Sitting of 1 May 1867

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 30] reported.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Mines, &c., Assessment nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation.
Ordered—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation.*
Second Reading—Railways (Guards' and Passengers' Communication) [39]; Turnpike Trusts [80]; Promissory Notes (Ireland) [90], negatived.
Referred to Select Committee—Turnpike Trusts [80].
Withdrawn—Public Houses, &c., Regulation [83].

RAILWAYS (GUARDS' AND PASSENGERS' COMMUNICATION) BILL— [BILL 39.]
(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan, Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
RAILWAYS (GUARDS' AND PASSENGERS' COMMUNICATION) BILL— [BILL 39.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved the second reading of this Bill. He said, that it was the same measure he had introduced last year, and which had been referred to a Select Committee. Its object was to establish some means of communication between passengers in railway trains and the guards in charge of them. There was hardly a train conveying passengers, or any other kind of train, which was not at present provided with the means of communication between the guard and the driver. He believed that the mode of communication established was by rope or wire, which rang a bell close to the ear of the engineer. All he asked by this Bill was, that a similar means of communication with the guard should be extended to travellers. It was not intended to enable the passenger to interfere in any way with the driver of a train, but to communicate with the guard, who would see whether there was anything materially wrong, such as a carriage off the line or a tire off a wheel, which required that the train should be stopped, or whether it might proceed to the next station. He believed that no difficulty would be found in establishing the means of communication between the guards and the passengers. Having recently travelled in the North of Germany, in Belgium, and in France, he could bear testimony to the precautions taken in those countries in this respect. It was maintained at all hours of the day and night. The Bill contained penalties on companies not adopting the proposed communication, and upon those who maliciously interfered with the machinery of it. It did not provide for any special means of communication, but left it to the several railway companies to say what should be its character,—the Board of Trade or the ordinary inspectors of railways determining whether it was efficient or not. The South-Eastern Railway, much to its credit, had established efficient and complete means of communication of the kind required. There was no poverty of invention in the suggestion of plans, 300 or 400 of which, on different principles, had come under his notice. The South-Eastern Railway Company had recently made an experi-

  1829
  mental trip, and the experiments in the way of passenger and guard communication had been quite successful. It was unnecessary to say that if some such means had been in operation on their lines of railway, some frightful accidents might have been averted, and minor casualties could be prevented by the same precautions. What were the objections to the Bill? One was that there existed no necessity for legislation on this subject, and another was that if a means of communication between passengers and guards were established they would have old women travelling by rail needlessly interfering with it. The points to be considered, in order to prove the question of necessity, were those in connection with that species of accident which perilled the safety of an entire train—such, for instance, as an accident caused by one of the advanced carriages of a train slipping off the rails, or a fire, which, after smouldering for some time, burst into a flame. In connection with this point, he should like to read a short extract from a letter written by Mr. William Holbrook, of Nottingham—
  "The Government Inspector's Report of Railways for five years, 1859–60–2–3–4, shows that 1,132 persons were killed, and 2,911 persons were injured during the same period. In one accident alone the company paid about £34,000. On November 28, 1866, near Hitchin, a train was on fire, the passengers were whistling, shouting, and banging the carriage doors for nearly a quarter of an hour before they could make the guard hear, If my plans had been in operation at the time the train would have been stopped in half a minute from the time the passengers knew it was on fire. For the year 1865 thirteen railway companies paid compensation for injuries to persons, &c., to the amount of £304,376. Surely, sir it is time some action was taken to prevent this great loss of life and property, either by compulsion on the part of the Government or by the directors of the different lines of railway themselves. The public have a right to demand safety for life and property while travelling for business or pleasure."
  In a note at the end the writer said—
  "Two years and a half since I offered my plans to a railway company. I was told by one of the directors they had agreed not to countenance anything only what came from their own engineer. I told him then the thing was settled—their engineer must have all the brains in the world; so I bid him good morning. Since I offered my plans, I should think, on the different lines of railway, the property destroyed and compensation paid for persons injured and killed would amount to above £100,000. That would have been prevented if my plans had been applied on the different lines of railway at the time."
  1830
  From one of the morning papers he had taken the following:—
  "Yesterday a train took fire on the Midland Railway between Birmingham and Derby. It appears that the body of one of the carriages in the mid-day down train, either through being too heavily freighted or in consequence of defective springs, sank down on the wheels, and the friction set the wood on fire. One of the passengers shouted out of the window, and his cries being heard by the passengers in the adjoining carriages, at length the attention of the guard was attracted. The train was brought to a stand near Tamworth, and the carriage, in which a considerable hole had been burnt, was detached from it. Some luggage belonging to a lady was burning, but the damage done was immaterial."
  Another paper said—
  "An accident happened to a passenger train on Thursday evening, on the Cambridge and Hitchin line. The train was travelling at the rate of about twenty-five miles an hour, and, when near Shepreth, one of the carriages got off the line. After bumping along for some minutes it was precipitated down an embankment, and the two following carriages were turned over. The passengers were more or less seriously injured, but we understand no lives were lost. The inhabitants of the village, and especially a kind-hearted lady named Mrs. Ellis, paid every attention to the passengers; and the engine not having gone off the rails, the remaining carriages were enabled to proceed on the journey. It is stated by some of the travellers that if there had been any means of communicating with the driver the train might have been stopped before the embankment was reached."
  With respect to accidents by fire he found that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had a narrow escape while travelling by train from the Russian capital to Berlin. The special correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, writing to that journal from Berlin on December 1st, 1866, said—
  "Just after it got dark there was an alarm of fire, and it turned out that the Royal carriage was burning. Happily the danger was discovered close to the station of Braunsberg, where the train stopped. Whether a wheel had caught fire, or the pipes with which the carriages were warmed had got overheated, nobody seemed exactly to know. Fortunately, there was no harm done to anybody, but the carriage was so much charred that it was thought unsafe to proceed in it. Some compartments in the ordinary cars were cleared for the Prince and his companions, and after a long hour's delay we got on again, leaving the saloon carriage still smoking as we passed out of the station."
  Since the Select Committee was appointed on this Bill last year, he had had a conversation with a Member of the House, who had told him that on one occasion when travelling by express train on the Brighton Railway he perceived a strong

  1831
  smell of fire, which proceeded from the door of the carriage. He had no means of communicating with the guard, and by the time the train had arrived at the next station the door was a mass of charred wood. The gentleman who had acted as Secretary to the Select Committee of last year had informed him that he had on one occasion been in a railway carriage the wheels of which came off one after another, letting the body of the carriage down upon the ground, and that it was not until the lives of the passengers had been in serious jeopardy for some considerable time that they succeeded in attracting the attention of the guard. There had been a notice in The Times some time ago of a gentleman having his head cut off by a post when leaning out of the carriage window in endeavouring to attract the attention of the guard. The Times of that morning also contained a letter from a gentleman who had unsuccessfully tried to communicate with the guard, the carriage in which he was being on fire. Thus, it could not be disputed that a case of necessity for communication between the passengers and the guard had been established. With respect to the other objection—namely, that the communication was liable to be interfered with by persons travelling by rail, the best answer which could possibly be given to that objection was derived from the experience gained on the South-Eastern Railway. Mr. Eborall, the manager of that line, had assured him that in no single instance had the means of communication between passengers and guards, established on their line, been interfered with. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the House would agree to read the Bill a second time. He should be happy, when the Bill was in Committee, to consider favourably any Amendments which might be suggested by the Government or the railway interest to any of its provisions. If it were the wish of the House, he should have no objection to exclude the Metropolitan Railway from the operation of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. B. Sheridan).
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he had no objection to this Bill being read a second time; but he reserved to himself the power of opposing it in a future stage, unless the hon. Member made such alterations as seemed to him to be necessary. It would be
  1832
  unadvisable to pass it in its present shape. To require railways to make the necessary arrangements in three months would be requiring them to do what was physically impossible. He should also object to the Board of Trade or its inspector being asked to certify that effectual means had been provided when it was doubtful whether effectual means had yet been discovered. Experiments were being made daily. Men of science and of practical mechanical talent had had their minds directed to this object. It was well known that a really good and perfect plan would be taken up and well rewarded. If the House compelled the railways to adopt at heavy expense one of the present confessedly imperfect means of communication, they would do great mischief by retarding and throwing discouragement in the way of something better. Many people thought that they should not interfere in these matters at all; that they should trust to the heavy penalties and loss inflicted on companies in case of accident; and that Lord Campbell's Act was better than any interference with the details of management. The truth, as usual, probably lay between the two extremes. It was, no doubt, true that the accidents happening to railway travellers were much fewer in proportion than those which occurred under the old coach system. More people were killed in the London streets than on all the railways in the kingdom. It was also true that a very small portion of the accidents which did occur would be prevented by communication between passengers and guards. But it might be said, on the other hand, that the outrages which had sometimes been perpetrated in carriages, and which might have been prevented if such communication had existed, necessitated interference with the preliminary arrangements of a journey, because, while they entailed great injury on individuals, they caused little or no loss to the company. Then, the question arose whether any effectual means had been discovered for carrying into effect the provisions of this Bill. An excellent Report of Captain Tyler to the Board of Trade, made the year before last, went very fully into the question. It showed the endeavours made in England and on the Continent to prevent the helpless isolation of passengers by communication through signals, or by the construction of the carriages. With regard to the latter the ordinary contrivance on the Continent was the outside step. This was very

  1833
  dangerous, sacrificing, as appeared from Belgian accounts, the lives of guards every year. It was also supposed to give facilities both for outrage and escape, as in the case of the murder of M. Poinsot in France a year or two back. It was, besides, impossible to apply it in England without altering the width of carriages and of tunnels and bridges throughout the country, the expense of which would be very great. He had travelled by railway in most of the countries in Europe and in America; but he did not share in the condemnation sometimes pronounced on the English carriages. The American carriages were suited, no doubt, to the plan of one class without distinction. The Austrian were an improvement on the American, but almost equally wanting in the privacy demanded by English feeling in this country; and they were excessively cold in winter. The Russian carriages with a passage in the middle, cabins on each side, saloons at each end, and other conveniences for a long journey, and with four means of exit, were very good, probably the best of all, but they were too wide for our gauge, and too long for our curves. The Swiss, with three classes in one carriage, and communication from higher to lower, but not the reverse, were also good, and the guard could walk through them. But the great objection to all, or almost all he had described, was the dangerous exit at the end. In a crowded carriage, if there was a panic, it would be as difficult to get out as in a church or theatre. Then came the means of communication by signal. The earliest probably was the bell and rope. Travellers by the Great Northern if a little before their time might have seen a cord threaded from carriage to carriage low down under the footboard. This rang a bell in the guard box and the engine. But he remembered a Member of that House telling him that he found himself once in a carriage with one other passenger, whose conduct, after a time, began to excite his apprehension. He seemed very uneasy, looked out, listened, and stretched out of the window till his informant thought he was going to throw himself out, and came to the conclusion that he was shut up with a madman. His uneasiness increased when his fellow traveller, after leaning out further than ever, turned to him and said, "Have you any objection, Sir, to take hold of my leg? "But he proceeded to explain that he was an engineer, and that from a
  1834
  sound he heard he thought something was wrong with the axle, and wished to get at the rope in order to stop the train, which, with the assistance of his companion, he did. He mentioned this to show that it was evident that such a contrivance could hardly be called effectual, especially with regard to the use of it by a lady. Then came the reversed sentry-box of the Great Western, the mirrors of the Cette Railway, and the bells and whistles of the Dutch and German lines. It was clear that these must often fail in tunnels, in fogs, in the night, and where there was much rattle in the train. They were condemned by the French Commission in one brief sentence, "The sight signals cannot be seen, and the sound signals cannot be heard." The best signal seemed to be the electric, used on the South Western and on some of the French railways, which rang bells in the guards' vans and engines, and dropped a semaphore to the side of the carriage in which the signal was given. The hon. Member had also mentioned with approbation that used on the South Eastern. But, as the guard could not on many lines, at least, reach the carriages, the only plan was to stop the train, which must necessarily be done with great caution on lines like ours, on which trains follow each other so rapidly. This safeguard was on the lines to which he had referred combined with windows between the compartments. To this objection was sometimes taken by those who wished to have the security of publicity without its inconvenience. He was afraid this must be classed with the inconsistent advantages at which all aimed, but which none were destined to reach. It was absolutely necessary that any wanton tampering with these signals should be severely punished, but he was not quite sure that this would be sufficient. Some fine should be inflicted on causeless alarm, otherwise great inconvenience might ensue. He remembered seeing a farce in Paris a short time ago, in which a nervous lady was represented as finding herself several times during a journey alone with one of the other sex. Each of the unhappy men in his turn made some polite advances, on which she immediately broke the glass, and pressed the spring. The train came to a standstill. The guard appeared; she explained her alarm. "Madame, le motif n' était pas suffisant; c'est cinquante francs s'il vous plait!" This method of signalling was

  1835
  computed to cost £10 a mile, and 10 per cent on outlay for maintenance. It would, of course, be absurd to require that it should be used for trains stopping at short intervals. He believed directors would not be unwilling to do all they could for the safety of passengers. It was certainly to their interest to do so, and they themselves travelled as much, if not more, than other people. When he heard the terms in which they were sometimes spoken of in that House, he was inclined to ask, parodying Shylock, "Hath not a director organs, senses, passions, hurt by the same means, subject to the same accidents as a Christian?" At the same time they required, like most other people, a little wholesome pressure, and when it was remembered that it was exactly twenty years ago, in 1847, that the first circular on this subject was issued to the companies, legislation could hardly be called precipitate. The Railway Commission would report at the end of the week; and therefore he thought that the hon. Member should put off his Committee till the House had had the opportunity of considering how far his Bill could be made to square with the recommendations of that Report. He had made these re-marks in consequence of the Bill not having been discussed at all last Session, and on the understanding he had mentioned he would not oppose its second reading.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 14th May.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL— [BILL 80.]
(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Mr. George Clive, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Goldney.)
TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL— [BILL 80.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
  MR. WALIPOLEsaid, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time, on the understanding that it would be referred to a Select Committee. It would, perhaps, he convenient if he were to refer to one or two points, to which the attention of the Select Committee should be especially directed. The Bill which purported to alter and amend the law relating to turnpike trusts, was really intended to effect the abolition of tolls. He wished to call attention to the three parts
  1836
  of the Bill. The first provided that where there was no debt remaining and the trust had expired, it should be discontinued at the end of a year. The second, that in cases where the trusts had expired but debts remained, provision should be made for extinguishing such debts. The third, and most important, related to the rate-in-aid, where the trust had expired, and where the charge thrown upon the parishes through which the road passed was deemed by the justices of the peace in quarter session to be unduly augmented. Upon the first he was not in a position to arrive at any conclusion as to whether or not the House would think it desirable that the trusts therein referred to should expire within the year, irrespective of all local circumstances. There were many matters that would have to be inquired into by the Select Committee before they could advise the House to accept one iron-bound rule to be applied in all cases. The second portion of the Bill also appeared to be open to objection. He did not see that any provision had been made to meet the case of the Secretary for State not approving the arrangements that had been entered into for the extinction of the debt. Also, if the tolls were to be applied solely in extinguishing the debt the duty thrown upon the parishes of repairing the roads would be badly performed. The third portion would require very careful consideration, as it involved the most important principle in the Bill. The Bill proposed to enact—
  "In all cases where it shall be made apparent by the local authorities to justices of the peace in Quarter Sessions that the rates of any of the several parishes or highway districts have been unduly and disproportionately augmented in car-wing out the provisions of this Act, it shall be awful for such justices to contribute any funds out of the county rates already assessed or to be hereafter assessed for the purpose of aiding and assisting any of such parishes or highway districts which, in pursuance of any order under the hand of the said Secretary of State, has been directed to be assessed by the said local authorities for the purpose of maintaining and keeping in repair the portion of the turnpike road which passes through any such parish or highway district, according to the provisions hereinbefore contained, and such contribution shall be apportioned by the said justices between and amongst any such parishes or highway districts in such manner as they may deem expedient."
  That was a very important provision. It was an attempt to meet that which had always been a difficulty in every proposal for discontinuing turnpike trusts by what he had called the rate-in-aid, that was by

  1837
  extending the area of rating. But what was to guide the justices in determining whether there had been an undue and disproportionate augmentation of the charge? That charge might vary from 1d. to nearly 2s. in the pound in different parishes. He threw out these observations for the purpose of drawing attention to the points which the Select Committee would have to consider. The Select Committee should have all the necessary powers to enable them to fully investigate the matter. He should not object to the second reading of the Bill provided it was clearly understood that it was to go before a Select Committee.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the object of the measure was to meet the difficulties which existed by giving to the Home Secretary on the one hand, and to the magistrates on the other, power to deal with the local circumstances out of which difficulties arose. He desired to express his obligations to the hon. Member who had brought forward this Bill in fulfilment of a pledge of the late Government upon the occasion, when he (Mr. Whalley) brought forward one of a similar nature. The matter was ripe for decision, after the evidence which had been taken by the Committee which had sat upon the subject. The Bill carried out a desirable object much more effectually than the Bill he had himself been allowed to introduce. The sound, originial, and constitutional principle was, that the roads should be maintained by local property; but within a brief legal memory these turnpike trusts were sanctioned by Parliament on a false pretence of improvements, and the public was made to pay not only for improvements but for the maintenance of the roads, the onus of providing for which of right lay with the property of each district. This was a grievous injustice inflicted upon the public and all the objections urged against the Bill rested upon a desire to perpetuate the wrong.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, that abolishing the turnpikes would be a great boon to the public; but he did not agree that this charge should be entirely thrown upon real property. These roads were, no doubt, for the good of the land; but generally they were made in an agricultural district lying between two great centres of trade. They were not generally in the position of parish roads, and they cost four or five times as much as the parish roads to keep them up. If the Bill passed in its present
  1838
  shape it would throw a grievous burden upon the holders of one description of property. Nothing could be fairer than that those who used the roads should pay for them. If the expense of the turnpike roads were thrown upon the parishes there would be great discontent excited throughout the country. A part of the expense should be placed upon the Consolidated Fund, as had been done in reference to the police and the poor, and for the same reason—namely, that the object to be obtained was for the benefit of the whole country. He hoped that when the Bill was returned from the Select Committee there would be provisions for placing part of the expense upon the general public instead of its being all placed upon real property.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, that as a Member of the Select Committee of 1864, he had been much struck by the local circumstances detailed before that Committee, and believed that, but for those local circumstances, legislation would long since have been attempted. Indeed, the difficulties of this kind were so great that he hardly knew how the Select Committee would deal with them. In 1863 the Metropolitan Turnpike Heads Act threw seventy miles of roads on to what were principally suburban parishes, and there was great opposition. But these suburban parishes had not a leg to stand on, their vicinity to the metropolis, from which the traffic came, benefiting them to an extent much more than proportionate. But there were cases in which, though the burdens might increase, the benefits failed to do so. Districts, for instance, where the land through which the road passed remained agricultural in its character, though there might be a large town at either extremity of the road. Then there were cases where there were mines, the immense traffic from which cut up the roads very much, whilst many paid no rates at all. Others only paid upon the royalty, which was nothing like what a rate upon the produce of the mine would be. Lead and iron mines did not pay any rates, so that, unless they were actually levied on the carts containing the heavy material, they escaped altogether. In the case of coals no amount was ever levied by a rate upon the estimated yield of a colliery corresponding to that paid in actual turnpike tolls. The rate was charged on a royalty payable to the owner of the mine. Probably £70 a year might be produced by

  1839
  a rate, where the tolls or carriage of the coals before had yielded £300 or £400. Pleasure traffic, to such places as the Peak in Derbyshire, used the roads very largely, and yet would not pay a single farthing in the shape of rates towards their repair. Except, probably, for their hotel bills, the excursionists, if there were no tolls, would escape scot free. There were many local circumstances of this nature, forming a great variety of separate cases, which he did not believe could be lumped with advantage, and dealt with off-hand in one sweeping general Act. As to the case of parishes which were to contribute to the amount of the debt, he understood the Secretary of State was to allocate the debt upon the different parishes through which the road went. This might answer in counties where there were highway boards; but parishes which were not in any highway district would be placed in very great difficulty, and would have good ground to complain of the burden which would be put upon them. The debt would have been incurred without their advice or consent. Perhaps it had been incurred unwisely, or there had been no prudence used in paying it off. Then it was said that there might be a rate in aid for these parishes; but he did not think it right that they should be thrown upon such a precarious resource. They would be thrown upon the mercy of quarter sessions, and there would be great opposition to a rate-in-aid in support of particular parishes. These were points to which he thought that the Committee should attend.
  MR. HENLEYsaid that the first thing that struck him was, that it was something new to refer a mass of debt amounting to many millions to the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State, and particularly so when they considered how some of the debt had been incurred. The Bill would summarily deprive parties of the power which they had hitherto possessed of coming to Parliament and making out a case, if circumstances rendered that feasible, for the renewal of their security. There were certain provisions according to which the trustees were to arrange the value of these securities. Then the matter was for the approbation of the Secretary of State, whose duty would not be very agreeable. He knew of no instance in which a similar course of proceeding had been adopted in reference to so large a property. Nothing could
  1840
  work better than the present mode of winding up these trusts. The circumstances of the different turnpike trusts were so various that he doubted very much the possibility of making a general law that would work well for the whole of them. It was proposed that under certain circumstances the county rate should be called in aid. The counties would thus be called upon to pay by rates monies over the application of which they would have no control. He feared also that this Bill would destroy the state and good quality of the turnpike roads. No one could doubt that the turnpike roads were, as a rule, in a better condition than the parish roads. He did not know what security they could have that the parishes would keep the turnpike roads in a better condition than they kept the parish roads. Parishes were not fond of spending more money than they could help, and as long as they kept clear of indictments they would be satisfied. Anything in the way of improvement, such as cutting down hills, would come to an untimely end. As to the debt, much of it had been incurred for the purpose of making improvements, and to keep them in repair for the sake of the through traffic; and his experience was that the through traffic never paid for the roads, large as the tolls were. The Bill, in its present state, was very objectionable.
  GOLDNEYsaid, that if it had not been for the local circumstances which had been referred to, turnpikes would have been swept away long ago. As a general rule, the amount of taxation imposed in the shape of tolls on parties living in the neighbourhood of roads for their maintenance was in excess of that which they would have to pay if the whole of the expense were levied in the shape of rates off the different parishes. There were about 22,000 miles of turnpike road, and there were upwards of 7,700 houses for the collection of tolls. The average cost of repair for these roads for a long series of years had been £51 per mile, and in addition to this there were the expenses of collection and the profit to the lessees of the tolls. These two sources of expense together amounted to a sum of very nearly £400,000, and this sum the public paid in excess of the real cost of repair. This added expenditure brought the average cost of repairing turnpike roads up to £70 per mile; the cost of parish roads being, some years ago, as low

  1841
  as £11 per mile. Practically, the through traffic had now been absorbed by the railways, and if residents along the roads would calculate, as a friend of his had done, what they actually paid now in the shape of tolls, as compared with what they would have to pay hereafter in the shape of rates, they would probably find that a saving would be realized by the latter method of collection. The expense of a double set of surveyors and management would be saved when there was no longer two systems of road management in existence. As to the apprehensions excited by the proposal to intrust the Secretary of State with these powers, it must be remembered that for a long series of years the Secretary of State had exercised powers of a precisely similar character, whenever parties applied for a renewal of Turnpike Acts. The result of the Bill would be that the highway Boards would have the power of limiting the expenses of the repair of the bye roads when the main roads were open to the public free. He knew that there might be some difficulty in the carrying out of this measure, but was fully convinced that the time had come for abolishing the present turnpike system altogether, and under those circumstances he should support the Bill.
  MR. BEACHsaid, he could scarcely see how this Bill could be carried out without inflicting injustice on certain classes of the community. It was founded upon the Report and recommendation of the Select Committee of 1864. The witnesses that were examined before that Committee, however, in almost every case came there with but one notion—namely, to get rid, if possible, of the present turnpike system. Some of them volunteered to give evidence in order to detail their own exceptional grievances. When it was proposed to make such a sweeping change as that of shifting the burden of those rates from the shoulders that at present bore it to the various parishes throughout the country, he thought it was only fair that the evidence of witnesses from the classes that were to bear the burden in future should be taken. Within the last few years the debt had been reduced from £7,000,000 to about £4,000,000, and judging from that fact there was every reason to suppose that in a few years more the whole debt would be entirely wiped out. No one could doubt that a considerable saving in the management of roads
  1842
  would take place if these trusts were abolished; but the burden on the locality would be increased. The only question was, whether the Consolidated Fund should not be called upon to assist in paying off the debts. At present the broad principle was carried out that those who used the roads paid for them. If those who came from a distance contributed nothing to the maintenance of the roads it would operate as a great hardship in many instances. A timber dealer who gave evidence before the Select Committee stated that he kept eight or nine horses in constant work; but that if tolls were abolished he would only pay a rate on a year, the annual value of his house. If, however, on the contrary, as was contended, the roads were simply used for local purposes, why should those who were anxious to change the law in their own case interfere with those who desire for the present to maintain it. As to the suggestion that an appeal to the quarter sessions would be a security against a grievance inflicted, it was his opinion that the quarter sessions would not be inclined to interfere at all in the matter. He hoped that the Select Committee to which the Bill was to be referred would take into their consideration the case of those trusts that were really progressing in a favourable manner, as it appeared to be most undesirable to deal with such in the summary way in which the Bill proposed to treat them. Let representatives from the different trusts give their views, and the Committee would be able to deal in a fairer manner with the variety of their interests.
  MR. G. CLIVEsaid, that the owners of property and not the Consolidated Fund ought to bear the burden of the debt. The roads had been made, for the most part, for the benefit of the owners of property, and they ought to pay the debt where debt existed. As Chairman of the Committee of 1864, he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beach) that he was mistaken in supposing that there were no witnesses called or examined but such as were favourable to the proposed change of the system. There were several gentlemen examined who were decidedly favourable to the existing law. The evidence, however, as well as the recommendations of the Committee, had effected a marvellous change in the opinions of many who had hitherto supported the existing system. He rejoiced that the dear old fallacy about those who used the road paying for the

  1843
  road had intruded so little into the discussion. As regarded the carriage of timber, minerals, and other heavy substances, special provisions must, of course, be introduced on that head. If the Committee by which the Bill would be considered were a good one, as he had no doubt it would be, he had great hopes that the Bill would be worked into a good shape.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that there was a general prevalence of opinion that some alteration should be made in the law relating to turnpike trusts. He approved many of the Bill's provisions; and hoped that the labour undertaken by the introducer would result in substantial benefit to the country. He particularly approved of that part of the Bill which recognised the hardship inflicted on some parishes by the abolition of the trusts. He hoped that the principle laid down in respect to that would be carried further. But he had several objections to the Bill as it stood. If, for instance, the cost of maintaining the roads were thrown upon the rates, the tax would weigh heavily upon some descriptions of property and lightly upon others. Some alteration was absolutely necessary in the present basis of rating, and also in the area of taxation, before a rate for mending roads could be fairly levied. And if, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had recommended, the court of quarter sessions should have power to make a rate, it should also be given extraordinary power enabling it to insure that the rate was properly applied. He should like to see clauses introduced making highway districts compulsory throughout the country. In this matter the example of South Wales should be followed. In each of the six counties of South Wales there was a head county Board. In England a similar Board might be constituted with power to dispense money, and also to appoint a chief surveyor to superintend the operations of highway surveyors throughout the country. At present the surveying department was ill-attended to. Either the district was small, and presided over by an incompetent man, at a low salary, or else the district was too large for the surveyor properly to do his duty. He objected to the way in which the Bill proposed to deal with trusts whose debts had been liquidated. The proposal was that those trusts which had paid off their particular debts should cease in 1868, but that the remainder should continue on for ten
  1844
  years longer, or until they had paid off their debts. Now, the practical result of such an arrangement would be that the public, who were generally disposed to go even a round in order to avoid the tolls, would favour those roads in which they had been removed, and would thus create a greater burden upon the ratepayers of particular parishes than they had hitherto borne. It was his opinion that all the trusts should be kept up until the whole debt was paid off. At a recent meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, at which he was present, two resolutions were passed. The one was to the effect that the turnpike trusts should be abolished simultaneously. The other was, that inasmuch as a portion of the expenditure for the turnpike roads had been incurred for Imperial purposes, the Consolidated Fund ought to aid in the payment of the debt. In France the main roads were maintained out of the Imperial revenue, and much public money had been spent in Scotland in making roads; but it was only in very rare instances that the State had contributed to the making of roads in England. He asked whether, as the credit of the country was applied on behalf of bankrupt Irish railways, it should not in equal justice be applied in behalf of bankrupt English roads. ["No!"] Of course, Irish Members would say "No!" He trusted that the Bill would be sent before a Select Committee and there improved.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that having served on the Committee of 1864, what struck him most was the injurious treatment which the ratepayers had received under the present system and the extraordinary system that was kept up in order to favour the mortgagees. He believed there was scarcely a single debt hanging over the turnpike trusts that was perfectly legal. The Acts in respect to the debts which were paid off had all expired, and the Acts relating to those which were not paid off had also expired; but the tolls were kept up by continuous Bills introduced year by year by the Home Department. In the case of the debts which had not been paid off, there was really no legal claim, because the conditions upon which the money was advanced had not been fulfilled. He strongly objected to the continuance of a system which placed a double charge upon the ratepayers of the country, and he should support the present Bill, believing that some advantage would arise from it.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he thought that they might with advantage go to Scotland for some hints as to the future management of the turnpike roads. Although the Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) and the subsequent measure of the Lord Advocate in respect to the turnpike system of Scotland had failed to pass into a law, Scotchmen, with that shrewdness and sagacity which characterized them, proceeded to introduce Bills for their several counties, and thus with great prudence and judgment managed to get rid of their tolls. He was quite in favour of an alteration in the law of this country. One great evil in existence was the expense attending the renewal of those turnpike trusts. He believed that every measure introduced for the renewal of a trust, though unopposed, cost about £500 or £600, which money was taken from the pockets of the public. He should be glad to see an improvement of this system. He hoped his hon. Friend would be able so to improve his measure by the aid of the Select Committee that it would pass with ease.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that having made a very full statement upon the introduction of the Bill, he should not have troubled the House but for some objections which had been raised during the course of the debate. His hon. Friend the Member for North Hants (Mr. Beach) had stated that the Bill was founded upon the Report of the Select Committee of 1864. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) begged to say that, although he was grateful for the assistance which he had derived from that Report, the Bill was founded upon long and earnest consideration of the question; upon some little practical knowledge of the working of the turnpike system; and upon the sincere belief which he entertained that the time had arrived when the question might receive a satisfactory solution. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had mentioned several points to which he would refer. And first with respect to the case in which the Secretary of State might not approve of the provisional arrangement made between the trustees and the mortgagees, the right hon. Gentleman had said that no provision was made as to what should be done. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that which might possibly be an omission in
  1846
  the Bill. The intention certainly was, that when no arrangement could be made which the Secretary of State approved, he should then proceed upon his own authority—inquire, by means of the ample machinery at his command, into the value of the debt and circumstances of the trust, and make his order accordingly. Then the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the tolls maintained for a certain time by order of the Secretary of State as if they were only to be applicable to the payment of establishment charges and debt. But a reference to the latter part of Clause 5 would show that the surplus of such tolls was to be applicable to the repairs of the roads within the parishes and districts; and when it was said that the ratepayers were going to have the responsibility of a large amount of debt thrown upon them, he must observe that this was only a nominal responsibility. Let it be remembered that the ratepayers and the toll-payers either were or were not identical. If, as was sometimes contended by the opponents of turnpike abolition, they were not identical, then, during the maintenance of the tolls, the ratepayers would be receiving extraneous assistance towards the discharge of the debt. If, on the other hand, they were identical, the ratepayers would be no worse off than at present. They would have, as at present, to pay the interest of the debt; and any temporary increase of their rates would be in a great measure met by the economy in the management and collection of tolls which, having the matter for the first time under their own control, they would be able to effect. His noble Friend behind him (Lord Henley) had made two objections to which he must refer. One related to the fact that lead mines and some other mines not being rated, and the traffic from them being considerable, the effect of toll abolition in the milling districts would be very injurious to the neighbouring parishes. He would, however, remind his noble Friend (in addition to arguments which he had formerly advanced with reference to the advantages which the existence of mines and similar properties conferred upon a neighbourhood) that this very question of the rating of mines was at this moment under the consideration of a Select Committee, and that the objection was therefore in a fair way to be obviated. The other objection of his noble Friend was made upon the supposition that in some cases the debt

  1847
  would remain and be left upon the parishes after the tolls had ceased to be collected under the order of the Secretary of State. This, however, was a misapprehension of the object and scope of the Bill. It was intended that the Secretary of State should fix the period during which tolls should be collected, after a full investigation of the circumstances in each case. By this investigation he would be guided as to the time which he should fix for the duration of the tolls; and in the great majority of cases the market value of the debt would be paid off before the limit fixed beyond which toll collection might not be extended—namely, 1878. In all cases the debt would cease simultaneously with the collection of tolls. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), whilst tendering his thanks to hon. Gentlemen generally for the manner in which they had received his Bill, he felt bound to express his acknowledgments especially to debt and reduce interest, but to that hon. Gentleman, who had himself introduced more than one Bill upon the same subject and had some claim to deal with it, having conferred good service by calling public attention to the question. He had, however, forborne to press any such claim, or to propose a rival scheme, and agreeing in the main principle of his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) Bill, had given it a cordial and hearty support. The hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) had complained of the grievous burden which would be inflicted upon parishes not forming part of a highway district. But he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that this burden was now inflicted upon the abolition of a trust, and that such abolition practically depended upon the arbitrary will of the Home Secretary, because although the approval of Parliament was formally required, yet the Turnpike Continuance Bills which dealt with this matter were of necessity introduced so late in the Session, that Government had practically always a majority, and an attempt to continue or discontinue any particular trust when the opinion of the locality had been opposed to the decision of the Secretary of State, was almost hopeless. So much was this felt to be the case that he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had only that very morning received a request that he would move to refer to a Select Committee the Turnpike Continuance Bill of the present Session, wherein it was believed the pre-
  1848
  sent Home Secretary had, to a considerable extent, reversed the decisions of his predecessor. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was most unwilling to do anything of the kind which might be hostile to the right hon. Gentleman; but he mentioned the fact to show the complaints which existed. It was clear that the "grievous burden" upon parishes existed now. The Bill would not alter their common law liability, but it would deal more fairly and more equally with them than was at present the case. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire said that this Bill would adopt a new principle in referring a large debt to the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State. Again, he must remind the House that this was precisely the case under the present law upon the termination of a trust, and the only object of the Bill in this respect was to expedite and equalize the action of the Secretary of State, who now had the power to extinguish debt and reduce interest, but who would be obliged to act in certain cases instead of continuing Trust Acts annually and only abolishing them at his discretion. The right hon. Gentleman had also doubted the possibility of making one general law upon the subject. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had by no means shut his eyes to the complications and difficulties of the subject. They would, however, be lessened by the adoption of the measure before the House, and the state of things be rendered less unequal than under the existing system. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) entirely agreed with the views of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), that the true solution of the question was the universal adoption of the Highway Act, and the placing all roads, turnpike and highway, upon the common fund of the highway districts. But in all legislation it was necessary not to ask always for the whole extent of your requirements if you found you could better obtain what you wanted by degrees. He must notice one omission in the speech of the Home Secretary, who, he had hoped, would have followed up his suggestion upon the introduction of the Bill, by announcing an Instruction to the Committee that they should have power to deal with the Highway Act, so as to make its adoption compulsory if they should think fit. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) should be ready to move such an Instruction himself, if he had any indication of the opinion of the

  1849
  House being favourable to such a course. With respect to the suggestion of the Home Secretary that evidence should be taken before the Select Committee, he could, of course, only yield a ready assent to such a wish expressed by a Gentleman in the position of the Home Secretary. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that it would be inexpedient to re-open the whole question of the toll system, upon which there already existed for reference a mass of evidence taken before the two Select Committees which had previously sat upon the subject, but that the evidence taken should be restricted to particular points connected with the working of the proposed measure. In this view, and with the understanding, clear and certain, that the principle of the desirability of abolishing turnpike tolls was admitted by the House and by the Government, he would go into the Select Committee prepared to receive every suggestion for amendment in the most conciliatory spirit, and with the sole desire that the Bill might come forth from the labours of the Committee in a form which might offer to the House and to the country a satisfactory settlement of the question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  And, on May 6, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, Mr. WELBY, Mr. HASTINGS RUSSELL, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Colonel FRENCH, Mr. KNIGHT, Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, Mr. READ, Mr. GOLDNEY, Colonel WILLIAM STUART, Mr. WHALLEY, Mr. WOODD, Lord HENLEY, Mr. MITFORD, Mr. HOLLAND, and Mr. JASPER MORE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

PUBLIC HOUSES, &c., REGULATION BILL.
(Mr. Graves, Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Hibbert.)
PUBLIC HOUSES, &c., REGULATION BILL.

  [BILL 83.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, that in rising to move that the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill be read and discharged, he wished to offer a few remarks to the House to explain his reasons for taking that course. When he gave notice of his intention to introduce the Bill, Mr. Speaker expressed some doubts as to the propriety of a private Member introducing a measure affecting the
  1850
  revenue of the country. By a technical alteration of the Notice of Motion and by the permission of the Government he was allowed to bring in his Bill, in order that the subject might be ventilated. Within the last few days it had been intimated to him that Her Majesty's Government considered it would be their duty to oppose the further progress of the Bill, as it proposed to deal largely with the taxation of the country, and in consequence the promoters of the Bill had no alternative but to defer to the wish of the Government and ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Bill. The Bill, whatever might be its merits or its demerits, was at least a well-meant effort to deal honestly with the question. It was now unnecessary for him to detain the House in adverting to the principles of the Bill, which were intended to deal in a just and comprehensive manner with the question. The present unsatisfactory state of the law was thoroughly and fully admitted. Nothing more was wanted to make that conviction clear than to refer to the petition which he had just presented, signed by 82,000 of the inhabitants of one town (Liverpool). It was true the immediate purpose of this monster petition was not gained; but the trouble would not be thrown away, for its moral weight remained, and such an expression of public opinion could scarcely fail to strengthen, if not hasten, legislation upon the subject. The difficulty that existed in dealing with this question by a private Member, and the experience he had gained with regard to the conduct of such a measure through the House, had led him to the conclusion that in a matter affecting so largely the well-being of the community as well as the large interests that were engaged in the trade, the only chance of successful legislation was by its being dealt with by the Government. He was therefore happy in being able to state that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had adopted that view of the question, and had given him the assurance that he would endeavour to deal with the subject by the introduction of a measure next Session. He received that assurance with the greatest satisfaction; and he would in consequence leave the matter in the hands of the Government, with perfect confidence that they would take it up and grapple with it in a most efficient and satisfactory manner. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman

  1851
  was not then in his place, because it was his intention to have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had rightly conveyed the intentions of Her Majesty's Government on the subject to the House. He believed he had done so, and he might add that that determination of Her Majesty's Government had greatly aided him in coming to the conclusion that it would be better to withdraw the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Order for the second reading of the Bill be withdrawn and discharged."—(Mr. Graves.)
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he considered the hon. Gentleman had acted very wisely in withdrawing the Bill under the assurance that Her Majesty's Government would take up the subject next Session. It was the only course likely to be conducive of a satisfactory settlement of the great and important question of licensing. He certainly regretted the Home Secretary was not in his place to confirm the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Graves). At the same time he (Mr. Smith) had no doubt of its accuracy, and that the Government would give its attention to this important subject. The settlement of the question was one of the greatest importance to the social and religious interests of the country. He believed that no question was in a more unsatisfactory state at present than the licensing system. He congratulated the country on the fact that it would receive the early attention of the Government with a view to its improvement.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he regretted the accidental circumstances which had prevented the Home Secretary from being in his place. He hoped some hon. Member, or his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves), would ask a question of the Home Secretary respecting his intentions, so that they should hear from the Treasury Bench the course which the Government exactly intended to pursue. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend was right in his impressions, and that the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to bring forward a measure next Session to settle the licensing question; but it was not unreasonable that they should wish to have the statement confirmed from the Treasury Bench, considering the great importance of the subject. The position in which the House of Commons stood in regard to the licensing question was not satisfactory. It was acknowledged by men of all par-
  1852
  ties, and by Governments of all parties, that the licensing system was the cause of much evil; yet there seemed to be a reluctance to settle—or a fear of attempting to settle—the question. He did not think that that tended to the honour either of the House of Commons or of the Government. He did not intend to question the policy of the hon. Gentleman in not pressing the Bill, though he thought it would be desirable to have a discussion upon it. There was much in the Bill of which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not approve, but there was one great principle in it—namely, that all houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors should be put under one licensing power—that of the magistrates.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEwas anxious to explain, after what had passed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had been summoned to the Cabinet, and that his absence did not arise from a desire to avoid answering any question, or from a failure to recognise the importance of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool. No man entertained a deeper sense of the importance of this subject than his right hon. Friend, and he had already promised to give it his most careful consideration. He (Mr. Cave) thought the hon. Member had exercised a wise discretion in taking the course he had done. It would not, of course, be proper for him to enter further into the question. There were some parts of the Bill to which he might take exception; but he concurred with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in approving of that provision which placed the whole licensing system under one control—namely, that of the justices.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he concurred in opinion that it would be highly satisfactory to the public to have an assurance from the Home Secretary that Her Majesty's Government would introduce a measure upon this subject next Session. There was a desire throughout the country that it should be settled as speedily as possible. It was admitted by all that there was an evil which required a remedy.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he fully agreed in the propriety of the course which his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) had adopted. He was himself satisfied with the statement which had been made by his hon. Colleague, and those who wished to have it confirmed by the Home Secretary were the best per-

  1853
  sons to put the question to him. It was on that assurance, in which he placed implicit faith, that he concurred with his hon. Colleague in the propriety of withdrawing the Bill. After the many unsuccessful attempts to legislate locally upon the question, he was much gratified to find that Her Majesty's Government intended to deal with it. He was convinced that no measure could be carried through the House and meet the approval of the country, unless introduced on the responsibility of the Government. He had some personal experience on this subject, for in 1863 he had, in conjunction with his late Colleague, introduced a measure which it was intended to confine to Liverpool. It was then urged against the Bill that it attempted to deal locally with what was in reality a national question, and it was thrown out by 16 votes. Tempted by the smallness of the majority, the Bill was subsequently re-introduced, but so decided was the expression of opinion in the House that it was withdrawn, without taking a division upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was the proper authority to bring in a Bill upon this subject, and so strong was the feeling of the country in reference to the question that the right hon. Gentleman would, he believed, find no difficulty in passing his measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.

PROMISSORY NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. M'Kenna, Mr. Brady.)
PROMISSORY NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 90.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. M'KENNA,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was intended to amend the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 81, and to authorize banks of issue in Ireland to make their notes payable only at the places in Ireland at which the account of gold and silver coin held by such bankers is taken by the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, whenever such notes are in excess of the average amount of circulation during the year preceding May 1, 1845, and are issuable only against gold or silver coin of an equal amount deposited at such places. In doing so he said—I deem it right
  1854
  at this stage to explain to the House that the Bill which I ask the House to read a second time is not identical in any respect with the measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clare last Session, although if it passes into law it will effect much of the good which my hon. Friend proposed to effect by his Bill. As all measures proposing to deal with or affect the currency laws in any portion of the United Kingdom are naturally and properly regarded with a very jealous eye, it is right that I should at the outset inform the House that this Bill is in perfect harmony with the principles which are the basis of our present currency laws. In fact, I only seek for a modification of the technical portions of the existing laws, or if I may be allowed to use the figure, I only seek to adjust and simplify the machinery. But, Sir, it may be asked if the scope of this Bill be so simple, why should the House deal with it as a separate and distinct piece of legislation? and why should we not allow mere technical obstructions which have existed so long to continue somewhat longer, until the amendment is carried out as a portion of a general adjustment? Sir, I anticipate these objections at once by saying that the subject is important, and pressed for early rectification, and the Bill I ask the House to pass will not complicate, but, if passed, will materially simplify the existing law. As I have said that the subject is urgent, it is right that I should exemplify and prove the grievance I seek to redress. Another reason, however, which strongly presses on my mind the absolute necessity of altering and amending the law is the fact that it is habitually violated. The Bank of Ireland have offices open on special days in the week at Arklow, Bagnalstown, Cahir, Castlebar, and Monastereven, and at each of these places, on at least one day in the week, this law is openly violated. The penalties which the Bank of Ireland incur by doing business at these places, and issuing their notes there, none of them being payable at any of these places, is of an amount I am afraid to compute. Now I want to alter the law, and submit 9 Geo. IV. to a Committee of this House, which can very easily provide to relax the law so as to legalize the transactions of the Bank of Ireland at these places. If this be not done, then I say let the law be enforced; but, at any rate, let not this House sanction the principle that a law is to remain on

  1855
  the statute books to be a public obstacle to business to all who are prepared to obey the law, and an open scandal, because it is habitually violated with impunity. I believe if the law respecting bank notes were altered according to the principle of this Bill, the Irish community would enjoy the benefit of banking facilities for one or two days in the week in about 150 towns now wholly without such accommodation. I will not weary the House with a list of the towns; but in the letter A of the post towns alone you will find such towns as Abbeyfeale, Adare, Ahascragh, Ardrahan, Arklow, Ashford, Askeaton, Athboy, Athenry, and Aughrim, in every one of which an office might be profitably open if for only one or two days in the week. I will not needlessly occupy time by going through forms of argument to establish principles which the House already recognises. I will save time by saying that I assume it is the desire of the House to afford to Irish industry and enterprize, as also to Irish capital, all the facilities for development and exercise in Ireland which the law can properly concede. I will not trespass upon the indulgence of the House, arguing that the House should so desire, but I assume that the desire exists, and on it I base my hopes that the facts I propose to adduce will be deemed sufficient to induce the House to sanction the present Bill. The fact which I will prove is, that under the present laws affecting the issue of bank notes in Ireland it is more profitable for the majority of Irish issuing bankers to engage their surplus capital out of Ireland than within it. For instance, it is the fact that for five of the six issuing banks in Ireland under the present laws it would be more profitable for them to employ their money in English or foreign securities at a rate of 5 per cent per annum, than to advance to Irish traders on equally good security at 6 per cent. I will explain how this is the case. By the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 37 (Sir Robert Peel's Irish Banking Act, which I do not propose in the least degree to disturb) the amount of notes which an issuing banker in Ireland can maintain in circulation (except notes issued against specie at depôts) is limited to the average amount of his circulation for the year preceding May 1, 1845. The banker, however, by another Act of Parliament, being subject to the payment of a circulation duty equal to 7s. per cent per annum on the total of his notes in circulation, actually pays a duty
  1856
  on the notes which he is obliged to equipoise pound for pound with gold or silver coin at depôts. This is not all, however, nor is it the grievance which this Bill proposes to deal with. By the Act of 9 Geo. IV. c. 81, which. I seek to amend, the Irish banker is compelled to make his notes payable at the place where issued. So it comes to pass, by the action of three Acts of Parliament, that the Irish banker who exceeds the amount of his certified circulation has not only to lodge an equivalent amount of specie at depôts, but has to pay a composition duty of 7s. per cent per annum on notes actually represented by gold or silver coin; and not only this, but as he is limited to four depôts, and as he must make his notes payable at the places where issued, whether depôts or not, he is in practice and by law compelled to keep more than 25 s. in coin for every pound his circulation extends beyond the average of the year ending 1st May, 1845. Now, all who understand the habits of the Irish trading classes, high and low, are aware that save and except in times of panic they all use notes in preference to gold; but the banker in Ireland who has surplus capital to employ knows very well that the cost of maintaining a note circulation in excess of his average of 1845 renders it more profitable to him to employ his money elsewhere than in Ireland; hence it is that there are at least 200 towns in Ireland wholly without banking facilities, a privation which in Scotland could not occur to towns and districts of like capabilities. The present Bill is very simple, and confined to one object. It is to enable a banker, whenever he issues notes against coin at depôts, to issue his notes payable only at such depôts. It does not propose to make his notes a legal tender, or to oblige people to take them, if they do not like to do so, in payment of any claim on the banker. The question is not one chiefly in the interests of Irish bankers, and particularly it is not so in connection with the bank interests with which I am myself identified. It is a measure in the interests of Irish trade and manufacture. Wherever a well-managed bank is established an impetus is given to industry such as no other agency can supply. I am desirous that mere technical difficulties should be removed, and in the present instance I only seek to remove a restriction which is in no sense protective of the public, but which is injurious and

  1857
  anomalous. An hon. Member with whom I lately conversed on the subject of this Motion suggested that I should reduce to a formula the proposition with which I startled him—namely, that the security being equal, it was more profitable to an Irish issuing banker, having say £100,000, for example, available for investment, to advance the same at 5 per cent per annum in England, rather than to retain and employ the same money in his ordinary way of business in advances to Irish traders. That proposition I establish in this way—£100,000 advanced in England at 5 per cent per annum produces in one year £5,000. The Irish issuing banker, who, being in excess of his certified circulation, and who is consequently issuing his notes against gold at depôts, electing to employ £100,000 in Ireland, finds by experience that this money must be advanced at various places, and in the form of bank notes. Save, however, for purpose of convenience to his customers, it is in effect the same to the banker as if his advances were made at once in coin; for Sir Robert Peel's Act, which I do not seek to affect in any way whatever, renders it imperative on him to counterpoise pound for pound the whole amount of his excess circulation by the deposit of coin at one, two, three, or four depôts. In this condition of affairs the 9 Geo. IV. c. 81, which this Bill proposes to amend, operates most prejudicially, for that Act makes it imperative on the banker to make his notes payable wherever they are issued, and as this issue will rarely be at his depôts, he is in practice compelled to distribute some £20,000 coin to meet these notes where they are made payable. This will leave him only £80,000 to deposit at depôts, and hence he is only able to utilize at interest about four-fifths of the sum he has elected to retain for employment in Ireland. The return of interest on £80,000 at 6 per cent per annum will be only £4,800, against £5,000 earned by employment of the whole sum at 5 per cent in English or foreign securities. But this is not the sole deduction to which the Irish issuing banker has to submit, He has to pay 7s. per cent composition duty on the circulation of £80,000 in notes, although these notes are represented by an equivalent amount of coin at depôts. The deduction under this head from Irish profits is £280, so that an Irish issuing banker, under the circumstances I have shown, has practically a premium of £480
  1858
  in employing £100,000 at 5 per cent in England or abroad, over employing it as he best can on equally good security at 6 per cent in Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he believed that it was not desirable to assimilate the Irish system of banking to the Scotch, and that the effect of the measure would be to diminish public confidence in the Irish banks. This was a serious and important question, and ought not to be brought forward by a private Member in a thin House. He moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day six months."—(Colonel French.)
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, the Bill did not propose to extend the present excess of issue over gold; it was simply intended to promote the convenience of the public, by affording increased banking facilities, and it certainly did not contravene the principle of the Acts of 1844 and 1845, otherwise he (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart) would not give it his support. He believed the effect of the Bill would be to afford largely-increased facilities to farmers, tradesmen, and others in the outlying towns of Ireland for making deposits which they could not make in the Post Office savings banks, and which there were at present no other banks to receive. He trusted that the House would give a favourable reception to the Bill.
  GOSCHENsaid, if he thought the Bill would tend to increase the prosperity of trade and commerce in Ireland, he should be glad to give it his support, and he believed the Irish Members would admit that there was every disposition in the House, under the exceptional circumstances in which Ireland was at present placed, not to be bound too strictly by the rules of political economy, but to go as far as possible in introducing any changes that might be beneficial to the people of that country. But he doubted whether the hon. Member had made out his case in that respect. The hon. Member who had just spoken had stated that increased banking facilities would be a great advantage to Ireland; but the hon. Member for

  1859
  Youghal had said he did not wish to increase the number of issuing banks in Ireland.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid, he did not quite say that. He did not wish to express any opinion in contravention to the policy of Sir Robert Peel's Act; but he had no objection, if the House thought fit, to see the number of issuing banks multiplied.
  GOSCHENunderstood the hon. Member to support the principle of Sir Robert Peel's Act limiting the number of issuing banks. There were six issuing, which at present had a monopoly in Ireland, and the proposal now was that that monopoly should be improved and made more valuable to the country. But the question was, was the House and the country generally satisfied with the present state of the private issues? If there were any idea that the private issues were not on a satisfactory footing, would it be wise on the part of the House to improve the position of the private bankers in Ireland, and make it more difficult to deal with them if at any time it should seem right to the House to adopt one general system of circulation for the United Kingdom? The present question might be considered from three points of view. There was first the question respecting the issuing banks; secondly, the question of how the measure would affect the public; and next, the question of how it would bear upon the currency generally. He confessed he was unable to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that unless further privileges of issue were conceded Irish bankers would invest their money in England rather than in Ireland. How did the hon. Gentleman propose that the bankers should invest the money? Was it in the funds? The funds were in Ireland as well as in England. Was it in bills? There were bills in Ireland as well as in England. Was it in mortgages? There were mortgages in Ireland as well as in England. As to the issuing of notes, the law in Ireland was more assimilated to the law of England than it was to the law of Scotland. As to the interests of the Irish public, they had more security for the convertibility of the notes under the existing law than they would under that which the hon. Member proposed to substitute for it, because the fact that the notes were payable in the various branches of a bank obliged the banker to keep more gold than he would be obliged to do if they were payable only at certain depôts.
  1860
  It seemed to him that to do what was proposed would not be in accordance with the principle upon which Parliament had hitherto acted in carrying out the policy of Sir Robert Peel, which was not to encourage private issues, but to discourage them. Nor could he help thinking that the proposal of the hon. Member was to reverse the tendency of the legislation of the House with regard to currency generally. He trusted that the House would negative the second reading, because he felt confident that it was not for the convenience of the general public in Ireland, and because it ran counter to the general legislation which that House had followed with regard to currency. If they desired to develop still further the system of private issues, they should be quite consistent in voting for the Bill; but if, on the contrary, they thought the whole system was not on a satisfactory footing, then they ought not to do that which he could not help calling an improvement of the monopoly now enjoyed by a certain number of banks in Ireland.
  SIR JOHN GRAYfelt some difficulty in dissenting from the opinions expressed by so high an authority on monetary affairs as the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. With all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he (Sir John Gray) ventured to express the opinion that this was not a Bill, as was incorrectly represented, to increase the banking monopoly of the existing banks of issue, but had as its object the removal of obstacles that prevented their being able to extend proper banking accommodation to the inhabitants of the smaller towns in Ireland and the districts around them. It was in fact not a banking question in that sense, but a commercial question—it was not an effort to prop up or to extend the credit or resources of banks, but to extend credit and the ordinary banking facilities to districts now denied these advantages because of the operations of a special Act. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to enforce his peculiar views by stating that the Bill before the House was an attempt to disturb the Acts which regulate the present currency and to alter the present basis—the metallic basis which regulates the commercial currency of these kingdoms. The arrangements as to branch banks which prevail in Scotland are not at variance with the metallic basis, and all that is aimed at by the Bill of the

  1861
  Member for Youghal is to assimilate the laws which regulate branch banks in Ireland to those which regulate them in Scotland, and the operation of which has done so much for the development of the trade, the commerce, the manufactures, and the agriculture of Scotland. The hon. Member for Westmeath, who is conversant with the system in both countries, has given the House his experience of the benefits which extended banking facilities conferred on the people of Scotland. There every town and every village has its branch bank, and every trader and almost every farmer has his cheque book. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) said the object was to obviate the necessity for having a pound in gold deposited in the bank cellars for every note of surplus circulation issued, and that this, if effected, would diminish the security given to the public for the conversion of the note. [Colonel FRENCH: Hear, hear!] This was altogether a mistake on the part of his right hon. Friend. If the Member for Youghal was clear on any one point it was on this—that the metallic basis of the circulation, the security in deposited gold, would still be pound for pound for the amount of the issue. For every surplus pound issued by the banks of issue as promissory notes, they are compelled by statute to have a pound in gold or silver in the bank till at one of their central depôts. That pound in specie, be it gold or be it silver, is the security to the public who accept the notes so issued. Does the right hon. Gentleman want more than a pound in specie for every pound note issued? ["No, no!"] Well, then, that pound security—that pound in gold—must, under this Bill, be still deposited in the bank till; but the law as it now stands requires that if a branch bank issue a note for one pound, that promissory note must be made payable at the place of issue, and not, as in Scotland, at one of the four depôts, thus in effect requiring that the Irish banks of issue should have one pound in gold in the central or provincial depôt and another at the branch bank from which it was issued to meet the demand for conversion should it arise. The Irish banks of issue did not fear such demand; but they know that many small towns which required banking accommodation on one or two market days in each week would not bear the expense of having a bank staff maintained
  1862
  for the other four or five days, and if notes were by statute made payable in the place of issue or of re-issue the bank must of necessity be open each day of the six and maintain the staff at a loss. Now, what was the result of the two systems? In Scotland, with a population of 3,000,000, there were more than 550 branch banks. In Ireland, with nearly 6,000,000 population, there were 191 branch banks. Scotland with great banking facilities grew rich, prosperous, contented—Ireland was the opposite of all this. Another great fallacy was dwelt on by a right hon. Member, and prevailed largely outside this House. It was said that the £15,000,000 of money belonging to the farming classes and small traders deposited in the Irish banks was inactive and dormant. This was a great fallacy. The money was not dormant—the banks would all become bankrupt if they kept their deposits idle. If one trader deposited money, say £500, in bank at one hour of the day, another trader, who got his Bill discounted and placed to his credit in the morning, drew out the other man's deposit in the course of the day. The money was always kept active, and the effect of the present Bill would be to extend the circles in which that deposited money would be active to the smaller towns which had not now banking accommodation. The moral effect would hardly be less beneficial than the financial. Men would, by reason of opening accounts with banks, become more systematic in their business—more accurate in their trade accounts—more sharp—more enterprizing; and trade would be extended and improved, and new industries introduced in districts where none now existed. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the Member for Youghal to read his Bill a second time.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, the Bill would produce much the same effect as the measure proposed last year by the hon. and learned Member for Clare. The present proposal was regarded in Ireland with suspicion, and he should like to have a more satisfactory explanation of its provisions than had yet been given. He did not think that it would give the people facilities for getting their money. He knew perfectly well that the people of Ireland would much rather go to an establishment within reach of their own homes than to a central depôt to exchange their notes.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought there was very little weight to be attached to the complaint as far as the depositors were concerned that the deposits of the Irish banks were employed in England. Money, like everything else, would always seek the best market; and it mattered nothing to the depositors in what country their gold was employed, so that their interest was paid and their capital was safe; of course it mattered a great deal in a national sense, but that was a consideration which did not enter into the present debate. What had been said respecting the public convenience really told in favour of the Bill, for it would be better to have a bank branch that had the power to issue notes than not to have a branch at all. Nor was it any valid objection to the Bill that the question dealt with was an Imperial one, and ought only to be dealt with in an Imperial manner, for until it was so dealt with there could be no objection to applying a remedy to a particular evil. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), when be urged that the effect of the Bill must be to strengthen the so-called monopoly of the Irish bankers, fell into an error, inasmuch as whatever monopoly now existed and would continue to exist after this Act was created by the Act of 1844, and if the effect of such a monopoly was to give Bank accommodation to localities which were now without it, the argument was one in favour of the Bill and not against it. Admitting the existence of the suspicion referred to by the last speaker, the Bill, far from being contrary to the Currency Acts, would assimilate the currency law in Ireland to that which obtained in England, inasmuch as it gave the option to the banker to make the notes payable either at the branch of issue or at the head branch of the bank. He should vote for the second reading because its object was to give to the people of Ireland facilities which they did not at present possess.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, it appeared to him that the proposal was a very safe one, and he could see no reason why an additional penalty should be incurred by a bank when it opened branch establishments. If any small advantage could be given Ireland with perfect security, it ought to be given. He could not understand why there should be any difference in the banking system of Scotland and that of Ireland. What was found to work well for the former country could
  1864
  hardly be disadvantageous to the latter. The proposal did not enable the bankers to diminish their stock of bullion, and it would add greatly to the convenience of the public. The banking system of Ireland contrasted favourably with that of England, and the only fault he had to complain of was that the Irish banks were too fond of sending their money over to this country.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, the whole of the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. M'Kenna) was based on the fallacious assumption that the larger the number of bank notes in circulation was, the better for trade and for the country in which the notes were circulated. That, however, was not the principle which had guided our legislation with regard to the issue of bank notes. The principle of Sir Robert Peel was to place stringent restrictions on all issuing banks, with the view of eventually extinguishing the whole of the private circulation, and of limiting the power of issuing notes to the State alone. It should be remembered that the issuing of notes was not necessarily a part of banking, and there was, in fact, no reason why banks should not be established in every town in Ireland. He hoped the Government would not support the present attempt at a retrograde policy and to deal in a small way with a subject so important.
  MR. PIMobserved, that nothing had been said to show that the passing of the Bill into law would not be beneficial to Ireland. As for a general measure, it would be idle to wait for that, as it had been promised every year since that which succeeded the passing of Sir Robert Peel's Act. He did not think there could be any difficulty in getting notes changed for gold in any town in Ireland, if branches were established which issued their own notes. As for the argument that Bank of Ireland notes could be issued at the branches of other banks, surely it could not be contended that one bank was to assist in circulating the paper of a rival establishment. It seemed to him that to give the facilities proposed under the Bill would be to confer an advantage on the country. In Ireland they were constantly taunted with not taking example by Scotland, but now when Irishmen desired to follow it in the matter of banking, they were met by a violent opposition.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that there were in Ireland two classes of banks,

  1865
  those that had a restricted issue and those that could not issue. It seemed unfair to give those that could issue notes an additional privilege. The House ought to hesitate before sanctioning, more especially in Ireland, an inconvertible currency. If a note could not be presented at any issue bank, it was not convertible, and the principle was one it would be most dangerous to introduce. The existing law ought not to be altered unless a very strong case could be made out, and nothing of the kind had been done. It would be as injurious in Ireland as in England to sanction the issue of notes without a sufficient metallic reserve. It was not expedient to disturb the system established by the Act of 1844.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, this was, no doubt, a much more simple and less objectionable proposition than that of which it formed a part when introduced by the hon. Baronet (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) in 1865. The hon. Baronet proposed to make Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ireland, a measure which, had it passed, would have been productive of great inconvenience. He also included in his Bill the provisions now brought forward by the hon. Member (Mr. M'Kenna). The Bill of the hon. Baronet did not pass a second reading. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill told them that it assimilated the law of banks of issue in Ireland to that of Scotland. But their business was to deal with the case by itself, on its own merits, and to inquire whether any advantage was likely to accrue to the public from such a change in the law. What was the law at present in force in Ireland? It was, as the hon. Member had stated, very different from the English law. Banks of issue in England other than the Bank of England were precluded from exceeding their fixed authorized issue under any circumstances. But the banks of Ireland were allowed to issue as much in excess of the issue fixed on the 1st of May, 1845, on a year's average, as they pleased, provided they had an equivalent amount of bullion in certain depôts or head offices to cover the excess. The bullion must be in the depôts, otherwise the Stamp Office would not take cognizance of it. Therefore, an additional amount must be kept at the branches to meet the notes issued at and payable at those branches, which, no doubt, materially reduced the profit of issue. The hon. Member asked that this necessity of keep-
  1866
  ing gold at the branches should be obviated by making notes issued at the branches payable only at one of the depôts in which the gold was by law deposited. He (Mr. Cave) would pass by the argument often used, that this bullion was a mere colourable security for the issue, and ought really to be there under any circumstances, as a guarantee for the deposits of the bank. Taking the law as it stood, he would simply ask whether or not inconvenience might arise from the adoption of the proposals of the hon. Member. The inconvenience, no doubt, would be less than that caused by the proposal of 1865, inasmuch as the distance from the place at which the note was convertible would be less, and the notes, not being a legal tender, might be refused. But the latter circumstance would not prevent their frequently falling into the hands of people to whom it would be highly inconvenient not to get change at once. If the hon. Member said, as the hon. Member for Dublin had said, that for the credit of the bank, and to prevent the notes being refused by the public, they would always be paid on demand, then of what use was it to disturb the law? But he apprehended that in the case of bank notes this power of refusal on the part of the public was somewhat unreal. Few noteholders were direct creditors of the bank. They had received their notes from third parties, and in many cases were glad to take them rather than not get paid at all. Notes passed as money by custom from hand to hand, even though they were not legal tenders, and great inconvenience and hardship might result from the proposal made being adopted. In the event of a panic, and a run, the note-holder at a branch would be placed at great disadvantage, as compared with the noteholder at a depôt. The latter might get paid; but before the former could present his notes the doors might be shut. Again, noteholders in existing branches would find their position altered for the worse, as the right of payment which they now enjoyed would be taken away for the sake of establishing branches in places with which they had no concern. Were it not for the increased risk of robbery and other obvious considerations, he would recommend the converse of the hon. Member's proposal—namely, that they should enact that the Stamp Office should take cognizance of the bullion in the branches as well as in the depôts. In France each branch was obliged to give coin for notes

  1867
  issued at it, and this regulation had been strenuously guarded. On general grounds it seemed to him scarcely advisable that the currency laws should be tampered with by private Members, in order to remedy special and partial inconvenience, especially when the change proposed tended to the reduction of the capital of banks. The Bank of Ireland opposed this measure, which showed that a difference of opinion existed in Ireland on this point. The Bank of Ireland made every note payable at each depôt, and at nearly all its branches—[Mr. M'KENNA said, there were seven exceptions]—a course which rendered necessary a larger stock of bullion, while the present Bill tended to a reduction of the stock. Into the charges made against that bank it would be impossible for him to enter; if it had acted illegally, it was amenable to the law. The right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone)—a great authority on such matters—said, in 1865, that there were various points connected with the currency of Ireland deserving attention, so that a more comprehensive measure would be necessary if they dealt with the subject at all. Without imputing the least unfairness to the hon. Member's proposal, he thought, on the whole, that the House should hesitate before adopting it in its present shape.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the House would hesitate to tamper with the currency. This was nothing but a bankers' question. It was the duty of the House to take care that notes should not be issued unless sovereigns could be obtained for them when they were demanded. The object was to enable men to carry on the business of banking without capital. It was not at all desirable to give legislative facilities for anything of the kind.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid, he did not propose to deviate from the principle of Sir Robert Peel's Bank Act. He did not wish to make invidious complaints against particular banks in Ireland; but, under pressure, having two courses before them, loss or violation of the law, they had adopted the latter alternative. If the law remained unaltered he hoped the Attorney General would take cognizance of this.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he did not think that the monopoly which Sir Robert Peel's Act had conferred on the banks of issue in Ireland should be continued or increased by an Act of that House, as against private
  1868
  banking companies which were not banks of issue. If the Bill were read a second time it ought to be referred to a Select Committee to inquire whether or not, having regard to the powers proposed to be given, it would or would not militate unjustly against banks of non-issue. It was only upon the understanding that that course should be pursued that he could support the Motion.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 70: Majority 24.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Balbriggan, Cleethorpes, Cromer, Dingwall, Girvan, Rothesay, Seaford, and Southport.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, and Mr. HUNT.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.