Sitting of 29 November 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Jacob Bright, esquire [Affirmation], for Manchester.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions [November 28] reported—Income Tax; Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Income Tax*; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000)*; Local Officers Superannuation (Ireland)*; Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites)*; Life Policies Nomination.*
First Reading—Local Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* [17]; Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites)* [18]; Life Policies Nomination* [19]; Income Tax* [16]; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000).*
Second Reading—East London Museum Site* [7].
Referred to Select Committee—East London Museum Site* [7].
Report of Select Committee—East London Museum Site* [7].
Committee—Sales of Reversions* [8].
Report—Sales of Reversions* [8].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Amendment* [2].

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury has arrived at any determination as to the appointment of architect for the new Courts of Justice, and whether he will object to state that determination to the House?
  MR. HUNTanswered, that the Treasury had not arrived at any determination at
  418
  present. The circumstances of the case were as follows:—The Act of Parliament directed that the plans should be determined upon by the Treasury with the advice and concurrence of the Commissioners. Before the change of Government the late Treasury thought that the best way of arriving at the concurrence of the Commissioners was to join with them in the appointment of a Committee of Judges of Design. The Commissioners accordingly appointed certain Members of that Committee of Judges and the Treasury appointed others. Shortly before the House adjourned for the Recess the Treasury received a communication from those gentlemen, stating that they had been unable to arrive at a decision that any one design was the best, and that they therefore had arrived at the conclusion that two gentlemen ought to be appointed to prepare a final plan jointly. The reply of the Treasury was to the effect that a communication of that kind was not such an award as the Treasury expected the Judges would have made, and the matter was referred back to them in the hope that they would agree upon some one architect. Only yesterday a further reply was received from the Judges of Design, stating that they adhered to their original recommendation. Under these circumstances, the Treasury proposed to do what the Act of Parliament laid down, and to seek the advice of the Commissioners. As soon as any course had been determined upon he should be most happy, if his hon. Friend would put a Question on the subject, to give him any further information in his power.

POST OFFICE—CUNARD MAIL CONTRACT.—QUESTION.
MR. MAGUIREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that when the Cunard Contract ceases, at the end of this year, no arrangement has been made whereby the steamers of that Company will call at Queenstown?
MR. HUNTsaid, he had already made a statement to the House with regard to the arrangement to be made with the Cunard Company at the termination of their present contract. That arrangement, as he had stated, had not yet taken a formal shape, and was at present only a verbal one. The arrangement was that there should be a weekly service to New York for one year, the steamers calling at Queenstown, as at present.

FORESHORES AND BED OF THE SEA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COLERIDGEasked the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Memorandum as to the dealing with the Foreshores and Bed of the Sea by the Board of Trade, drawn up for the use of the Board in December, 1866?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he had already laid on the table Copy of Memorandum as to Board of Trade's dealings with Foreshores and Bed of the Sea.—[Parl. Papers, No. 18.]

  CATTLE PLAGUE—OUTBREAK IN BERWICKSHIRE.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he has received any official Report of an outbreak of disease among cattle in Berwickshire, said to be Rinderpest; and, if so, whether he has any objections to state the substance of that Report, and whether the Privy Council intend to take any steps in the matter?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the Reports received on the subject were rather conflicting. On the 18th instant, information was received from the local inspector stating that cattle plague existed at Langrigg, near Dunse, in Berwickshire, and that the place had been provisionally declared to be infected. Particulars were at once telegraphed for, and late in the evening of the 20th another communication was received from the local inspector to the effect that of a herd of thirty beasts five were dead and the rest in good health. On a consideration of all the particulars, the Government Inspectors arrived at the conclusion that the disease was not cattle plague; but, at the same time, it was thought proper to send down by telegraph permission to the local authorities to disinter the carcasses of the animals, in order that they might be inspected by Edinburgh veterinary surgeons. The local authorities, however, seem to have come to the decision that the disease was not cattle plague, and the bodies were not disinterred. On the 22nd, late in the evening, another telegram was received, announcing that another case had occurred. Professor Simonds was at once sent down to examine the bodies of the animals; and after having examined four of the carcasses he telegraped on the 25th, confirming the opinion which he had pre-
  420
  viously expressed as to the disease not being cattle plague. Another telegram confirmatory of that opinion was received from Professor Simonds on the following day, and on the 28th he handed in this Report—
  "I am of opinion that the animals are not the subjects of plague, but of the disease known as gastro-enteritis, or enteric fever. This disease owes its origin to common causes, not to special or specific ones, as the cattle plague; and such causes, I consider, have been in full operation in the present instance."
  He felt confident, therefore, that the disease was not cattle plague.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—RETURN OF MERCHANT SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. YOUNGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House the list and name of every Merchant Ship engaged in the Abyssinian Expedition, with the net and gross register tonnage of each Ship; also the horse-power of each engine; also the price per ton each Ship is chartered at; also the names of each registered owners of such Ship as appeared upon the Register when the Ship was tendered to the Government for hire and the name of each owner as he now stands on the Register, with the name of the broker who tendered such Ship; and if a Member of this House can participate in any of the profits, directly or indirectly, of that Expedition?
  MR. CORRYsaid, he had no objection to lay upon the table of the House the Return asked for by the hon. Gentleman, as far as the Admiralty could furnish it. Information could be given respecting the eighteen ships taken up by the Admiralty here; but he did not know how many had been taken up at Bombay. As to the last part of the Question, he could only say that no Member of that House could enter into a contract with the Government without forfeiting his seat.

ARMY—CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS—DETENTION OF SOLDIERS' BAGGAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the baggage of the regiment which landed at Portsmouth on Saturday last from the Crocodile was not delivered at Plymouth till Wednesday, being four days after the arrival of the regiment at the latter garrison?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: In consequence of what fell from my hon. Friend last night on this subject, I telegraphed for information; but as I have not yet received a reply, perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his Question on Monday.
  Afterwards—
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could now answer the Question. In reply to his inquiry he had received the following statement:—
  "The 2nd Battalion of the Rifle Brigade arrived at Portsmouth in the Crocodile on the 22nd instant, and the baggage of the battalion was loaded on the railway trucks on the afternoon and evening of that day, and was from that time in the hands of the railway authorities, ready to be forwarded to Plymouth that night. The first delivery of baggage at Devonport took place on the 27th inst., and the second on the following day. The delay rested entirely with the railway authorities, and Messrs. Pickford and Co. were responsible—the conveyance of the baggage having been a regimental arrangement with that firm."

THE HURRICANE IN THE WEST INDIES.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked, Whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any grant for the relief of the sufferers by the late terrible disasters in the West Indies?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the Government had taken measures to relieve the immediate distress at Tortola, and one of Her Majesty's ships had been sent from the North American Station to the Island to give assistance. They also proposed to repair the pier and public buildings which had been destroyed at Tortola, and the labour thus employed would indirectly benefit some of the sufferers; but the Government had not decided as to giving any further relief from the public funds. He might remark that very large private subscriptions were being raised in this country, and he trusted that they would be amply sufficient to supply the wants of the sufferers by the late storm, in regard to food, clothing, and the re-building of private houses. The destruction was such as to destroy the chief sources of revenue in the Island for at least a year.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—THE DEBATE OF TUESDAY.—EXPLANATION.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I rise to appeal to the House in reference to a case of personal injury which is likely to ensue upon matters connected with some of the
422
proceedings of this House. I throw myself entirely on the indulgence of the House. The case is this:—On Tuesday night the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), who was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the late Government, stated in his place, amongst other things, that Dr. Beke, the eminent traveller, who has contributed alike to the information of the public and the Government, had, in a work which he had published, positively stated that Mr. Rassam, Her Majesty's Envoy, who is at present a captive in the hands of King Theodore, had misappropriated the public money. Now, this is a specific charge against Dr. Beke. I was not in the House when this statement was attributed to Dr. Beke. I happened not to be in my place on Tuesday; but yesterday Dr. Beke wrote to me to state—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot give statements and comments of other individuals on debates in this House.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I was not going to make any further statement than this—I was going to say that Dr. Beke found that this statement was doing him a personal injury. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in introducing in this House any comments by other individuals upon the debates which have taken place in this House. In the first place, the debate is past, and reference to a past debate is itself not regular. The House, I dare say, will permit the hon. Member to state shortly anything that he knows of his own knowledge; but he must conform himself to the rules of the House.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I am very unwilling to move the adjournment of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: That would not make the slightest difference.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I am perfectly aware that I am asking the House to allow me to make a statement which is not regular, and which would not be permitted except in a case where personal injury is likely to arise out of the proceedings of this House. I am aware of the rules of the House, or I should not make the appeal. I wish merely to be allowed to state of my own knowledge that Dr. Beke's book directly contradicts the allegation which has been attributed to him, that Mr. Rassam has been guilty of misappropriation or peculation of public money. This is a matter which affects two persons, one of whom is in a very critical position. Mr. Rassam

423
wrote a despatch on the 22nd of March, 1866, of which an abstract has appeared in a Bombay paper and also in The Jewish Chronicle in this country, giving an account of his interview with King Theodore; but that despatch is not before the House. In that despatch Mr. Rassam gives an account of an interview with King Theodore.
MR. CHILDERS: I rise to Order, and I do so on grounds that will commend themselves to every hon. Member of the House. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire is complaining of words used in a debate by the hon. Member for Southwark. I will only ask him whether he has given notice to the hon. Member for Southwark that he was about to bring the subject forward? because if he has not, I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that the subject had better be postponed.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I will answer the hon. Member at once. If I had not written to the hon. Member for Southwark I should not have felt justified in bringing this matter, as I have done, before the House. I waited till this morning because Dr. Beke had written a letter to The Times to defend himself. But it did not appear; and I immediately wrote a letter to the hon. Member for Southwark, which I sent by my own servant; and the answer I received was that the hon. Member for Southwark had left London, and would not return for ten days. Now, the personal injury complained of is the circulation of this statement on the authority of a late official; and is this to go on for ten days? I think this ought not to pass without my being permitted to show to the House from the writings of Dr. Beke himself that the statement is without foundation. In the despatch of the 22nd of March, 1866, this occurs:—
"Next day (4th February) the King had much conversation with Mr. Rassam, and ended by telling him that he proposed to send him to Korata, allowing him to choose whether he would stay at Korata or at Debra Tabor till the prisoners arrived; and after he retired to his tent he sent Mr. Rassam a most polite note, informing him that he had sent him some guns and pistols, and also 5,000 German crowns (Austrian speciedollars of A.D. 1780) to spend in any manner he wished, 'except in a way displeasing to God.' These presents Mr. Rassam was obliged to accept, as he was told that it would displease the King if he refused them. Twice afterwards the King gave Mr. Rassam a present of 5,000 dollars, for the same purpose and with the same admonition."
This is an extract from the despatch printed in page 200 of Dr. Beke's book—The
424
British Captives in Abyssinia. The extract adds—
"In the letter from Mr. Rassam to Colonel Playfair, read at the meeting of the Royal Geographical Society, to which allusion has already been made, it is stated that the Emperor insisted on Mr. Rassam's acceptance of 10,000 dollars for his expenses, which our Envoy at first refused, but found it politic to accept, and credit the sum to Her Majesty's Government."
That is the point. And there is a note at the bottom of the page upon that fact, and this is the note—
"I feel myself, however, called upon to remark that when Mr. Rassam so complacently vaunted the excessive humility of the Emperor Theodore towards the Queen of England, and this having (as reported in The Times of the 29th of June last) 'insisted on Mr. Rassam's acceptance of 10,000 dollars' (Mr. Rassam himself now says 15,000 dollars in all) 'for his expenses, which our Envoy at first refused, but found it politic to accept, and credit the sum to Her Majesty' Government,' he can hardly have contemplated that such a gift was intended as a mamáladja, which in Isenberg's Amharic Dictionary is defined as a 'present presented by an inferior person to a superior,' and for which the donor expects in return not merely an equivalent, but something of very much greater value. So conscious was I of this usage in Abyssinia, that never during my long residence in that country would I, under any pretence, accept a present from an inferior without first understanding what I was to give in return; and whenever I asked a favour of a superior, I first presented my mamáladja. It was not without a motive, then, that the Emperor Theodore lowered himself so exceedingly before Her Britanic Majesty in the person of her representative; and the question put hypothetically on the 27th of April has now become a sad reality."
The main text of the work thus continues in page 200—
"For the reasons already stated in The Times of July 6, 1866, I cannot but think it to have been most impolitic to accept any such present. When Consul Plowden was offered by the same monarch 'some hundred dollars for the expenses of his journey,' he replied, 'that as for the money he could not receive it, as he was paid by his own Sovereign;' at which Theodore does not appear to have taken offence but, on the contrary, spoke to Mr. Plowden 'in the most affectionate manner,' and 'gave orders for his honourable reception everywhere as far as Massowah.' And, besides, there really does not seem to have been any means of spending the money in a legitimate manner—in a way not displeasing to God; for the Emperor would not allow Mr. Rassam to make presents, and himself supplied the mission with all they stood in need of. According to that gentleman's letter to Colonel Playfair, 'The Emperor's orders to supply Mr. Rassam with provisions and carriage free of expense on his way to the court were carried out to the letter; everything was provided on the road on the most liberal scale. Sometimes their daily rations reached as high as 1,000 loaves of bread, 2 cows, 20 fowls, 500 eggs, 10 jars of milk, 10 of honey, &c.' It is not at all clear, therefore, what Mr. Rassam

425
could do with these 15,000 dollars, except take them on with him wherever he went; and half a ton of silver (for they weigh nearly as much) is no trifle to carry about in a country like Abyssinia. In addition to this, it may be presumed that Mr. Rassam had already the 15,000 dollars from Aden, to which allusion was made in the last chapter, in addition to money for his ordinary expenses."
I think the House will see at once that there is not the least foundation for accusing Dr. Beke of making statements in his book to the effect that Mr. Rassam had peculated or misappropriated public money. He has stated nothing of the kind. And perhaps the House will now allow me to read the terms used by the hon. Member for Southwark, as reported in The Times newspaper, by which Dr. Beke complains he is injured.
MR. SPEAKER: The House has offered the hon. Member great facilities for explanation, and will hear any explanation from himself; but it will be irregular to read a letter from another gentleman commenting on a statement made in this House.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I am not going to do so. I was going to read the words in which the charge was made by the hon. Member for Southwark—
"With regard to Dr. Beke, he ventured to say that any person who should have employed him would have been guilty of a gross misappropriation of public funds, and he was glad that the Government had refused the services of that most mischievous man. If Dr. Beke had only slandered him, he would not have noticed the matter; but when he had published a book, which was quoted by hon. Members, he must say that a more mendacious book had never appeared. From beginning to end it was one tissue of falsehoods and mistakes. He would mention two accusations which that man made, because they were made against a gentleman in the public service, and who was not in this country. In one passage Dr. Beke insinuated that Mr. Rassam misappropriated public money, but he only wished that Dr. Beke could give as good an account of the money intrusted to him for his mission to Abyssinia. In another passage Dr. Beke charged Mr. Rassam with cowardice, for he said if Mr. Rassam had consented to remain as hostage in Abyssinia he might have obtained the release of all the captives. That statement was without foundation. Mr. Rassam was charged with cowardice because he remained with the Queen's letter at Massowah, but there were reasons of a strong nature which induced him not to go up to the King."—[The Times' Report.]
I repeat, Sir, that I was not in my place when the hon. Member for Southwark spoke; but I have consulted other Members who were present, and their opinion is that the expressions I have quoted exceed the fair limits of debate. I have now accomplished that which I undertook, by placing before the House this contradic-
426
tion on the part of a gentleman whom I have known for many years, and who to my knowledge has, since 1851, addressed himself on the affairs of Abyssinia to successive Governments, with a full knowledge of the subject, having been himself one of the most distinguished African travellers, and holding the gold medal of the Geographical Society of England, and having once held that of the Geographical Society of France, though he has since returned it. In 1859 and 1860 I received from Dr. Beke letters with intelligence threatening the disaster which we now have to encounter. I took these to Lord Palmerston, considering that they contained matter of public importance; and one of these letters, I should add, contained a proposal for the employment of Dr. Beke himself; it was written just before the murder of Mr. Consul Plowden, when it was understood that he was about to relinquish the Consulate. Lord Palmerston received me most courteously, referred me to Earl Russell, who saw me twice on the subject; but eventually the noble Earl preferred Mr. Cameron to Dr. Beke. Well, that appointment has not been fortunate; and this the hon. Member for Southwark himself admits. I think that it is not worthy of any hon. Member of this House to bring accusations that cannot be proved against a gentleman, like Dr. Beke, of high attainments, who, as I can tell the House of my own knowledge, has for fifteen or sixteen years brought the whole weight of his acquirements to bear upon the affairs of Abyssinia—a subject little understood at home—and who, by these exertions for the public service, has injured his own personal prospects.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHdesired to know from the Chair, whether he should have been justified in moving that the words of the hon. Member for Southwark in reference to Dr. Beke should be taken down? When he heard the language of the hon. Member he was strongly tempted to make a Motion to that effect. But he was in doubt whether he should have been in order, as the words did not refer to any Member of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The matter in question occurred in Committee. I was not present myself, and am not cognizant of what took place. A point of order such as that to which the hon. Member refers should be addressed at once to the Chairman, and cannot be questioned on a subsequent occasion.

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

SALMON FISHERIES IN THE SOLWAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the Secretary for the Home Department, If the Government will bring in a Bill to amend the Laws affecting the Salmon Fisheries in the Solway Frith? Up to a comparatively recent period the whole of the waters in the Frith were under one law, though part was in England and the other part in Scotland. The fishery legislation of 1861–2 had, however, introduced a different state of things, which was productive of great injury to the fishery. Two attempts had been made to rectify the evil, and had failed only through accident.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYregretted that, not having been able to communicate with the Lord Advocate, who just now was very much engaged elsewhere, he could not give a definite answer to the Question. It certainly seemed to him that a great injustice existed at present, as on the English side a proper examination of the nets and fisheries had taken place, whereas no such examination was provided for the Scotch shore; and it might very well be that nets were in use on the Scotch shore which inflicted injury on the fisheries on both shores. The use of nets ought to be placed on the same footing on both sides of the Solway, and he would consult the Lord Advocate upon this point.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, that the result of the inquiries of the Fishery Commissioners and their recommendations had, he believed, been extremely beneficial. The production of salmon and the rents of the fisheries had been thereby largely increased. This being so, ought not those who benefited from these inquiries, and the Acts passed in consequence, to pay for them? If any persons asked for an in-closure or a Drainage Act, the expense was defrayed by a rate on the property benefited. Why, then, were persons who had no connection with salmon rivers to pay for that which only filled the pockets of the owners of these waters?

ARTILLERY—CONVERSION OF GUNS—THE SEVEN-INCH GUNS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MAJOR ANSONrose to call the attention of the House to the relative cost of the Woolwich 7-inch Gun and the converted 7-inch Gun, as given on the 13th August, in the last Session of Parliament, by the Secretary for War. He had, however, first to thank his right hon. Friend for the frank manner in which he had met all inquiries on this subject. He (Major Anson) stated last Session that the cost of the Woolwich gun was about £425, while the converted gun was made for under £200. Much to his astonishment the Secretary for War made out in his reply that, so far from the difference in the cost of the two guns being £220, it only amounted to £140. Now, in arriving at these figures, the Secretary for War gave the price of the Woolwich gun manufactured in the Royal Gun Factories at £405, which was the actual sum that the House would be asked to vote in order to make a new gun at Woolwich; while the right hon. Gentleman gave the cost of the converted gun at manufacturers' prices—the contract price. This was not a fair comparison. If it had been determined to give the contract prices for these guns it ought to have been stated that such was the case. But not satisfied with having given the contract prices for these guns, he mentioned only the very highest estimate that had been sent in. He (Major Anson) would read to the House the estimates of Major Palliser for his guns. For the A pattern gun it was £238; for the B pattern £25 less, or £213; and since then he had produced a 7-inch gun for £195, thus reducing the estimate by £18. He (Major Anson) had no wish that in the answer given to him the lowest estimate should be stated; he would have been content with the medium price; and he thought that the estimates sent in by Major Palliser should, in justice to him, have been stated to the House. The right hon. Gentleman gave the estimate as £263, whereas the highest estimate of Major Palliser was £238. In this way £25 was put on, which was about the value of the gun sent to be converted. He need hardly point out that if the exact price of the Woolwich gun was given, the exact price in the other case should have been given also. But that was not all. He found now that the £405 which had been quoted

  429
  as the price of the Woolwich gun was not the price of that gun at all. It was the price of an imaginary gun. Only two of the Woolwich guns had been made with a wrought-iron barrel, and both had failed. The actual service 7-inch gun was made with a steel barrel, and cost £264, which was the price that ought to have been stated in the House in answer to him. He need hardly point out to the House the object of putting the Palliser gun in a point of view as unfavourable as possible, and, on the contrary, placing the Woolwich gun in the most favourable light. The subject was one well worthy of the attention of the House. If he (Major Anson) seemed to have been somewhat particular in bringing the matter under the notice of the House, his excuse was that he was convinced that the manufacturing establishments of this country, as at present constituted, wielded a power capable of crushing almost every man who attempted to improve and cheapen our warlike stores; and if inventors could not get justice at the hands of these establishments, it was all the more necessary that the truth should be stated in that House. Before he sat down there was one question which he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman. It might be in the recollection of the House that there was a lighter gun, the 32-pounder converted into a 64-pounder, with reference to which the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had been reminded that the Admiralty had ordered a further supply of the smaller converted gun, and in the conversion of that gun it was intended to proceed. Now, he (Major Anson) had heard that the authorities had re-opened the experiments in this case, and had decided that the 64-pounders were to be tested by firing 2,000 rounds each. He objected to that, on the ground of the time that would be wasted. He had not been able to find any one who had the slightest doubt that the guns would stand that test. So much was that the case, that Major Palliser was going to submit one of his guns, which had been condemned by the Royal Gun Factory, to the test in question. It might seem strange to the House that the Royal Gun Factory should sit in judgment on guns produced by rivals, but such was the case. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he might be able to apply a portion of any sum of money he might take for the manufacture of guns this year to the conversion of guns should it be deemed advisable?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwas understood to say that he objected to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's making, as he had done, a speech in the end of November in reply to a statement which had been made in the month of August. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend did not impute to him any intention of stating anything contrary to the facts on the occasion to which he had referred. His hon. and gallant Friend had complained that he had given the highest prices, instead of the lowest; but he had taken the price of the gun which had been tested, of which he knew the merits, and which was the only one of which he could speak. His hon. and gallant Friend complained that with regard to the estimates for converted guns he had given manufacturers' prices. That was the case, because at that time the Arsenal had no experience and had no means of arriving at an independent conclusion. The question was one of comparison between two guns of the same description; but Major Palliser's gun was made with an iron tube, whereas the Woolwich gun was made with a steel tube, and the sum of £405 was the most accurate estimate he could form supposing the gun was made like Major Palliser's, with a wrought-iron tube. But the House would probably prefer hearing what were the intentions of the Government as to the future, rather than have its time occupied with a comparatively small matter. His hon. and gallant Friend (Major Anson) asked whether he would be willing to frame the Estimates in a particular manner. He was not prepared to give a promise on that point; all he could say was that the subject should have his best consideration. There was one point upon which he agreed entirely with his hon. and gallant Friend, and that was that through all Her Majesty's possessions they were deficient in the proper and requisite number of rifled guns, and it was very important that they should proceed as quickly as they could to supply the deficiency. The first question which then arose was whether it was desirable to proceed with the conversion of the smooth-bore 68-pounder? On this point he was obliged to adhere to the opinion he had given on a former occasion that it would not be expedient to do so. For the reasons he had stated on that occasion it was the opinion of the Ordnance Department that this gun when converted would not be able to stand the heavy charges that would be required. On the other hand, the 32-pounder might be con-

  431
  verted into a 64-pounder, which when rifled would be a most useful gun and amply repay the cost of conversion. They had a large store of these guns, and it was the intention of the Government in the course of next year to convert a large number of them into rifled guns of 64-pounders, and this would not be done in the Arsenal, but by the private trade under the immediate superintendence of Major Palliser. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would be satisfied that the Government were only anxious to do what was best for the public service.

IRELAND—SPIRIT LICENSE DUTY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN GRAYcalled the attention of the House to the proposed increase of Spirit Licence Duty in Ireland by the Board of Inland Revenue, and asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Whether, in proposing such increase, the Board were acting under instructions from the Treasury; and, if not, Whether the Treasury will interfere to prevent it? Great dissatisfaction had been caused throughout Ireland by this action of the Board of Inland Revenue. In Ireland the licenses for retailers of spirits were based on the rental or the value of the premises; and this rental or value was not the parochial or other local valuation, but the public Governmental valuation used for the assessment of inhabited houses. It was important, therefore, that they should understand what the public valuation of Ireland was. There was first the Ordnance valuation—generally called Griffith's valuation—and there was also the Poor Law valuation; but for a considerable number of years there had been no separate Poor Law valuation, the several unions having adopted the most recent Government valuation, known as the Tenement Valuation (Ireland), made by the Commissioners of Valuation appointed by the Government of whom Sir Richard Griffith was Chief Commissioner. That valuation was now used for all Poor Law purposes, for all grand jury rating, and all other county purposes—for all municipal purposes—and had been adopted by the Government for Imperial taxation purposes, and on it was based the Income Tax from property in Ireland. For a series of years the Inland Revenue adopted and acted on it. It was still just enough for the Government, for the Poor Law authori-
  432
  ties, for the county and municipal authorities; but the Inland Revenue have arbitrarily added 25 per cent to the public valuation, and made that the basis for the duty. That did not add 20 per cent to the duty—if it did, probably there would be very little irritation produced—it added nothing whatever to the large traders' license duty. Premises valued at or above £50 a year would continue to pay the same license duty as before; but the small traders in the country towns and villages would have, by the proposed change, their duties raised, not 25 per cent, but 100 per cent. Already much bad feeling had been caused by this unjust proceeding. Meetings had been held in Dublin, in Cork, in Kilkenny, in Limerick, in Waterford, in Clonmel, in fact, in every town in Ireland, to protest against this unfair and arbitrary departure from the public valuation basis so long acted on. He would put it to the Government and ask was it wise at such a juncture as the present to force an influential class of traders, whose ramifications spread into every village in Ireland, and whose houses were the centres of town and village political discussion, into a state of permanent irritation, and thus create so many normal schools for discontent and for just invective against the system pursued towards Ireland? The sum to be raised would be a very small compensation for the evils sure to result from the discontent and agitation that would arise. The total sum to be acquired by this new screw was variously estimated at £50,000 for as high as £80,000; but, though small in amount, it was an unjust addition to the drain from Ireland, and would be all levied from one class of traders, and that class of men who could not well bear it.
  MR. MAGUIREcorroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, as to the dissatisfaction which had been created by the course taken by the Commissioners, and expressed his conviction that the proposed increase in the license was arbitrary and most unfair.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, speaking from his own knowledge, stated that the proposed increase was most unpopular, and in his opinion most unjust in principle. A basis which had existed for so many years ought not to be disturbed at the whim of the Revenue Board.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he could not see, when the Board had so long accepted the valuation, on what ground they were

  433
  now altering it. It could not be on the ground of any increase in the value of property, for the property in the smaller towns, which would be most affected, had been greatly depreciated, and it was that very property which the Board were endeavouring to saddle with an increase of taxation.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENbelieved that the effect of the change would be to increase the class of unlicensed or she been houses, where the greatest portion of the crime in Ireland was hatched, and where most of the conspiracies in that country originated.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Question put to him was whether the Commissioners were acting under instructions from the Treasury. The Commissioners were not acting by direction of the Treasury. On being communicated with they informed him that they were proceeding in entire accordance with the Act of Parliament regulating the spirit duties, that they were not only acting according to law, but that they would not be acting according to law if they did not do what they had done. By the 5th section of the Act certain rules were laid down for ascertaining the value of these houses, and there was a proviso that if the persons authorized to grant licenses should be dissatisfied with the rent or value as shown by the certificate of the landlord, they were authorized and required to adopt such other means as the Commissioners of Excise might think fit to ascertain the true rent or annual value of such houses or premises. The Commissioners considered that they were bound by the Act to ascertain the true rent or value, and that they would be neglecting their duty if they failed to do so. They further stated that with respect to many of these houses where the license duty had been raised, that if it were not so raised it would operate unfairly with regard to other houses; because in many cases where new houses were built the true value was put upon them. They also said that in every case in which persons had appealed to the Commissioners inquiries had been instituted and redress granted whenever it appeared to the Commissioners to be required. The observations of hon. Gentlemen confirmed the representations made to him in favour of a new general valuation. If that were done these complaints would cease, and he should look for the support of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had taken part in this discussion if, during the
  434
  Session, he should introduce a new Valuation Bill.
  SIR JOHN GRAYhoped the hon. Gentleman would suspend the proceedings of the Commissioners until a new valuation was made, and he should be glad to support him in any measure of that kind.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not consider the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman satisfactory, and did not think the clause in the Act made it incumbent on the Commissioners to act as they had done. The existing valuation had been made under the Tenements Valuation Act, and that being so he could not understand how it became the duty of the Commissioners to leave a mode of valuation which had been established for so many years and go back to a statute of the reign of George IV. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would adopt the hint of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and suspend the proceedings of the Commissioners, and in the meantime consider the whole matter and establish the valuation on a just and equitable footing.

DISFRANCHISED BOROUGHS—TOTNES, GREAT YARMOUTH, LANCASTER, AND REIGATE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. OTWAY, in calling the attention of the House to the anomalous and embarrassing state of the law relating to the Elections for the boroughs of Totnes, Great Yarmouth, Lancaster, and Reigate, in consequence of the postponement of the period at which the disfranchisement was made executory, said, that in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would not have brought forward the matter if it had not been urgent as well as important. The House was aware that in consequence of the Reports of the Election Committees for these four boroughs, and upon the joint Address of both Houses of Parliament, Commissioners were sent down to inquire into the bribery and corruption alleged to exist in those boroughs. The Commissioners reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in all these boroughs. A clause was consequently introduced into the Reform Act enacting that from and after the end of the present Parliament these boroughs should respectively cease to return any Member or Members to serve in Parliament. He was no stickler for precedent—but an error that might be productive of great discredit to the House had been caused by an unwise departure

435
from precedent, because if the words inserted in former Acts had been used in the Reform Act the present state of things would not have existed. In the case of a dissolution of Parliament occurring before the 1st of January, 1869, these boroughs would not return Members of that House; but should any vacancy occur by the death of one of the sitting Members for Totnes and Great Yarmouth, on the fact being duly certified to the Speaker, he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman must make out a warrant for a new writ to fill the vacancy. A return must be made to that writ, and a Member would take his seat for a borough which had been condemned in the most unqualified terms by the House. And by whom would that Member be elected? By a constituency so corrupt that the names of many of them had been appended in a schedule, and they had been declared incapable of voting ever after for any Member of Parliament. That state of things could not have been intended by the Government, for there were no Members of that House more decided in condemning these boroughs. There was certainly one exception—that of a right hon. Gentleman who now filled a high post in the Government. The right hon. Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) warmly defended the borough of Lancaster. Two divisions took place in that House. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Howes) who represented the county in which Great Yarmouth was situated defended that borough; but on a division the numbers in favour of retaining the representation of Great Yarmouth were only 49, while the number voting for its disfranchisement was 325. The right hon. Member for North Lancashire thereupon coupled Great Yarmouth with Lancaster and took a division, when 159 Members voted for disfranchisement, and only 87 in favour of his Motion. That showed an unmistakable opinion on the part of the House in favour of disfranchising these boroughs. What was his complaint against the Government? That they had not followed the precedents in the case of Sudbury and St. Albans. In the last case it was provided by a special Act that from and after the passing of that Act the borough of St. Albans should cease to return any Member or Members to Parliament. In the case of Sudbury the words were the same. Now, if these words had been used in the Reform Act the present difficulty would have been avoided. In
436
former cases, where electors had been guilty of flagrant corruption like these four boroughs, the Legislature dealt with them very differently from the way in which the Government had dealt with these four boroughs. As regarded the voters by the New Shoreham Act, it was provided that—
"Whereas a wicked and corrupt society, calling itself a Christian Society, has for several years subsisted in the borough of New Shoreham, in the county of Sussex, and consisting of various persons having a right to vote at elections, &c.,"
and it went on to give the names of the sixty-eight voters who had been guilty of bribery, and proceeded to enact that those men who were stigmatized were thenceforward incapacitated and disabled from giving any vote at any election for the choosing of Members of Parliament. That Act was still in force, and he could not understand why those men who had been guilty of such extensive corruption, especially at Great Yarmouth, should not have been treated as were the electors of New Shoreham. In the cases of Reigate and Lancaster it was true that two days' notice had to be given prior to the issue of a writ; but he believed that, as the case now stood, if a vacancy occurred, by death or otherwise, at Great Yarmouth or Totnes during the Recess, a writ must issue for the return of a new Member. That was a result which he was sure had never been contemplated; and he thought that, whether by a Resolution of the House or by some other mode, such a scandal should and might be prevented.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEthought that all the anomaly to which the hon. Member had just called attention was caused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer not having adopted the suggestion which he had himself made to him last Session. He then put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he ought not, according to precedent, to have brought in a separate Bill dealing with those four boroughs. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought differently, and hence this difficulty. He had also put it to him whether it was right that the present Members for those corrupt boroughs should still sit in that House. All would agree in this, that, although they might tolerate the Gentlemen who sat for those four boroughs, still they did so only for a short time; and certainly they ought not to allow any more gentlemen to come among them from those places to contaminate them. He entertained a strong opinion on that question, and confessed that he, in common with the rest of the House,

437
was partly to blame for permitting the clauses relating to those boroughs to pass as they stood. The mischief, however, he should think, might yet be easily remedied by the House passing a Resolution to the effect that no writ should be issued for either of those condemned boroughs until Parliament had first assented to it.

PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS—PAYMENT OF RATES.—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERcalled the attention of the House to the uncertain interpretation of those provisions of the "Representation of the People Act" which relate to the payment of rates, and to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether every occupier in Parliamentary Boroughs must be rated to the relief of the poor; or whether, in the event of the occupier not desiring to obtain the Franchise, the owner may still be rated; also, whether payment of rates by the landlord would not, in point of Law, be deemed payment by the tenant? He had been requested to bring under the notice of the House the case of the Walsall compound-householders. There, under the Market Improvement Act of 1848, a composition was made compulsory in regard to all tenements let out either weekly or monthly; but, wherever the rent amounted to £10 and upwards, the compound-householder could be placed on the electoral register. But, by the extinction of the system of compounding under the Reform Bill of last Session, those compound-householders at £10 and upwards would be disqualified. Under that Act no occupier could be admitted to the franchise unless he personally paid his rates; but a doubt seemed to exist whether the section directing the rate to be levied on the occupier and not on the owner applied to all occupiers indiscriminately, or merely to those qualified under the 3rd section of the Act. He was aware the Attorney General would say that all local Acts were superseded by the general Act; and that might be a good answer in point of form, but it was no answer as to the injustice and inconsistency of taking away existing franchises. The 56th section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, said that all franchises conferred by that Act should be in addition and not in substitution for any existing franchises. He wished to know whether payment of rates by the landlord would not in point of law be deemed payment by the
438
tenant. Whatever might be the answer of the Attorney General to that Question, he desired to impress on the Government, and especially on the House, the policy, before the Act of last Session came into operation, of repealing, or, at all events modifying the obnoxious clauses relating to compounding and the payment of rates. Those provisions were everywhere exciting the greatest discontent and giving rise to the warmest discussion. Not only in his own district, but in Norwich and other places, large meetings had been held to protest against them, and, in some places, threats of personal violence had been held out against any attempt to enforce them; and he felt sure that in the ensuing Session the table would be covered with petitions on the subject. He hoped that the object of a measure intended for the enfranchisement of the working classes would not be defeated by the enforcement of the odious provisions to which he had referred.
LORD HENLEYsaid, the subject was one of great importance. He confessed that when the clauses for abolishing the system of compounding were brought forward many hon. Gentlemen did not perceive very clearly how they would work. But though the Act of last Session had not yet come into operation, and no rate had been raised or a single voter registered under it, yet they now saw pretty plainly what its action would be. The feeling among the small occupiers in the towns where the change from compounding to non-compounding was made was one of the most serious dissatisfaction; and that subject would soon have to be re-considered. When the system of compounders was abolished by the Act of last Session, he supposed, in his ignorance, that there were two great objects sought to be attained. On his side of the House it was imagined that the holders of small tenements would thus be exempted from the payment of a fine before they could become entitled to a vote; while, upon the other side, it was thought that the personal payment of rates would secure a qualification for the franchise. Both those objects, however, failed to be realized. The holders of small tenements would still have to pay a large fine before they could exercise the franchise, and the personal payment of rates was far from being securely established. The question was one which involved so many complications that he had found it extremely difficult to understand it; but having heard a great number of complaints from householders when he ad-

439
dressed his constituents a short time ago as to the way in which the law would operate in their case, he had examined the subject more closely, and he felt satisfied that a great injury would be inflicted on workmen and occupiers of small tenements, male and female, by what he must characterize as a very inconsiderate and clumsy Act of the Legislature. Let him suppose, for example, that £18 was required to be raised for parish purposes, and that it was to be levied on forty houses of the rateable value of £6 each, which would give an aggregate rateable value of £240. Under the compounding system, the parish authorities must have called for £36, or a sum double that which they required—because by the 13 Vict. the landlord was enabled to compound for half the sum called if he were willing to pay the charge on unoccupied as well as for occupied houses. The rate, then, would be 3s. in the pound, or 18 s. for each house; and the landlord paid half the sum required to be raised, and there was no trouble about it. But now that the system of compounding was abolished—and he was sorry that it had been abolished, because he looked upon it as being a most excellent system—if the parish authorities wanted to get £18, they would not call for the nominal sum of £36, as heretofore, but for a real sum of £24 at least, and the difference would be that they would not only call for it, but that every penny of it must in some way or other be paid. But why was it, it might be asked, that the parish authorities would have to call for £24 when they only wanted £18? Because allowance must be made on the ground of empty houses, of the poverty of the occupiers of some of those small tenements, and of the increased expense of the collection. The result would be that a real rate of 2s. in the pound would be levied instead of a nominal rate of 3s., which only made a real rate of 1s. 6d. Now, those payments were demanded three times a year, and a difference of 9s. or 10 s. a year was thus made in the case of the occupier of a £6 house, which was an extra charge of which he had, he thought, a good right to complain. But it must also be borne in mind that there were, instead of three rates in the year, sometimes four. Now, under the compounding system the fourth rate fell entirely upon the owner of the House, while, under the Act, compounding being abolished, it would have to be paid by the unfortunate occupier. The consequence would be that instead of
440
a fine of 9s., he would have to submit to one of 13 s. or 14 s. There were many householders who did not care to pay so much for the privilege of a vote—who did not care for a vote at all, in fact—and it should be remembered that 10 s. a year to those men was as much as £100 a year would be to most hon. Members of that House. It was not under those circumstances unnatural that he should say that no boon had been conferred upon him by the recent action of the Legislature. He had simply to observe, in conclusion, that he should like to see the whole question submitted to the consideration of a Select Committee, by whom its intricacies would, in his opinion, be better unravelled than by discussion in the House itself. The result of the labours of such Committee would, he hoped, be that the Reform Bill of last Session would be materially reformed in those respects to which he had called attention.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Henley) had stated that he was not very well informed upon the question, and certainly his remarks had made it clear to those who were acquainted with the subject of rating, that he had not got up his case as well as might have been expected. The noble Lord had described in touching language the position in which the occupiers of small tenements might be placed under the new law, and had pointed out that, in addition to the usual rates, there might be an additional one which would fall entirely on these unfortunate persons. The noble Lord ought to have known that the compositions were not affected or carried out by the number of rates that might be levied, but by the difference in the amount of assessment; and therefore it did not make the least difference what were the number of rates. Assuming, however, that 25 per cent was the amount struck off, the house which the noble Lord had mentioned would be rated, not at £6, but at £4 10 s., and whatever might be the number of the rates there would be no difference to the ratepayer, so far as the composition went. The noble Lord had also told them that a certain class of ratepayers had an advantage under the compounding system; but at whose expense, he should like to know, was that advantage gained? Was it at the expense of the rich or at the expense of the parish, which might have some little loss and trouble in collecting the rate? It was no such thing. The advantage was gained at the expense of

441
the poor—at the expense of the widow—at the expense of the person who had lived upon parochial rates—at the expense of all poor persons who were so poor that they were disqualified by law from paying any rates at all. That was the class of persons at whose cost the gain had been obtained. Now, what was the case which the noble Lord had put? A person had twenty cottages, or any other number, letting at £6 a year each. Every one who was connected with this subject must be aware that whenever a rate was made, the names of all persons who occupied houses of the value of £6 or other small sums were inserted in a list which was drawn up by the overseers, and was laid before the magistrates, and that the magistrates excused from any payment whatever all those occupiers who pleaded poverty, or who were themselves in the receipt of parochial relief. Under the Act of Elizabeth the poor rate was a personal charge and not a charge upon property, but under the Compounding Acts, public and private, it became a charge upon property. With reference to the convenience or the inconvenience of the new arrangement as regarded voting at elections, he could only say that the proposal which had been adopted upon that subject had not emanated from the Ministerial side of the House. The Government had at first proposed to leave it pretty much as a matter of choice whether people should obtain the right of voting or not, but that course was objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and now they had the noble Lord asking them who would become a voter if he had to pay so many shillings for the privilege. He protested against it being supposed that the people who under the composition gained an advantage gained it from any but the poorest persons, for the landlord was obliged to pay for every occupied tenement, and he took care to throw the burden on, among others, poor widows and other poor persons receiving relief from the parish. He was quite aware that it was convenient to parish officers to collect money in the bulk, and magistrates were under the compounding system relieved from the trouble of deciding whether a person should or should not be struck off the rate on account of poverty, but all that convenience was obtained at the expense of the very poorest.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it appeared to him that his noble Friend (Lord Henley) was not open to the censure thrown on
442
him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. His noble Friend, in the discharge of the first obligation of a Member of Parliament, had stated very clearly a grievance which his constituents thought they were suffering from in consequence of the legislation of that House, and therefore he deserved no blame for the course he had pursued. [Mr. HENLEY: I did not intend to blame the noble Lord.] The right hon. Gentleman, however, made very light of the noble Lord's knowledge of the subject, and censured him for speaking about a matter of which he appeared to know very little, and such an observation approached very nearly to blame. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) would turn the blame against the right hon. Gentleman a little, because his argument had gone much further than the votes he had formerly given. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were good against the Small Tenements Act, which either was at the present moment, or might be in force in the vast majority of parishes; and even since the time when the House summarily abolished the Small Tenements Act and all compounding Acts for Parliamentary boroughs they had been adopted for the first time in many parishes, so rooted were they in public favour. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not applicable to Parliamentary boroughs exclusively—the purport of his argument was that the Small Tenements Acts were bad root and branch; and therefore the right hon. Gentleman, in order to satisfy his views, ought to move that the Small Tenements Act should be repealed; but it was not surprising that a person in the position of the noble Lord, who had had some experience within the last few months of the state of feeling in some boroughs, should state to the House the result of that experience. For his own part, he would trouble the House with no argument on this subject, for during the course of last Session the House was drenched and saturated with discussion on the case of the compound-householder. No man was more responsible than himself for the time which the House spent in discussing that matter; but he had urged it on the attention of the House, because he had a very strong conviction that much trouble would arise out of the course which the House was last Session invited to take. The course ultimately pursued was a great improvement on that originally proposed, yet still it was a course likely to lead to great trouble. He would not re-state the

443
opinions which he had before expressed on the subject, and which were now about to be put to the test of experience. This ought no longer to be considered as a political or party question, for it had become a practical question connected with the social convenience of the people, and it was better that the trial which was now being made of the legislation of last Session should be made apart from all political and polemical discussion. He therefore abstained from repeating the arguments which he formerly stated to the House; but he did not think that any complaint should be made against those who in temperate language made known grievances affecting localities with which they were acquainted.
MR. KENDALLsaid, he should, like to know from whom those complaints proceeded. He believed they proceeded from persons who had largely profited by the construction of the lowest class of houses. The percentage made by those persons was known to be enormous; and it could not be a matter for surprise that they should complain of that change in the law which had partially altered their relations to their tenants.
MR. WARNERsaid, he wished to say a few words on this subject because he represented a city which suffered from the alteration which had been made in the law. He had presented a petition from Norwich, under the seal of the Corporation of that city, praying that some steps might be taken to remedy the grievance inflicted on them by the operation of the Act. The petition, which was signed by members of all political parties, stated that the number of assessments in Norwich had increased under the Act from 7,800 to 21,000, and that the greater portion of the new ratepayers were weekly tenants from whom it would be almost impossible to collect rates, as many of them were either paupers or on the verge of pauperism. Votes were not claimed for these persons; what was wanted was that the city should be relieved from this difficulty. It would no doubt be difficult to restore the compounding system as it was; but he believed many of the evils complained of would be mitigated if a large and liberal system of excusing were allowed to take the place of composition. If the law remained as it was the evil would be intolerable.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped the House would not forget the question raised by the hon. Member for Chatham
444
(Mr. Otway). It would be a shame and a scandal if, on any vacancy occurring before the end of this Parliament, one of the condemned boroughs could send another Member to that House. The effect of the present state of the law with regard to compounding was just this, that the landlord got the whole rent without deduction of rates, and left the tenant to pay the rates himself. The scheme so ingeniously concocted last year to carry the Bill had served its purpose, and the last of the securities would no doubt be gracefully yielded on the very first assault being made upon it.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he desired to ask the Attorney General a Question, which he would put in a more formal shape if the hon. and learned Gentleman desired time to consider his answer. It had reference to the separate rating of those to be enfranchised under the new Reform Act. One of the conditions was that the full rateable value should be entered on the rate book; but suppose the overseer did not comply with this part of the Act, how far would that affect the claim of the elector? Would he lose his vote because the overseer had neglected to place his name separately on the rate book? Under the old Reform Act if the overseer neglected to place the occupier on the rate book the latter might tender and claim to be rated, and that was sufficient to entitle him to vote. But under the new law he must claim to be rated for a special amount—the full amount—and how was he to do so without the assistance of the overseer? Suppose a block of buildings which the overseer had been accustomed to rate as a whole, and that the separate rate paid by each occupier of the building had never been calculated; and suppose it were found inconvenient to change the rating—what remedy would the occupier have in order to get himself on the rate book? He could not tender the exact amount, because that was not known. Was there any mode prescribed by the Act by which he might ascertain his precise proportion of what was paid by the whole block? The occupier in that case, it appeared to him, would be unable to comply with the requisition of the Act, and would not have a vote. He thought this a matter of some importance, and the greatest confusion would arise at the next election unless some authoritative declaration were made on the subject. If the Attorney General wished time to consider the matter

445
he would renew his Question on another day.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I shall avail myself of the permission of the right hon. Gentleman to defer my answer to the Question he has asked till some future occasion. With reference to the Questions raised by the hon. Members for Chatham (Mr. Otway) and Walsall (Mr. C. Forster), I regret very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to answer them. With reference to the disfranchised boroughs, the words of the Act are, "from and after the end of this present Parliament they shall respectively cease to return any Member or Members to serve in Parliament." Although my attention has not been called to this subject until recently, it is now under the consideration of the Government, and we hope to be able as speedily as possible to take such steps as will meet the case in the event of any vacancy occurring in the representation of the boroughs in question. The Question put by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster) has virtually been answered during the course of the debate. In the first place, the hon. Member asked whether, since the passing of the last Reform Act, every occupier in Parliamentary boroughs must be rated to the relief of the poor, or whether, in the event of the occupier not desiring to obtain the franchise, the owner may still be rated; and, in the second place, he asked whether payment of rates by the landlord would not in point of law be deemed payment by the tenant? In answering these Questions, I will not enter into any disquisition on the subject of the compound-householder. The terms of the Act which apply to the first of these Questions are most clear. By the 7th section of that Act—a section which was passed advisedly—it is expressly declared that in boroughs the compounding system shall be wholly done away with, and that after a certain time the occupier and not the owner shall be rated to the relief of the poor—thus returning to the state of things which existed prior to the passing of the 59 Geo. III., which was the first Act which enabled owners in certain cases to be rated instead of the occupiers. In answer to the second Question, as to whether the payment of rates by the landlord would not in point of law be deemed payable by the tenant, I can only say that I see nothing in the terms of the Act of last Session which precludes
446
the landlord, when duly authorized by the occupier, from paying the rates. I must, however, refer the hon. Gentleman to the 49th section, which expressly states—
"Any person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly paying any rate on behalf of any ratepayer, for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter, thereby to influence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person either directly paying any rate on behalf of any voter for the purpose of inducing him to vote or refrain from voting shall be guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable accordingly."
Still, in cases where the landlord is duly authorized to pay the rates by the occupier he may legally do so, just as any other person might pay them for the convenience of the tenant. I trust I have satisfactorily answered the Questions of the hon. Members.
SIR ROBERT COLLIER, while admitting that the hon. and learned Attorney General had satisfactorily answered the Question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Walsall, thought it as well that Parliament and the country should clearly understand that, notwithstanding what had been said in the course of last Session, there really was nothing in the last Reform Act which required the personal payment of rates. While the Attorney General now thought fit to admit that such was the case, the House could not forget that the special ground upon which the Reform Act of last year was recommended by the Government to the country was that it required the personal payment of rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in summing up the merits of the Government Bill, used the following language:—
"Our proposal—I must repeat it again, even at the risk of wearying the House—is that every householder who is rated to the poor, and personally pays his rates, and who has occupied his house for two years, shall possess the franchise."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 660.]
Again, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said—
"The man who puts by money for the purpose of meeting the demand for the payment of rates, the careful, the saving, the truly independent man, will be admitted to the most important privilege of the Constitution."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 509.]
Now, the impression produced upon hon. Members on both sides of the House was that whatever might be the possible demerits of the Bill, it had one prominent virtue which counterbalanced them all—

447
namely, that it was founded upon the principle of the personal payment of rates—that is to say, direct payment by the tenant, as distinguished from indirect payment through the landlord, in the shape of rent; and it was upon that understanding that the House consented to abolish the compound-householder. It now, however, turned out that the supposed requirement by the Act of the personal payment of rates was only an unmeaning phrase which, having answered its purpose at the time, was now abandoned. It was as well that the matter should be placed before the country in its true light, and that all delusion upon the subject should be removed. The hon. and learned Attorney General appeared to flatter himself that we had done with the compound-householder for good; but, in his (Sir Robert Collier's) opinion, the Act of last Session, in abolishing the compound-householder system, had been productive of such great inconvenience throughout a large portion of the country that before long the compound-householder would be restored. The proposition which was made by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) last Session on this subject should have been accepted, find at no distant day the House would have to agree to it.
LORD JOHN MANNERSregretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had not followed the excellent example set by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) and confined himself to the subject immediately before the House, but had taken that opportunity to put forward doubts which appeared to have entered into his mind with regard to the operation of certain portions of the recent Reform Act—doubts which he had carefully abstained from suggesting during the debates which took place upon that Act last Session. The indignation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which appeared to have been excited by the legal opinion of the Attorney General—that when duly authorized by the tenant the landlord was entitled to pay the rates—was entirely thrown away, because the House was perfectly aware of what was intended last Session by the section referred to. The Attorney General had merely given a legal interpretation of the language of the section; and that a lawyer, like the hon. and learned Member opposite, should blow such a flourish of trumpets over the Attorney General merely because he had given a
448
plain and legal interpretation of that section filled him with amazement—he could not add consternation.
Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS— [INCOME TAX.]
Resolution [November 28] reported.
MR. OSBORNEsaid, he did not see the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, otherwise he should have wished to put a Question to him with regard to the Abyssinian business; because he thought the public opinion was fast coming to this—that that House had rushed into this affair without sufficient information, and that there was really nothing in the blue book to explain the reasons why this war had been entered upon. Acting upon this impression, he had placed upon the Paper a Question with reference to the information contained in the blue book which he had wished the noble Lord to answer. There was a complete vacuum in the information contained in the blue book as regarded events that had taken place between 1855 and 1860, and there was only one letter in 1862. Thus, no information whatever was supplied as to the instructions given to Consul Plowden from 1855 down to the time of his death. He had not the slightest intention of making any attack upon the Government by the step he was taking; but he hoped the House would support him in pressing upon Her Majesty's Advisers the necessity for laying before Parliament every circumstance which had led to the war. He almost believed that, were the whole facts before the House, it would be found that something might even be said in favour of King Theodore, unpopular as he might be at the present moment. It was impossible to doubt that there had been a great deal of blundering in the Foreign Office in past days, and possibly we might not be wholly innocent in this Abyssinian business. The House of Commons seemed willing to accept any explanations offered them with regard to the causes of the war. They seemed to say, "We have got into a mess, and we must get out of it as best we can." Now, it was quite possible that some day another Abyssinian case might arise in some other place, and therefore it was important that the House should sift this matter to the bottom, and should

449
ascertain distinctly what were the instructions which were given to Consuls Plowden and Cameron, and what was the policy of the late Government upon the Turco-Egyptian question. Unless this information was forthcoming, they could not know whether King Theodore was or was not a much wronged man by this country. In the absence of the noble Lord, however, he would not press the Question at the present moment. He intended, however, to persevere on Monday with the Motion which he had placed upon the Paper, and he trusted that sufficient interest was left in the House to compel the Government in case of refusal—though he had no reason to believe that that refusal would be made—to give a full exposition of all the papers relating to the Abyssinian business from the beginning, but more especially the papers which contained the correspondence of Mr. Plowden from the year 1855 down to his death in 1860. He had a shrewd suspicion that some matters would be divulged which would make out some case for the Emperor Theodore, and would furnish a warning to the Foreign Office and the House against plunging into expenses for wars in places with which we ought to have no concern.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would repeat his observations made the other evening, that the Prerogative of the Crown in making war without any limitation was not compatible with the relations between the Crown and Parliament at the present time. The complaint against the Government was, that they had commenced these proceedings without the previous sanction of Parliament; but the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had admitted the doctrine which he (Mr. Darby Griffith) had contended for, and by so doing he had placed the rights of the House of Commons upon their proper footing.
Resolution agreed to.
Bill "to grant to Her Majesty additional Rates of Income Tax," ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HUNT.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 16.]

WAYS AND MEANS [CONSOLIDATED FUND] BILL.
Resolution reported;
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of Two Millions be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HUNT.
Bill presented, and read the first time.

EAST INDIA, TROOPS AND VESSELS (ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION).
Resolution reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

INDIA, CHINA, AND JAPAN MAILS—CONTRACT WITH THE PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.
MR. HUNT, in moving that the Contract for the conveyance of Mails between this Country, India, China, and Japan, with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company be approved, said, the last time this question was before the House it was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that it would be undesirable that the new contract should commence before the House had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it: and that opinion being shared by a great many Members, he (Mr. Hunt) undertook, on the part of the Government, to endeavour to make some temporary arrangements which would obviate the necessity for a new contract commencing before the House had expressed its opinion. Within a very short time, how-ever, after the prorogation, Her Majesty's Government determined that it would be right to call Parliament together late in the autumn, or at the beginning of winter, and in consequence of that determination it became no longer necessary for the Government to make such provisional arrangements for the service as had been contemplated. When the tenders advertised for were sent in to the Post Office we found that practically we had only one offer. It will be remembered that the service was advertised for in separate sections. It was proposed that companies or individuals might offer for different lines of service, and might offer for one service one week and for another another week; but it turned out that, with one very small exception, the only tender made was by the Peninsular and Oriental Company. An Italian company offered to perform the service from Brindisi to Alexandria; but there was no offer from anybody else to perform the rest of the service, even if that proposal were accepted. The Government asked for that tender as an alterna-

451
tive arrangement for Marseilles, thinking it quite possible by the time that the tenders came in that they might avail themselves of the Brindisi route; and Her Majesty's Government were advised that before the completion of the term for which they had entered into arrangements with the Peninsular and Oriental Company the Brindisi route might become available. Therefore, in the articles of agreement which had been entered into it was stipulated with the Peninsular and Oriental Company that the Government should have the option of changing the route from Marseilles to Brindisi, the difference in the terms payable to the Company under the altered circumstances being referable to arbitration. The terms asked by the Peninsular and Oriental Company for performing the service were £500,000, and the term named was six years. It was thought, however, that the Company might be willing to abate a portion of their demand, provided the Government entered into an agreement with them for a longer term. As detailed in the Parliamentary Papers, the arrangement with the Company was conducted, on the part of the Post Office, by Mr. Scudamore; the Company submitted their books to him, and he made a Report which the House, no doubt, would recognise as a very able document. After this examination the Company expressed themselves willing to reduce their term from £500,000 to £400,000, provided the period were extended from six to twelve years; but they accompanied the abatement with a proviso that their shareholders should be guaranteed a dividend of 6 per cent upon a certain stated capital: on the other hand, they expressed their readiness to allow the Government to share to the extent of one-fourth in all the profits beyond 8 per cent, which might become divisible. After a greal deal of consideration given to these further terms the Government adopted them—with this condition, to which the Company assented, that the guarantee of 6 per cent should in no case render the Government liable to pay a greater sum than £500,000, the original amount asked. The Company also agreed to a condition desired by the Admiralty, that the Government should have power to buy or charter their vessels in cases of exigency for the public service. Mr. Scudamore's calculations were given in the documents which Lad been published, and, taking into account the history of this Company, he
452
thought it much more likely that the Government would be invited to share in profits than to contribute to make good a deficiency. The Government in the course which they had taken had not been instituting comparisons between different tenders; because, in point of fact, they had no opportunity of making such comparisons, seeing that there was only one offer. They had only to make a comparison between alternative propositions of the same Company, and they were of opinion that the reduction of the terms from £500,000 to £400,000, even though the reduction might be attended with the contingent liability of a 6 per cent guarantee, was well purchased by the addition of six years to the term. Of course, the sum now asked was very considerably in advance of what the Government were paying under the contract approaching its termination. The Government were now paying £230,000, whereas hereafter they would have to pay £400,000, with a possibility of that amount being increased to £500,000. But then it must be remembered that the services of the Company, and the facilities for postal communication with the East, would be very greatly increased. A table included in the correspondence showed the improvement which would be effected in this respect. Calcutta, which now had in the year 24 mails of 34 days and 24 mails of 29 days, would have 52 mails of 29 days; Madras, which now had 48 mails of 30 days, would have 52 mails of 30 days; while Bombay, which now had 24 mails of 24 days, would have 52 mails of 24 days. A comparison of the time to be taken in the voyages was also greatly in favour of the new arrangement. The Company further asked that the contract should include not only those services which were advertised for—namely, from this country to Bombay, and by Galle to China and Japan—but also services between Bombay and Galle, and Bombay and Calcutta. These, however, were services which the Government did not think were required for the public service, and accordingly they objected to them. The Company, however, replied that if these services were struck out of the bargain they should still require the same subsidy without as with them; and under these circumstances the Government thought it better that they should be included, seeing that they entailed no extra payment on the country. The Imperial Government was to pay the Company a

453
sum of £181,470, including additional expenses; the receipts from sea postage were £85,815, so that the loss would be about £96,000, the loss being at present £41,000. The Indian Government would pay £117,000, and receive £62,000 for sea postage, making a loss of £54,000. Calculations had been gone into as to what portion of the loss should be borne by Ceylon and what portion by the Mauritius; but the correspondence on this point had not yet been closed. The Post Office suggested that either contributions should be made by those places or the rate of postage be increased. Considering the increased price of coal, the small profit obtained by the Company from the contract for some time, and the improved service which would be secured under the new contract, the Government thought the terms they had made were not unreasonable; and he therefore hoped that the House would be unanimous in approving the contract.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Contract for the Conveyance of Mails between this Country, India, China, and Japan, with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company be approved."—(Mr. Hunt.)
MR. AYRTONobjected very much to the House being called on to consider this contract, the general understanding being that Parliament had been called together at this Session for another and special purpose; and he therefore hoped the House would make an urgent appeal to Her Majesty's Government to re-consider their decision. He dissented entirely from the conclusion come to by the hon. Gentleman. In 1865 he (Mr. Ayrton) gave notice of a Motion for a Select Committee to consider the subject of communication between England and Her Majesty's Eastern dominions and China. In 1866 a Committee presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for London (Mr. Crawford), of whose great commercial experience he had been glad to avail himself, sat and took very important evidence. That Committee recommended that there should be a direct service between England and Bombay, and that the speed in the Mediterranean should be not less than eleven miles an hour, and that between Suez and Bombay not less than ten. The Committee further recommended that there should be a direct independent service between England and China once a fortnight. It likewise intimated that the contract should be for a considerable number of years, terminable
454
at two years' notice. The consideration of that Report fell into the hands of Her Majesty's present Advisers, and to the course taken by them was to be attributed the unfortunate position in which the country now found itself with respect to the postal service. Great changes were being effected in the means of communication between England and the East. The railway through the Brenner Pass had been opened, and a railway had been completed across Mont Cenis; so that there were two lines of railway nearly open, giving every prospect of Brindisi, or perhaps some nearer port, being at no distant day, made the port of departure for packets carrying English mails to Alexandria. On the other side, the railway system in India was being developed so as to improve communication between Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. These works were in progress when he took the matter up. He did so because he thought it was time to direct the attention of the Post Office to the necessity of re-organizing their system. These were circumstances to justify a re-consideration of the contract. Some persons thought they were beginning too soon in considering the question at the period to which he referred; but from what occurred since it appeared that they had begun too late, for no benefit had been derived from the labours of the Committee. What had brought them into their present pitiable condition? On the 1st of February, 1867, the Government gave notice to the Peninsular and Oriental Company to terminate their contract in twelve months. Now, in business matters commercial men generally matured their plans and completed their arrangements for a new contract before they took steps to put an end to an old one, if a contract was necessary at all. But the Government seemed to have acted on a contrary principle. They had not only given notice to terminate the contract, but to terminate it on the shortest possible notice. At least, they might have given them a longer notice, leaving it to the Company to put them into the embarrassing position they now occupied, should the Company think fit to adopt that course. It was not for the Government to take steps which would leave the Post Office without a mail service if the terms of the Company were not accepted. In March the Government settled the form of the new tender then came some difficulty about the terms, and they had to issue a further notice to correct the first notice;

455
so that it was not till June that they issued the final notice for tenders. It was addressed to the shipowners, shipbuilders, and other men of business, and invited them to send in by the 16th of September tenders for undertaking this gigantic service by the 1st of February following. Now, he would ask the House whether that was a really practical notice to issue? Was it possible in March or June to undertake this gigantic service, and to have ships in the Mediterranean, in the Red Sea, and in China, and complete all the consequential arrangements by so early a date as the 1st of February? It would be necessary to make certain arrangements at Suez and Bombay and the other ports. It was utterly impossible on such short notice to comply with the Government tender, and therefore no other tenders were made. The House must remember what was the state of the money-market when the Government took measures for the renewal of the contract. It was their duty to consider the state of credit and the whole circumstances of the case, and if there had been a man of business at the Treasury he would not have moved till credit had revived and the spirit of enterprize had become active. The result was that on the 1st of February no tenders had been sent in, while the Peninsular and Oriental Company were in a position to say to the Government, "You have wantonly put an end to our contract, and we will not enter into another except upon our own terms." In order to extricate themselves from the difficulty in which they were placed, the Government sent Mr. Scudamore, a gentleman of intelligence connected with the Post Office, to ascertain how much the Government should pay if a contract were made on the conditions which the Company might find it convenient to suggest. Mr. Scudamore certainly displayed great ingenuity in discovering reasons why the Government should accede to everything the Company proposed; but no fault could be found with him on that account, as he was in a most embarrassing position, and no doubt acted in accordance with his instructions. He found great fault, however, with the contract which was entered into under these deplorable circumstances. In the first place, the rate of speed laid down was not what might fairly be expected, considering the progress made of late years in shipbuilding and steam navigation. The whole service from London to Bombay was to oc-
456
cupy 24 days. The arrangement for the line of the Mediterranean—a distance of 1,410 miles—was that 141 hours should be allowed, being at the rate of 10 miles an hour. For the Red Sea section, comprising a distance of 2,972 miles, 313 hours were allowed, being at the rate of 9½ miles an hour. But, then, the House ought to know that the Company were to be allowed the addition of 24 hours to any voyage without incurring any penalty. Therefore, 24 hours were given gratis in each case. If any further delay took place, they were liable to pay at the rate of £50 for every 24 hours; but, on the other hand, if the mails were accelerated they were to receive a premium of £25. Thus, it would be seen that the Company could retard the mails for 24 hours on payment of £50. Now, the Company always alleged that the great obstacle in the way of attaining high speed was the enormous consumption of coal required for that purpose, and consequently if the coal cost £3 per ton, as was stated, it would obviously be a pecuniary gain to the Company to retard the mails.
MR. WEGUELINsuggested that the Company would have to bear the expense of feeding the passengers during the extra time.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that might perhaps be so, but there was nothing about that in the contract. At all events, he maintained that the penalty was small as compared with the cost of coal, and that the Company would be absolute gainers on the balance of the account. Then, the rates of speed prescribed were not in harmony with the development of steam navigation. His hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda) was examined before the Committee to which he had referred, and stated that high speed could not be attained between Bombay and Suez, unless a class of vessels were employed of at least 2,500 tons burden but that suggestion had not been acted upon, and nothing had been done to bring their service up to the standard of intelligence which regulated steam navigation and commercial enter-prize. If they had not been driven into a corner the Government would have been able to get vessels equal to a much higher rate of speed, and then there would have been a chance of accelerating the mails to the extent which the people of India and those in this country who were interested in this matter had hoped to see. If the passage between England and Bombay

457
could have been brought within a period of three weeks it would have had an important effect in expediting correspondence between England and India, and the advantage in the administration of affairs in Bombay would have been enormous. At this very time, while they were stipulating for this low rate of speed, the Government had built for the transport of troops vessels which were capable of achieving fourteen miles an hour in the Red Sea; and it would surely have been wise and prudent to wait the result of that experiment, upon which £1,000,000 had been spent, before committing the country to this contract for a miserable speed of nine and a half miles an hour nominally, but only nine miles an hour actually. The mode of payment for this service, too, quite baffled his comprehension of the principles on which contracts ought to be made. If there was one principle which more than another ought to be kept in view in these arrangements it was that all the risks and responsibilities should be borne by the party undertaking the work; whereas the proposal in this case was that if the profits of the Company exceeded 8 per cent upon a stipulated capital they should give to the country one-fourth; but if the profit was less than 6 per cent, down to 2 per cent, the Government were to make good the whole of the difference. This was very like giving four to one upon what ought to be even betting. Why, if the Company saw that they could only make 5½ or 6 per cent, they might waste money as they pleased, with the perfect consciousness that any amount between 6 per cent and 2 per cent would be made good by the Government, which in this case had not the control over the expenditure which they had in the case of the Indian railways. Practically, the Company were left with £100,000" of the public money to play with. There should have been a plain and simple contract without contingencies of such a character that the Government were only to get one-fourth of the profits, while in effect they were to bear all the losses. He took it for granted that the Secretary to the Treasury had considered the law of the case, and had considered the effect of this partnership between the Government and the Company. Whether the Acts which had been recently passed exempted the Government from the full consequences of the partnership he did not pretend to say, and he assumed that while sharing the profits the Government were not responsible for the losses of
458
this joint stock company. Another objection to the contract was the period for which it was entered into. If the Government were satisfied that they had obtained not only the highest standard of speed, but something almost in advance of what was recognised as the highest point of successful enterprize, he could understand that they would be glad to fix the contract for a considerable period; but when they made a contract which was behind the age, he did not understand why the country should for twelve years to come be prevented from improving the service in any way. When we were told that coal was unprecedentedly high and likely to fall in value, and while the railways in India were undeveloped, to say nothing of Alpine lines and an Italian port, it amounted to a gross dereliction of duty on the part of Government not to have reserved to itself a right to terminate the contract in less than twelve years. He regretted that the Government had entered into this contract, but having agreed to it, he regretted that they had not reserved to themselves, as they might have done, the option of determining it at the end of six years, even though a penalty of £500,000 was attached to its exercise. He had not descended to the criticism of minor details but he thought the objections he had stated would be sufficient to induce the House to concur with him in the feeling of deep regret that they were asked to acquiesce in this deplorable contract.
MR. NORWOODsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government had made an illjudged and unbusiness-like bargain. He had no objection to the Peninsular and Oriental Company retaining their contract, and receiving a liberal sum for their services, and had no fault to find with the officers of the Company for making the best bargain they could, while he deemed it the duty of the Government to protect the taxpayers and the commercial interests of the country. The mail service between this country and its Eastern dependencies consisted of three branches—to India, to China, and to Australia. The first two were terminable at twelve months, the last at two years. Now, he thought that the notices should have been framed in such a form that all the three contracts should have terminated at the same time. The arrangement of the Government had given the Peninsular and Oriental Company entire command of the two most important services, and it would

459
be impossible in the course of another year for any other Company to enter into a fair competition with them for the performance of the third service. The period of the commercial depression last year was a most unfortunate one in which to ask for any competition in this matter. The prudent thing to have done would have been so to arrange that the contracts for the three services should terminate at the same time; but if this contract were entered into, the Peninsular and Oriental Company would acquire such a hold upon the carrying trade of the East, that it would be impossible that any new Company should compete for the Australian service. With regard to the term proposed, twelve years was much too long. The attention now paid to the economical consumption of fuel justified the belief that an important saving would before long be effected in that respect; and it was preposterous to imagine that within so long a term we would not be able to obtain at less cost than at present an increased rate of speed. A speed of ten or eleven knots an hour was perfectly inadequate to the requirements of such a service as this. Then as to the terms of payment, it was to be remembered that the £400,000 a year minimum was not for the entire service; it was only for the services to India and China; so that in the course of another year another sum would be wanted for the Australian service. He objected to the partnership arrangement proposed between the Government and the Company—such a contract was contrary to all business principles. The profits of steamships arose as much from economy and good management as from high rates of freight; and it was known to every mercantile man that the effect of the long enjoyment by this Company of a monopoly had shown itself in a less rigid economy than would have been maintained in their service had they been dependent on ordinary mercantile business. How could they expect the Company to be economical when they had the Government funds to fall back upon? Look at the one-sideness of the arrangement. This country might be called upon to pay 3¾ per cent. to be divided among the shareholders. On the other hand, if the speculation were an extremely good one, and the Company divided 9 per cent, the country would only receive £6,000 a year as their share of profits, and £12,000 if the Company paid 10 per cent. In such a partnership, the Government ought to have representatives
460
in the direction of the Company, but he objected to the partnership altogether. As between individual partners there might be sufficient supervision and control; but what control was to be exercised on the part of the State in this case? The cleverest accountant might have access to every book and every document belonging to a steam packet company, but it would be impossible for him to give an opinion that would be worth having upon the economy of management, unless he went to the outports and examined details there. On the whole, as a business man, he thought the contract injudicious and unbusiness-like. He was not prepared to take any step on this occasion; but if any hon. Member chose to take a hostile step, he certainly should go into the same lobby with him.
MR. SAMUDAfelt that there were many points which had escaped the notice of previous speakers, which the House ought to be put in possession of before coming to any conclusion. It must be admitted that, whatever blame might have attached to the Government, the position in which the House now stood was much better than that in which they found themselves last year. Last year the contest was for the existence of any contract at all in this country, the question being then whether they should allow the contract to pass out of the country, to the ruin of the Company. He readily admitted that he found in this contract two conditions which he would rather have seen altered. He should have been glad to have seen the contract altogether freed from the partnership clause—which in his opinion would not work well—and that an increase in the rate of speed should have been contemplated, if not immediately given. The rate of speed for which the contract provided was a low one. He still held strongly to the opinion he had expressed before the Committee, that there would be no difficulty in increasing the rate of speed on these lines from 10 knots an hour upon the European side and 9½ on the Indian side by at least 1 knot, and possibly 1½ knots an hour. In so important a contract as this, and spreading over so long a period, it would clearly have been wise to introduce a condition giving the public the advantage of an increased speed. But he begged to remind his hon. Friend and the House that one effect of such condition would be to involve a very large additional outlay on the part of the Company. He pointed out in his evidence before the Committee that the

461
increase of speed to 12 knots on the Mediterranean and 11 knots on the Indian side would involve in the item of coal alone an additional expenditure of £40,000 a year; that vessels generally of 2,500 tons burden would have to be provided if that increase of speed were at once demanded; and that the disbursement of capital for vessels which the Company did not now possess would be represented by a sum of between £500,000 and £600,000. But a totally different state of things existed now from what they all believed to exist when he gave his evidence before the Committee. At that time, he believed the Peninsular and Oriental Company was in a flourishing condition and capable of paying a large dividend. It was only then beginning to experience the effects of French competition, and it took him greatly by surprise to hear of the altered position of the Company. There was therefore this mitigating circumstance, which should not be overlooked—that though the Government were driven into a corner by having no one except the Peninsular and Oriental Company to deal with, they knew the position of the Company to have been such that with their present amount of subsidy they were not able to get a return for their capital. There was in this fact, therefore, a fair starting-point for a new arrangement. It had been mentioned in the debate, and he had seen it stated in the public press, that it was proposed to give the Peninsular and Oriental Company a subsidy of £400,000 in lieu of £230,000. But it was a mistake to suppose that the increased subsidy was given for the same service. The £400,000 was given for a much larger amount of service, and the extra mileage alone would be represented by a sum of £80,000, and therefore the true figures would be £320,000 against £230,000, and the difference would really amount to only about £90,000. There was another point also to which he wished to call attention. During the discussion last year, when reference was made to the financial state of the Company, it appeared that the working expenses exactly balanced their receipts, and that there was nothing left in the shape of dividend. But that did not represent the real state to which the Company had been reduced; because, with a laudable desire to make their position as little damaging as they could, in the hope that future years would retrieve it, he was informed that no charge whatever was made for depreciation of stock, which would have been represented by a sum of £75,000
462
if it had found its way into the account. Therefore, if the same state of things existed next year which did exist in this, out of the £400,000 the Company would have had only £15,000 for dividend for their shareholders. He did not think, then, that either the Government could be said to have been careless in what they had done, or the Company to have taken an unfair advantage. Now, £400,000 was by no means an excessive subsidy for the work that was to be done. It was not excessive whether looked at from the point of view of the probable amount it represented above expenditure, or if considered with reference to mileage. It would represent only about 6s. 1d. per mile that was run, which was a low rate compared with what was paid to other Companies. He quite agreed with those who held that the partnership clause was open to objection, and wherever he had seen it tried it had turned out ill. It was tried in the West India Docks, and there it was found that because the Directors were not allowed to increase their dividend beyond a certain amount they were always incurring some unnecessary expenditure. But more than that, it had this great disadvantage—that it prevented the Government from acquiring useful information which at the end of twelve years might be rendered available with regard to any future contract. It would have the effect of disguising the real state of the Company's profits; he was convinced that the subsidy would not be restricted to £400,000 a year, as argued in the document put forward by Mr. Scudamore, the Post Office examiner, and that the Government must be prepared to pay, if not the whole, at least a very large portion of the additional £100,000 very frequently during the continuance of the contract; why not, then, accept the position at once, agree to the regular payment of a fixed portion of this supplemental sum as a certainty, and obtain in exchange for it an increase of speed—that was the suggestion which he wished to throw out. The public in his opinion had a right to obtain from the Company—not immediately, but at some future time—an increase of speed, and the Government might very well before closing the contract insert a provision that whenever they considered the period had arrived for increasing the speed by 1 knot or 1½ knots an hour they should have the right to demand such increase upon paying the Company a sum which might now be agreed upon by all parties. He would merely add

463
that the rates of speed which he had recommended, and which could only be obtained at greatly increased cost, were exactly those which were suggested by the Committee, and were about what the Companies—who were at present most highly subsidized—were in the habit of going.
MR. THOMAS CAVEthought there was no fault whatever to be found with the Government for the amount of subsidy agreed upon. The hurricane at St. Thomas was so fresh in the memory of all that they could not overlook the fact that those Companies were exposed to great losses; and therefore it was necessary that they should be not only fairly but liberally remunerated. In concluding the contract for twelve years the Government seemed to have forgotten—and no hon. Gentleman had brought it under the notice of the House—that the American Government had very largely subsidized a system of railways which would bring China and Japan very much nearer England than at present. During the recess he had himself travelled upwards of 500 miles over that line of railway, and thousands of men were now engaged in its completion. The result would be that sooner or later our mails would have to be carried by that route. The saving of seven days in time and all the risks of the sea would weigh with the hon. Gentleman opposite who had charge of the contract. On the ground he had stated he regretted that the contract had been concluded for so long a term. With regard to that contract the Company were allowed to deduct 5 per cent for depreciation of ships and 5 per cent for insurance. Everyone knew that the insurance fund often yielded a large profit; but if it continued to do so that profit, as he interpreted the contract, would be pocketed by the Company, whereas the Government had omitted to provide that if it showed a loss no claim should be made on them. This he regarded as an important omission, for if the Company's losses exceeded 5 per cent the Government would be called on to make them up.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that while he was prepared to criticize the conduct of the Government in concluding the contract in some particulars, he admitted that the Resolution could not but be adopted by the House. In the absence, from indisposition, of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford), who had wished also to support the adoption of the Resolution, he desired to offer a few remarks on the subject, it having been his duty to examine the wit-
464
nesses who gave evidence before the Committee of 1865, and to assist the hon. Member in the preparation of the Report. That Committee comprised not only representatives of the Government and others who were anxious for economical arrangements, but mercantile men connected with the East, and a representative of the Company which was now about getting a fresh contract, and considerable weight attached, therefore, to the recommendations which they unanimously adopted. After a careful recital of the facts, the Committee thus summed up their recommendations—
"That, while it has not been expedient hitherto to add to the expense of the postal communication with India, by establishing a more frequent service to Bombay, in addition to the existing services to Madras and Calcutta, yet, having regard to the facilities already afforded by the railways under construction in India, and to the prospect of the early completion of the main lines of communication connecting the port of Bombay with the Presidencies of Calcutta and Madras, the North-West Provinces, and the Punjab, the time has arrived when tenders should be invited for a weekly service to Bombay alone, and the separate postal service between this country and Madras and Calcutta should be discontinued."
Then came recommendations as to the speed of future steamers, which he would not repeat. The sixth recommendation was as follows:—
"That Her Majesty's Government should take into their early consideration the arrangements to be made, in consequence of the proposed separation of the Indian service, for maintaining a fortnightly or half-monthly service to China, and a monthly or four-weekly service to Australia, having regard to any facilities which may be afforded by the monthly service to China now performed by the Messageries Impériales from Marseilles."
What was the meaning of the first of these recommendations? That the railways being nearly finished which connected Bombay with Madras and Calcutta, it was desirable to contemplate the relinquishment of the line of steam communication to India by Galle, and to retain only the line with Bombay, and thence across the Peninsula by railway to Calcutta and Madras. The questions he put to Mr. Frederick Hill, the witness examined on the part of the Post Office, tended to show the necessity of establishing this contract only in connection with the completion of the Indian railways. He asked Mr. Hill—
"Would it not be prudent to postpone any definite contract between the Indian Government and with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the service to Bombay until they were assured as to the probable passenger service between Bombay and Calcutta?—I think it would be pru-

465
dent to defer entering into any permanent contract—that is to say, for a long series of years; but if the contract were terminable, as our Australian contract is, upon a notice of two years, I do not think that there would be any necessity for delay. When you use the word 'permanent,' would it not be prudent to delay any permanent arrangement for the service between England and Bombay with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, or with any steam-boat company, until there were the means of testing what would be the facilities for passenger traffic from Bombay to Calcutta?—Certainly. And if those facilities should be greater, do not you think that the Peninsular and Oriental, or any other steam-boat company, would be able to tender for much less than what they said some years ago they would tender for for the additional service to Bombay?—No doubt that would be so."
The Chairman told Mr. Hill the Committee had it in evidence that the line of communication between Bombay and Calcutta and also between Bombay and Madras would be completed within a reasonably short time, and he (Mr. Childers) thereupon asked Mr. Hill whether, this being so, it would not be well—
"Not to contract for a fixed sum for a long period until that question is tested?—Not for a long period; but if the contract were terminable upon a couple of years' notice that might be done."
The Committee thus had the opinion of Mr. Hill who represented the Post Office, and himself, as representing the Treasury, that no permanent contract ought to be made over a number of years certain until there had been an opportunity of ascertaining the facilities of passenger communication offered by the completion of the railways between Bombay and Calcutta and Madras. Unfortunately, instead of postponing the contract with this view, the Government had, in the teeth of the recommendations of the Committee, and of the opinion of their own officials, called for a tender on the terms of a permanent service to Bombay and Calcutta, without waiting to see whether passengers would take that route or the old route by Galle. The effect has been not only an extravagant mileage service, but the absence of all competition for the contract. A subsidy whether of 3s. or 10 s. a mile would not pay a steamboat company unless they got the passenger traffic as well. As long as the Peninsular and Oriental Company had possession of the passenger traffic, it was obvious no other company could tender on the basis of the Government subsidy, and it was clear that no one but the Peninsular and Oriental Company could get the passengers until the railways were open. The
466
Government had thus entered into a contract, not on the basis of a weekly service to Bombay alone, as the Committee recommended, but a contract for twelve years, retaining the unnecessary service, in a postal point of view, from Bombay to Galle, Madras, and Calcutta. In fact, the whole policy recommended by the Committee was passed by in the arrangement made by his hon. Friend. But he should be told that there was no choice in the matter, the Company being the only tenderers for the service. But this was the result of the tenders being called for prematurely. Last Session he called the attention of his hon. Friend to the fact that it was not advisable to give the Peninsular and Oriental Company this early and premature notice, but to give notice under which all their contracts would be determined at the same time. Some of these contracts could be determined after one year's notice, while others required two years; and, considering that the Indian railways were not finished, it was desirable to give a notice not earlier than two years, so that the railways might have some little additional time to complete their communication. But just as with respect to the Indian service they had been too precipitate, so that they had unwisely deferred the notices for the Australian line, no notice had been given with regard to the Australian service, which cost £120,000 a year, and the Government would have to advertise for tenders for that service at a time when the Peninsular and Oriental Company would be in entire possession of the field. He now came to the other question, that of the French Company. His hon. Friend was questioned once or twice on that subject last Session, and he answered that he did not intend to make overtures to the French Government, but that he meant to call on the Messageries Impériales to tender for the service to China. That, he took the liberty to tell his hon. Friend, was very injudicious, for it was impossible for a service which was sometimes half military in its character, to be satisfactorily performed by a foreign company. It was, however, he admitted, the view of the Post Office that this should be done. He (Mr. Childers) asked Mr. Hill before the Committee—
"You consider that the last course to take would be to give the Messageries an opportunity of tendering for the alternate service?—Yes. You would not exclude, of course, the answer of the French Government, if they would agree to a rate upon letters for the alternate service?—There is no occasion to put that question, because

467
we have it in the convention that we are both bound to carry letters for each other. For the alternate service once in four weeks, instead of once a month?—No. Probably it would be prudent to ask that question before anything was definitely done?—Yes; I think it would."
He (Mr. Childers) had thus urged upon the Post Office, who unluckily hankered after a contract with the French Company, whether it would not have been better, before anything was done in the China service, to ask the French Government to make arrangements for alternating a weekly service with ours, as was at present satisfactorily done in the alternate fortnightly service to Brazil and the River Plate. But, although even Mr. Hill thought it desirable to make an arrangement with the French Government, Her Majesty's Government made no overtures to that Government for a year or more. His hon. Friend relied, instead, upon the broken reed of asking the Messageries Impériales to tender; and then, having failed, the present contract was agreed to, instead of that shadowed out and recommended by the Committee, and the country found itself in the position of having to pay for two services instead of one. The Government had, he thought, committed an error of judgment in not adopting the recommendations of the Committee, and the result was that there was no alternative but to adopt the proposal of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, large as was their claim, and connected as it was with the guarantee of a certain dividend. He (Mr. Childers) hoped that such an arrangement would not be made a precedent for future arrangements. There was no doubt a precedent for this in the case of the Dublin mail, but that was an experiment on a small scale, and carried on daily under the eye of the Government. The present agreement stood on a very different footing, and if it were to be made a general rule that the Government were to enter into such speculations of possible loss and profit, the Government would, he feared, make all the loss, and the companies reap all the profit. On those grounds, and on those grounds only, he felt bound to acquiesce in the course taken by his hon. Friend. He thought it was much to be regretted that his hon. Friend did take that course; but he felt it only right to say, after reading carefully the whole of Mr. Scudamore's Report—and he wished to speak as highly as any one could of the merits of that officer, not merely in connection with postal affairs, but in other matters which came before that House, in
468
which his ability and foresight had certainly been of great public advantage—after carefully reading Mr. Scudamore's Report, he did not see that it would have been possible, under the circumstances, to make an arrangement upon better terms than those now made. The Peninsular and Oriental Company had always done their work admirably, and the public would be safe in their hands. At the same time, a contract for twelve years, coupled with that condition as to the possibility of some profit coming to the Government, and also of some loss coming to them, was not such an arrangement as he thought the Treasury ought to have made; and therefore, in assenting to their arrangement, he did so with considerable reluctance.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that the Peninsular and Oriental Company asked £500,000 a year for a contract of six years, and that sum was professedly reduced to £400,000 for a contract extending over twelve years. But if it could be shown, as it easily could be, that the Government would really have to pay £500,000 for the contract extending over twelve years, it was manifest that, instead of having obtained an advantage by the professedly lower rate, which was in reality no lower rate at all, the alleged concession to the public was an injury instead of a benefit. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda), the only gentleman who had defended the contract with the Company, said their financial condition was such that he should not be surprised if it were found that their available dividend would be reduced to £15,000 a year, even after they got the £400,000 from the public. But unless their dividend exceeded £60,000 a year, the public would have £100,000 more to pay. If the dividend were £60,000 a year that would yield 2¼ per cent, and £100,000, making up the dividend to £160,000, would yield 6 per cent. If the hon. Member for Tavistock were to prove that, instead of £15,000—the dividend he anticipated under certain circumstances—their dividend should even be £60,000, then it followed that the public would have to pay them, besides the £400,000 agreed upon, £100,000 over and above that amount. Therefore, after all the circumlocution and mystification in which the matter was enveloped, the public had to pay the £500,000; and yet they were told that they were to have an advantage from extending the contract to twelve years! Any one who read the papers all through would easily see that

469
the Company, and not the public, would be really benefited by that prolonged term. He thought it would be better for the Treasury to accept the first offer of the Company for the £500,000, and to have no partnership with them, with its illusory chance of a profit. They were going into partnership with the Company under the idea of probably gaining £6,675 a year; and the quid pro quo they were to give for that mere ideal and unsubstantial advantage was that they were to come under a real obligation to pay £100,000. A more objectionable and improvident arrangement he could not imagine, and he must strongly protest against it. The great argument of the Peninsular and Oriental Company against the small sum they were previously allowed was that the French Company were enabled to undersell them. But the effect of the new arrangement with the Peninsular and Oriental Company would be, by doubling their subvention, to enable that Company itself to undersell all the rest of our own shipping interest. In palliation of that improvident arrangement, by which the Company were to receive £500,000 instead of their former £230,000, the hon. Member for Tavistock said they were to sail, at a probable cost of £80,000, 300,000 miles more than they did before, and that they would also have to incur an additional cost of £40,000 for the extra price of coal. But the Government did not want them to run the 300,000 miles more; and even if they did so, in place of giving them £120,000 for these possible increased charges, the Government were giving them £270,000. Nobody could allege a reason for giving away the other £150,000, except that the Government had got into such a fix as to be perfectly helpless, and the Company was able to dictate terms to them. On these grounds he could not agree to the Vote.
MR. HUNTsaid, that any stranger coming down to the House and listening to the statements made and the criticisms passed that evening on that contract must at first have imagined that all the hon. Gentlemen who had strongly protested against it were largely engaged in and represented the Indian trade, and were naturally indignant that the arrangements made by the Government for the conveyance of their commercial correspondence would not answer their purpose. But if such a stranger were told that with, as he believed, but one exception, all those who had found fault with the Government did not
470
belong to the great mercantile community in this country which was connected with the Indian trade, he would surely ask where were those Members who were really connected with that trade? The fact was that the hon. Gentlemen most interested in that subject were perfectly content with the arrangement made by the Government; they acquiesced in it, and, instead of coming there to protest, they had gone quietly away to their domestic or other occupations. He regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Crawford), who was Chairman of the Committee on this question, was prevented by the state of his health from giving his opinion on the arrangement made by the Government; but he believed that hon. Member would have expressed himself entirely satisfied with it. He did not find fault with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), the universal critic of the House, for exercising his talents on these occasions, and certainly his remarks that night had been distinguished by his usual acumen. Neither did he complain that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) should have criticized as severely as he could any arrangement made by the Government which succeeded the one to which he had personally belonged, because that was only the legitimate province of the Opposition, and when he himself changed sides in that House with the hon. Gentleman no doubt he should do the same. But the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had produced a very long bill of indictment against the Government. But if the Government were in the position of an ordinary delinquent at the bar, they could put in a plea of autre-fois acquis, because nearly all the objections which were now urged against the course taken by the Government had been disposed of in the discussion which had taken place last Session; but as many of them had been again advanced, he felt it to be his duty once more to reply to them. He would, in the first place, then, observe that he looked upon it as being a great disadvantage to the Government that in the original contract—with which they had nothing to do—the period of one year was fixed as that at which notice of its termination should be given. It was, however, contended that they should have given notice some time before—or, at all events, some private notice—that it was the opinion of the Government that the contract ought to be terminated, and that it was likely they

471
would in due course act upon that opinion. Now, that was exactly the course which had been taken. As he had stated in the House last Session, he invited before giving notice the Chairman of the Committee to call upon, him at the Treasury, where the question was discussed between them as to when notice should be given. His hon. Friend on that occasion expressed it to be his opinion that notice ought to be given. That being so, he thought he had disposed of the charge that the Government had not acted in accordance with the views of the Committee; because if its Chairman was not to be regarded as an adequate exponent of those views, he did not know who was. Besides, as his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Childers) must see, the Government had no choice in the matter, because, after acting on their own responsibility—for he had no wish to throw the slightest responsibility in the matter on the Chairman of the Committee—they had given private notice to the Company that they were likely before long to give formal notice that they would terminate the contract, the representatives of the Company informed them that they could not go on losing money as they were doing, and that if the Government did not give them notice they must give notice to the Government. His hon. Friend, he might add, had read certain extracts from the blue book expressing the views of the Committee; but there were other paragraphs of the Report which would, he thought, be found to place the question in a different light. After the paragraph in their Report which his hon. Friend had first quoted, the Committee went on to say—
"Yet, having regard to the facilities already afforded by the railways under construction in India, and to the prospect of the early completion of the main lines of communication connecting the port of Bombay with the Presidencies of Calcutta and Madras, the North-West Provinces, and the Punjab, the time has arrived when a tender should be invited for a weekly service to Bombay alone."
That paragraph pointed not to the time when the railway should be actually completed, but to the time then present, when there was a prospect of early completion, so that the very words of the Report concurred with the views of the Chairman that notice should be given. [Mr. CHILDERS: The Report says, "Tenders should be invited."] Yes; but how, he should like to know, could tenders be invited before notice had been given of the
472
termination of the existing contract? The Report went on—
"And that Her Majesty's Government should take into their consideration the arrangements to be made in consequence of the proposed separation of the India and China and the Australian Mails."
There was, he would point out, a marked distinction drawn between the giving of notice for the termination of the contract for the India and China and that for the Australian mail. With reference to the former, the words used in the Report were that "the time had arrived when tenders should be invited;" while in the course of the latter the recommendation was "that Her Majesty's Government should take into their early consideration the arrangements to be made." In acting as they had done, therefore, the Government, he must again repeat, proceeded entirely in accordance with the views of the Committee. It appeared, however, that his hon. Friend opposite differed from the Chairman of the Committee, and that being so, he ought, he thought, to have protested against the words used in the Report.
MR. CHILDERS: My hon. Friend gave me a very different impression of the statement which he made from that conveyed by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
MR. HUNT: He did not, as he had said before, seek to throw the slightest responsibility in the matter on the hon. Member for the City of London; indeed, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had last Session expressly stated that the Government had no intention of the kind, and he was sure that if his hon. Friend were present he would confirm the accuracy of the statement which he had made. Such, then, as he had described, was the state of the case, so far as giving notice was concerned. But his hon. Friend opposite further contended that the Government ought to have carried out the views of Mr. Frederick Hill. [Mr. CHILDERS: I said they were the views of the Post Office.] The hon. Member for the City of London, however, last Session protested against the Government being influenced by the views of Mr. Frederick Hill, for he declared it to be his opinion that if they were to conduct the postal arrangements of the country under his advice they would be sure to do wrong. Again, it was made an accusation against the Government that they had placed themselves altogether in the hands of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, that they were

473
perfectly helpless, and that they must pay whatever sum that Company might demand. Was that the tone of the discussion which took place last Session? If he were not mistaken, he then heard a great deal about the poor, trodden-down Peninsular and Oriental Company, and of the necessity which there was that the House should come to its rescue, and to preserve it from the ruin which it was threatened with, owing to the policy of the Government. What was the result? Why, that the Company naturally looked upon it as quite clear that the House of Commons was of opinion that they ought to be more liberally remunerated, and that they were entitled to ask for very handsome terms. Now, all he could say with regard to the matter was this, that it was, in his opinion, the duty of the Government to make the best terms they could, while he, at the same time, most readily bore testimony to the great services which the Company in question had rendered to the country during the many years in which they had been engaged in conducting our postal communication with the East. That duty they had discharged in a manner which was highly creditable to them, and he should have been sorry to see the Company break up by reason of the Government not being able to enter into any satisfactory arrangements with them. As to the negotiation with the Messageries Impériales, since they had made no tender and the matter had fallen through, he should merely say that, while his hon. Friend opposite seemed to think that the 6th paragraph in the Report contemplated a service in substitution of ours, the hon. Member for the City of London construed it as meaning a service in addition. But then it was said that the Government had acted foolishly in entering into arrangements for the service to Bombay before the railways were completed. On that point he would read a note appended to the Memorandum sent by the Post Office to the Treasury—
"The superiority of Bombay as a point of arrival and departure for Indian mails, even before the completion of the railways between Bombay and Calcutta and Bombay and Madras, has been pointed out by the Select Committee on East India Communications (pages v. and vi. of their Report), by Lord Canning, by the Director-General of the Post Office of India in the years 1860–1861 (vide pages 231 to 234, 241 to 244), and by the Director-General of the Post Office of India in 1865 (vide pages 280 to 282 of the Appendix to the Report of that Committee."
He was told that even now, with a journey
474
of 200 miles, the mail service by way of Bombay was far superior to that by Calcutta. His hon. Friend had said that it was impossible for any one to tender for the service to Bombay until those lines were open. As the lines were expected to be open in a short time, any enterprising Company might, he thought, make a tender, although the lines were not open. All this part of the case, however, turned on the question, respecting which contradictory testimony was given before the Committee—namely, whether the Great India Peninsula Railway could carry all the passenger traffic, or whether the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamers would carry any of it; and the officers of the latter Company maintained that when the railway was finished there would still be a great passenger traffic to Calcutta. That was a question which time would determine; but at all events, there was a public advantage in the existence of two routes, as competition tended to keep down the rate of fares. With respect to what had been called the partnership question, he confessed that at first sight a partnership arrangement did not seem desirable—but the alternative was the payment of £500,000. This was not an unlimited partnership, for there was a certain amount beyond which the Government could not be called on to contribute; and as his hon. Friend was obliged to admit, this was not the first occasion when such a partnership was made. There was a partnership of a somewhat similar character in the case of the Holyhead and Kingstown contract. In reply to the objection that there was no security that the Peninsular and Oriental Company would care to raise their dividend above 6 per cent, he thought they might safely rely upon the watchfulness of the shareholders; they were a very numerous body, and having been accustomed to divide 10 per cent, they were not likely to sit down perfectly satisfied with a dividend of 6 per cent, even though it was guaranteed by the Government. Then, again, it was said that the speed prescribed for this service was obsolete, and that it was too slow and behind the age. Now he believed that in the discussions which had taken place in that House, those most interested in the question said that they looked to regularity of service more than to greater speed, and that the telegraph wire would to a great extent displace the Post Office in cases where great despatch was desirable. Nevertheless, the increase of the

475
rate of speed, if it should be deemed desirable, depended solely on a question of money. After what he had stated, he trusted that the House would not think that the Government had shown in this matter such dense stupidity as had been attributed to them, and he hoped that they would be able to come to an unanimous vote on the present occasion.
MR. GRAHAMsaid, that as the Secretary to the Treasury had observed that no one connected with the mercantile interests of India had objected to the contract, he, as a person deeply interested in Indian trade, wished to state that the hon. Gentleman was in that respect under a false impression. He, for one, greatly objected to the contract, and to the slowness of the proposed rate of speed; be objected to an arrangement which made the Government a partner in a mercantile Company, and he objected that the contract was made for so long a period as twelve years. He should have preferred to pay the Company at a higher rate for a shorter period.
MR. J. B. SMITHalso objected to the length of the contract. With the prospect of a great extension of railway communication in India, twelve years was much too long a term. He hoped the Government would still endeavour to reduce the term to six years, paying a larger sum to the Company. Unless he got a pledge to that effect he should divide the House.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 13: Majority 42

EAST LONDON MUSEUM SITE BILL.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee:—Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. LAYARD, and Mr. LANYON; Three to be the quorum:—Leave given to the Committee to sit and proceed forthwith.

LOCAL OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to enable Corporate and other Public Bodies in Ireland to grant Superannuation Allowances to officers in their service in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. PIM, and Sir JOHN GRAY.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 17.]

RELIGIOUS, &C. BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HADFIELD, Bill for facilitating the acquisition and enjoyment of Sites for Buildings for religious, educational, literary, scientific, and other charitable purposes, ordered to be
476
brought in by Mr. HADFIELD, Mr. BAZLEY, Mr. LEEMAN, and Mr. AKROYD.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 18.]

LIFE POLICIES NOMINATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill to enable persons to secure to their wives and children the benefit of Assurances on their lives by Nomination endorsed on the Policy, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. THOMAS HUGHES.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 19.]
House adjourned at half after Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.