the three Postal Services together, it was to be remarked that there was an increase of £614,000, and that a great portion of this increase was for salaries.
  MR. A. MORLEYsaid, the hon. Member attributed the increase to salaries, meaning increase in salaries. It was nothing whatever of the kind. There had been no increase of salaries during the past year. There had, indeed, been an increased amount paid in salaries, but that was because the staff was constantly increasing, owing to the fact that the House of Commons, and the public, and the hon. Member himself were constantly pressing the Post Office to give increased facilities and advantages, which necessarily meant an increased cost. In no single case had there been an increase of charge or salary, except the automatic

  1711
  increase of the scale sanctioned by Mr. Raikes and his successor some years ago. The hon. Member said he was going to take a strong stand against this shameless and outrageous expenditure of the Post Office, and yet upon the Telegraph Vote and Post Office Vote the hon. Member had made certain proposals, almost every one of which would mean an increased expenditure upon the Postal Vote. The hon. Member had made 11 proposals, and of these no fewer than nine, if adopted, would lead to an increased expenditure. The hon. Member talked of the charge for registered letters being too great, but the Post Office received less for them than the registered letters cost. He hoped that in future the hon. Member would stand by the Postmaster General in resisting demands for the increase of expenditure over revenue, unless there was a good case for it. With regard to establishing a Parcel Post between this country and the United States, the hon. Member was quite wrong in thinking that there had been any difficulty raised on the part of this country. Frequent communications had been made through the Foreign Office to the United States Government with regard to a Parcel Post, but he was informed that in America there were large corporations and companies which carried parcels, and they had been too strong for the Post Office to deal with them in the matter of a Parcel Post. He knew that the Post Office at New York was anxious to see a Parcel Post between the United States and Great Britain, and he hoped, with the change of Government which had taken place, that a better state of things might be brought about. He was in communication with the American Post Office now, through the Foreign Office, and he hoped terms would be arranged on the subject. With regard to the question of the re-direction of postcards, circulars, and newspapers, that was a matter which was carefully considered by the late Government, who came to the conclusion that they could not further extend the principle, and the more he looked at the matter the more satisfied was he that that decision was a right decision. The hon. Member for Canterbury seemed to think that the Post Office was averse to improvement, but there was no foundation whatever for the suspicion. The heads of the Department
  1712
  and the officers generally were anxious to bring about improvements whenever they could, and he believed they were thoroughly prepared to do their very best to meet the increasing needs of postal communication.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible to extend the limits of size at present laid down with reference to samples, drawings, plane, &c allowed to be sent through the post? It would be a great convenience to architects and others if they could send sections, plans, and drawings through the post, but owing to the present restrictions as to size they were unable to do so.
  MR. A. MORLEYsaid, he had heard no complaints on this subject, but he would inquire into it.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WINE AND BEERHOUSE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Herbert Lewis, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Licensing of Beerhouses and places for the sale of Cider and Wine by retail in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Crosfield, Mr. Snape, and Mr. Herbert Roberts.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 462.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Resolution [18th September] reported,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, the sum of £26,449,207 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mellor, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir John Hibbert.
    Bill presented, and read first time.

  COMPANIES (CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION) BILL [Lords].—(No. 236.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.