Sitting of 29 April 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Wild Birds Protection, appointed; Locomotives on Roads, appointed; Divorce Bills, nominated; Juries (Ireland), Lord Claud Hamilton discharged, Colonel (Ireland, added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Building Societies (No. 2) [141]; Prison Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* [142].
Committee—Municipal Officers Superannuation* [6]—R.P.
Third Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders* [126], and passed.

METROPOLIS—THE GREEN PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRADYasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been directed to an article in the "Times" of the 28th instant, extracted from the "Pall Mall Gazette," in which it is asserted that a "painful rumour is afloat" to the effect that he contemplates the erection of a row of houses in the Green Park, facing Piccadilly, and whether there is any grounds for such a statement?
  MR. AYRTON: My attention, Sir, has been called to the paragraph by the hon. Member's Question. I do not think it expedient to call attention to such a paragraph, my opinion being that it would be better to adhere to what I have always understood to be the practice of this House—that no hon. Member should bring any subject under its notice unless there were reasonable grounds for so doing. Now, in my opinion, a paragraph in a newspaper is not a reasonable ground, and for this reason—no persons are more liable to be imposed upon by those who write falsehoods, either for pleasure or for profit, than the managers of newspapers, because they have an idea that they ought to preserve confidence and keep secret the names of persons who libel others, and deceive the public by such communications. I can only say, in reference to the particular paragaph referred to, that it is entirely false, as I have no doubt the writer of it very well knew.

ARMY—MILITIA SURGEONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, the Militia Surgeons by the recent regulations having lost the principal part of their pay and allowances, any general rule has been laid down for compensating them, or will each individual case be considered upon its own merits?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,in reply, said, it was true that under the operation of recent regulations Militia surgeons might, in some cases, find their emoluments diminished. No rule however had been laid down which recognized a right on their part to compensation, nor had any promise been given beyond this—that if any claim
  1138
  were preferred for compensation, it would receive due consideration.

NAVY—"BRITANNIA" TRAINING SHIP.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is his intention to extend the time for admission into the "Britannia" training ship, by allowing candidates for the Navy to undergo the needful examination up to the age of fifteen, or to what other age beyond the present limit of thirteen; and, whether any regulations have been made by the Admiralty on the subject?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, very great difficulties have occurred to prevent the execution of the plan which I sketched last year with regard to the Regulations for the admission of naval cadets. I have been extremely desirous to raise the age of entry, so as to secure that candidates for the Navy should remain for as long a time as possible at the general schools to which the majority of English boys are sent, and not begin too early a special technical education. This, I should add, I was anxious to effect without infringing in any degree on the time required for the acquisition of seamanship. The plan involved the abolition of the stationary training ship the Britannia, where cadets are now trained between the ages of 13 and 15, as all were agreed that it was undesirable to coop up upwards of 100 boys over the age of 15 in a stationary training ship. One of the main difficulties which have baffled us has been how to prevent boys from being taken away from the public schools and sent to special schools; for that boys should receive nothing but a special and technical education at private schools would have been as open to objection, and even more so, than the present system. There have been other serious difficulties, too, on which I will not now dilate. At the same time, the Britannia has been certainly turning out a good set of cadets. Under these circumstances I have come to the conclusion to press the experiment of taking older boys on a limited scale only, and to retain the Britannia for the majority of the cadets, fixing the age for the Britannia at 12 to 13½. I had hoped to have been able to announce simultaneously the Regulations made for the

  1139
  entries into the Britannia and the Regulations for the entries of the older boys; but as the scheme with regard to the latter, who in any case would not be admitted till near the end of the year, is not yet sufficiently settled, we do not like to delay any longer the publication of Regulations affecting the former. I am therefore glad of the opportunity of stating that an examination for entries into the Britannia will be held in June. The Regulations will not differ materially from those hitherto in force; but I may add that, both as regards the Britannia and boys entering at a later age, we shall endeavour so to arrange the examination that boys from the best schools should have a good chance, removing, as far as possible, the inducements to parents to interrupt the usual course of their sons' education. As regards boys successful at the examinations, we should be glad to get them from a variety of schools. As regards unsuccessful boys, we should be glad to spare the parents the additional disappointment of having fruitlessly changed the course of education which their sons would otherwise have followed.
  LORD ELCHOinquired, Whether the Regulations respecting the older boys were likely to be agreed upon before the close of the Session; and, if so, whether they would be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I trust the Regulations will be ready before the close of the Session. I should add that delay is so far immaterial that no candidates of the older class would, in any case, be admitted until the end of the year. I mention this because I do not wish to make a statement which might induce parents to remove boys from the special schools where they are now receiving their education.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAMS IN FRENCH.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BOURNEasked the Postmaster General, Whether Postmasters in particular offices have the power of charging a different rate for telegrams sent in the French language to any part of the United Kingdom, to those in English; and, whether a Postmaster is justified in charging for such telegrams at the rate of one shilling per twenty syllables instead of one shilling per
  1140
  twenty words; and, if so, the grounds on which such special charge is made?
  MR. MONSELL,in reply, said, that the practice referred to was that of the old Telegraph Companies, and it had been discontinued at every Telegraph Office in the United Kingdom since the 17th of February last.

DOMINION OF CANADA—MANITOBA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to know, Whether the Colonial Office had received any intelligence with respect to a rather startling piece of telegraphic information, to the effect that there had been a collision between the United States troops and the Black-feet Indians at Fort Garry and Manitoba? No information of the kind had reached Hudson's Bay House.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENin reply, said, he regretted that he could not enlighten his right hon. Friend, as the Colonial Office had received no information on the subject.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (IRELAND)—REV. MR. O'KEEFFE.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he wished to know, Whether it was the intention of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) to proceed with his Motion on this subject, which stood on the Paper for that night? He understood that a new application from Father O'Keeffe was to be brought under the consideration of the Board of Education that day, and the Commissioners were of opinion that it would not be fair to them to discuss the matter until their more recent action in the matter had been brought to the knowledge of the House. He also understood that the Court of Queen's Bench intended to give judgment in the suit pending with Mr. O'Keeffe in the course of a few days, and under these circumstances he trusted that his right hon. Friend would be induced to postpone his Motion.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he intended to comply with the request made to him, but only upon the ground first stated by his noble Friend—the renewed application made by Father O'Keeffe to the Board of Education to have the Callan Schools placed upon the roll again. It was desirable that this transaction should be closed before the matter was

  1141
  discussed in that House. He would not, however, admit that his Motion ought to be postponed because the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had not yet been given. His Motion was confined to the conduct of the Commissioners, and had nothing to do directly with the quarrel between two ecclesiastics or with the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, whatever that judgment might be. Under these circumstances, he proposed to postpone his Motion to the 20th May, and hoped by that time that the transaction, as far as the Commissioners were concerned, would be closed, and that the House would be in a state to deal with it. He trusted that the noble Lord would lose no time in laying the further Papers on this subject on the Table of the House.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was given to understand that the state of Private Business was such as to make it perfectly convenient to begin Public Business at a quarter past 4 o'clock. He should propose, accordingly, that on Thursday Public Business should commence at that hour.

  IRISH RAILWAYS—PURCHASE BY THE STATE.—RES OLUTION.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON,in rising to call the attention of the House to the subject of the purchase of the Irish Railways by the State, and to move the following Resolution—
  "That this House, whilst expressing no opinion on the subject of State ownership or State management of Railways in other parts of the Empire, is of opinion that it is desirable (having regard to the universally expressed wishes and wants of the Irish people) that the Railways in Ireland should be acquired on equitable terms by the State, with a view to their management being conducted in the interests of the public. This measure to be carried out in such a way as not to involve any loss to the finances of the Empire,"
  said, he had a claim on the forbearance of the House as well on account of the importance of the subject as because it came before the House as a matter upon which the people of Ireland were unanimous. It was not a subject of dispute and controversy in Ireland, for all creeds and classes in that country were in favour of the proposi-
  1142
  tion. He hoped the Prime Minister would give him leave to remind him that at one period he (Mr. Gladstone) had upheld the doctrine that Irish affairs should be regulated in accordance with Irish ideas; and he was convinced that in the whole experience of his political life the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to point to a question in which there had been such general accord in Ireland as there was in this case. Already a great majority of the Irish Peers had signed a memorial in favour of the State acquisition of Irish railways. No less than 90 per cent of the Irish Representatives had done the same. The Grand Jury of every county in Ireland had signed Petitions to the same effect. So had the Municipal Corporations and the Towns Commissioners of the smaller towns. The Poor Law Guardians of many unions had taken similar action, and wherever Irishmen congregated public opinion found the same expression. In carrying out this proposal Irishmen were not making a claim upon the Imperial Exchequer, but were ready to bear the burden out of their own means and finances. Therefore, he said, the question now came before the House under a new aspect, and as a subject upon which it was impossible to have greater unanimity of feeling. He did not advocate this plan in the interests of any shareholders or Railway Company; he undertook to promote the object in view on account of the general feeling which prevailed in Ireland in connection with it. If it were carried out it would have a most beneficial effect upon the interests of the Empire at large. Parliament had, with the best intentions, created a sort of monopoly in Railway Companies by Act of Parliament, and had given them great powers, rights, and advantages; but these Companies had not been able by circumstances to exercise their powers and privileges for the benefit of Ireland. The people of that country were, therefore, in an inferior position to any other portion of the Empire in regard to railway travelling and accommodation, and vastly inferior in that respect to the people of other countries in Europe. He trusted that the House—and especially the Members for England and Scotland—would bear with him if he read a short extract from the very able Report of the Commission on Irish Railways in 1866, which was presided over with so much

  1143
  talent by the Duke of Devonshire. The Commissioners said—
  "The main sources of the prosperity of English Railways were derived from the large transport of passengers arising from commercial activity and a wealthy population, and also from the carriage of goods in the great manufacturing centres which did not exist in Ireland."
  Why did they not exist in Ireland? The House had to consider the manner in which the English Legislature, from motives of jealousy, destroyed the trade and paralyzed the commerce of Ireland, and in bringing this subject before the House he had special claims upon the English and Scotch Members to assist him in taking steps to remedy this injustice. It was hardly too much to say that the commerce, trade, and manufactures of Ireland were exterminated by the jealousy exhibited towards her by the other portions of the Empire. In the reign of William III. the woollen trade and manufacture of Ireland were most prosperous and thriving. The jealousy of England was so strongly excited that the House of Lords addressed the Sovereign, pointing out that the prosperity of Irish manufactures was calculated to injure the English trader, and they begged the Sovereign to discourage Irish manufactures. His Majesty, in reply, promised to do all in his power to destroy the Irish woollen manufacture, and it would, he thought, be generally conceded that the efforts which were made in that direction had proved very successful. The same course had been adopted with regard to the glass manufacture and the shipping interest, and it was owing to the action of the English Parliament in former times that the present absence of commerce, activity, and trade of Ireland was owing. As it was owing to the direct action in times past of the English Parliament that Irish trade had been crippled and destroyed, and Irish railways rendered less remunerative than they otherwise would have been, they had, in his opinion, a strong claim to the generous and liberal treatment of the present House of Commons, as it represented, in the third and fourth generation, the Members who had acted with so much injustice towards Ireland. The cause for which he contended was no new one, for as far back as 1836 a Commission had been issued with regard to Irish railways, and it was felt then that if the railways were to be formed as in Eng-
  1144
  land and Scotland by public companies alone, the country would not be able to meet the requirements of the case, and a recommendation was made that Government should advance a considerable portion of the amount at the lowest rate of interest. That recommendation was adopted by Parliament, and upwards of £2,500,000 were advanced out of the Consolidated Fund to promote the Irish railways—an advance which had not resulted in any injury to the public interest. The whole history of railways was one of Parliamentary control and interference. Parliament, indeed, appeared to look upon the railway system as its child, and had exercised its parental authority at every stage; so that to ask it now to interfere was not to ask it to adopt a novel principle, but merely to carry out that which had been a uniform practice since the railway system was formed. The evils complained of in the present system were rather startling. The general complaints arose from bad management, want of regularity in the starting and arrival of trains, numerous discomforts and changes from one line to another, paucity of trains, the slow rate of traffic, miserable accommodation at the stations, want of harmony between the different railway Boards of Directors, local jealousy, indifference to the wants of different places, and extremely high rates of charge. The third-class fares were so high as to be nearly prohibitory —as high as the second-class fares in Germany, where such excellent accommodation was provided—and the fares for the carriage of articles for market were so high that the ordinary roads were used instead of the railways. One of the great wants of Ireland as an agricultural country, was the cheap and rapid transit of cattle to the ports of embarkation; but the charges were so enormously high that, as a rule, cattle were driven on foot to the ports to their great detriment. Then, again, fish teemed on the coasts, but such was the want of facilities for sending it rapidly to the great centres of population in Ireland or England that the trade was paralyzed and pauperized; thousands of persons who might find profitable employment were deprived of this means of earning a livelihood, and the community at large suffered by a serious diminution of the food supply of the country. The same observation held

  1145
  good with respect to minerals. In England, hundreds of miles of railways were constructed for the sole purpose of mineral traffic; but in Ireland so high were the charges for conveying ore that the small struggling efforts to develop the mineral wealth of the country were seriously impeded. When the Irish people looked at this side of the Channel and saw that railway accommodation was cheap, frequent, and available for all classes of goods, they felt naturally aggrieved at the fact that the Government did not make some effort to meet and remedy the great evil under which they suffered, and which arose mainly from this one cause. The average length of the Irish railways was 43 miles, while in the aggregate they did not equal the lines in possession of one English company. Yet in the case of the Irish railways there were 450 directors, a large number of secretaries, 71 engineers, and as many solicitors, while the London and North-Western Company, to which lie bad referred, was managed by a Board of 30 individuals. Bearing the facts he had mentioned in mind, he asked the House had they the least difficulty in seeing why the Irish railways were not financially successful, and why the Irish people were not accommodated as they had a right to be? About one-tenth the number of the present directors—had they power to carry out amalgamations and make arrangements for through traffic over the different lines—would be amply sufficient. Would it be believed —he mentioned this as a sample of management—that the mail train from Belfast to Dublin, a distance of 113 miles, stopped two hours at Portadown, and an hour and a-half on the journey from Dublin to Belfast? That short distance, too, was divided between three Railway Companies, each with its separate Board, secretary, directors, and staff. For many years these Companies had refused to issue through tickets, and passengers were obliged to take three sets of tickets for that journey. He could multiply instances of similar inconvenience and want of concentrated management, but he know that others who would follow him would produce from their several counties ample evidence of the necessity of State interference. He might mention that the recommendations of the various Committees which had considered the subject had in al-
  1146
  most every case a tendency towards the arrangement which he submitted to the House; while the Commission which had inquired into the subject of the railways of England, Scotland, and Ireland had stopped short of recommending the purchase of the Irish railways, it had elicited a mass of information which could not fail to support the Motion now before the House. Among other witnesses examined was the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, who pointed out the great want of facilities in Ireland for the transit of ore, cattle, and articles of merchandise. There was one other witness whose evidence, from his great experience, was peculiarly valuable. It was the evidence of Sir Rowland Hill, which was to the effect that the management of the Irish railways was costly and inefficient; that the fares and rates were unnecessarily high; and that the public would derive great benefit from their amalgamation. This evidence was worth more than that of any other witness. It should be remembered what Sir Rowland Hill had achieved. He could well remember how, in 1838 and 1839, he was considered as a dreamer and a visionary, and the idea of a much reduced and uniform rate of postage was deemed irrational. Yet he had so correctly calculated results that he succeeded in bringing about a revolution in our postal system, and in realizing his prediction that, though at first there would be a falling off in the revenue, yet the loss would soon be recouped. There was not a country in the civilized world which had not followed our example in regard to uniformity of postage. When a man like Sir Rowland Hill advocated the purchase of Irish railways by the State, little more was needed to recommend the plan. Mr. John Fowler, Mr. Seymour Clarke, and the manager of the Caledonian Railway, all were in favour of the project. The first Commission was followed by two others, and they gave very important suggestions, though they were not invited to give an opinion upon the purchase of Irish railways, but only to inquire into their state of efficiency, the traffic, and the possible development of the system by the adoption of lower fares. Captain Tyler, in 1871, stated that State management ably administered would be more economical and more efficient; that it could have no

  1147
  possible object but the common good; and that a considerable reduction in fares might be expected. No doubt unity of management in the hands of the State would be of enormous advantage to the country. Of the two last Commissions to which he had referred, one was to collect information, and the other was principally to compare Irish railways with those of foreign countries, especially with those of Belgium. The latter reported strongly in favour of one united instead of a disjointed management. They stated that the traffic of Ireland required a special stimulus, and they proposed that there should be a reduction in first-class fares of 31 per cent; in second-class of 45 per cent; and in third-class of 42 per cent; and that for cattle there should be an average reduction of 32 per cent. They said that the charge for the purchase of the railways would be met by an increase of revenue, and that within 12 years they would receive a large income from this source. The names he had already quoted would give great weight to these suggestions, and prove that they were backed by the most practical public men, and supported by the highest scientific knowledge and experience. The operation of purchasing the Irish railways would not be of the magnitude that some people imagined. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) last year said that we were not prepared for such a gigantic experiment; but the fact was that the capital of all the Irish railways, including debentures and loans, was not more than £27,000,000, or not half the capital of one English company alone—the London and North-Western. [Mr. GOLDSMID said, that he had referred to all the railways of the kingdom.] But there was not the slightest intention to interfere with the English or Scotch railways. It would be perfectly ludicrous to attempt it. The Irish railways had not performed the duties expected of them. They had not developed the commerce, opened out the mines, or performed the functions which any well-organized railway system was capable of performing, and which the English railways were already doing. It was because they failed to perform the public service they were constituted to perform that this exceptional legislation was required. The hon. Member said that it was wanted to double the National Debt, to involve the country in an ex-
  1148
  penditure of £600,000,000; but there was no intention of the kind, nor could the present Motion be used in any way as a stepping-stone to interference with English railways. He could assure the hon. Member, and those who might share his alarm, that if the Irish railways at all approached the English and Scotch lines in efficiency of service and moderation of charge, the present Motion would not have been brought before the House. The net receipts of the Irish railways were over £1,000,000; so that at present, taking them altogether they yielded over 4 per cent on the whole capital, although of course the revenue was very unequally distributed among the different lines. If, however, the Government purchased them, it would be at once in its power to get rid of the impediments in the way of their economical and efficient working, by which means they might be made to pay a handsome profit. That was not a new subject. It had been occasionally brought before the House since the year 1865. In 1865 the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, in conformity with all the other authorities, had fully recognized the propriety and almost necessity of exceptional legislation on that matter in regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman also admitted that—
  "If it should be the desire of the Imperial Parliament to confer a pecuniary boon on Ireland, there would probably he no mode in which that boon could be conferred so free from all taint of partiality, and at the same time so comprehensive and effective in its application, as some measure taken with the view to secure to her the benefits of cheap railway transit"—[3 Hansard, clxxviii. 919.]
  He further stated that—
  "If the Government could see their way to a useful and practical measure, they would not be disposed, and he did not think the majority of the House would be disposed, to drive a hard bargain with Ireland."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1786.]
  The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, in his speeches had conceded the question of principle, and only reserved the question of time and mode. He hoped, therefore, the Government would not now come forward and say that the task was one which was beyond their power. He could not believe that those who undertook to govern 150,000,000 people in our distant domains in India would shrink, when asked by the whole people of Ireland, to undertake so small an ob-

  1149
  ject as the management of their railways. He hoped they would show they had advanced beyond their former stage, and, recognizing the importance of the subject, would cast aside the cold abstractions of political economy, and the shackles of official prejudice, and meet the wishes of the Irish people in a liberal and enlightened spirit, and thus secure the gratitude of a united nation. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Resolution.
  THE O'CONOR DON,in seconding the Resolution, expressed his gratification at hearing that this question had not been submitted to the House in the interests of the Irish railway shareholders, nor in consequence of the failure of some of the Irish Railway Companies. He supported the Motion simply and solely in the interests of the public, because he believed if the Irish railways were taken up and controlled by the State they would confer a benefit on every class of the community, and not simply on those who had invested their money in making or carrying on these speculations. The railways of the country were becoming similar to what the high roads were in former days, and were, in fact, superseding those roads which had never been left in the hands of private or public companies, but had been intrusted to Imperial or municipal bodies. The feeling in Ireland was perfectly unanimous in favour of the railways being taken up by the State for the general good of the country. In making this proposal the Irish people wished it to be clearly understood that in the event of the Government purchasing those railways, and sustaining any loss by the enterprise, such loss would be cheerfully borne by Ireland, and not by the Imperial Exchequer. Under those circumstances, he thought it was somewhat hard that hon. Gentlemen connected with England should interfere to prevent the success of a proposal which would be beneficial to all classes in that country. If the purchase of the Irish railways by the Government should turn out a successful measure he confessed he saw no reason why the railways of England should not said, he would not be placed under the same system in the event of the English people desiring it. The principle of amalgamation of Railway Companies, which was extending, and which was so much recommended to
  1150
  them, he looked upon as being fraught with danger to the general interests of the people. It appeared to him that if we did not govern the railroads, the railroads would ultimately govern, us, and although many advantages might arise from amalgamation, he did not consider it an unmixed good, and did not regard the formation of enormously powerful corporations such as these amalgamated companies would become, without feeling some apprehension. He, for one, did not share in the feeling of apprehension that the possession of the railways by the State would confer upon it a dangerous amount of patronage. The purchase of the telegraphs of the kingdom did not confer any dangerous patronage upon the Government; and why should they fear any such result by the purchase of the Irish railways by Her Majesty's Government? To grant increased facilities to the companies to borrow money at low rates would not meet the requirements of the case, for this would benefit the shareholders without insuring to the public the improvements which they desired. The people of Ireland were almost unanimous in their desire that the railways should be purchased by the State, and if any expense was to be incurred they were ready to pay that expense themselves, and not come upon the British taxpayers for it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, whilst expressing no opinion on the subject of State ownership or State management of Railways in other parts of the Empire, is of opinion that it is desirable (having regard to the universally expressed wishes and wants of the Irish people) that the Railways in Ireland should be acquired on equitable terms by the State, with a view to their management being conducted in the interests of the public; this measure to be carried out in such a way as not to involve any loss to the finances of the Empire."—(Lord Claud Hamilton.)
  MR. GOLDSMID,in rising to move—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and insert, 'the purchase of the Irish Railways by the State would be financially inexpedient, would unduly enlarge the patronage of the Government, and seriously increase the pressure of business in Parliament,'"
  said, he would not follow the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) into the question of Irish manufactures, beyond remarking that the wollen manufacture of Ulster was still flourishing. He regretted that the noble Lord had declined

  1151
  to waive his Motion in favour of the Resolution for the purchase by the State of all the railways in the United Kingdom shortly to be moved by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, for the unprosperous condition of the Irish lines, the ground on which he had urged that they should be dealt with exclusively, was rather an argument against his proposal. When he himself stated last Session that the purchase of the Irish railways would be a stepping-stone to the purchase of the English and Scotch lines, he was met by protests, and amongst others the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) said that he had put up ninepins in order to knock them down again; but the truth of his argument was directly and satisfactorily proved, for the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) immediately afterwards supported the Motion on that very ground, and now the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had expressed his willingness to vote for the larger measure if, on the success of the smaller one, the English people desired it. It was all very well for the noble Lord to ask the House to purchase the Irish railways; but that the hon. Gentleman (the O'Conor Don), who was a Home Ruler, should have seconded the Motion on the ground that Irishmen could not manage their own affairs was a remarkable admission and proof of the weakness of those Home Rule principles he had adopted. Shareholders in England, when a railway was ill-managed, found out the natural remedy and applied it by removing their boards of direction and appointing more competent men, and why could not Irishmen do the same? For example the North Eastern Railway formerly consisted of a large number of lines, with numerous boards and divided interests, with no free communication between the various systems, and no possibility of through rates. The shareholders compelled an amalgamation, and now the North Eastern was one of the most powerful and one of the best paying lines in the kingdom. To the argument that under Government management additional convenience and more frequent trains would be offered to the public he opposed the universal experience of travellers on the Continent, denying emphatically that they managed these things better either in France, where the lines were but partially, or in
  1152
  those parts of Germany where they were wholly under the control of the States. The truth was, that when the State owned the railways it esteemed it a duty to make as much money as possible on behalf of the country, and consequently the interests of the travelling public suffered. He would now briefly call attention to the disadvantages which would result to this country from having the railway system under the control and management of the State. The purchase of the telegraphs had been cited as a precedent by the hon. Gentleman, but this was scarcely a case in point; because not only was the capital of the Telegraph Companies small, although the Government paid an extravagant price for them; but also because the question of trust involved in the carriage of telegrams, as of letters, entirely altered, the considerations to be borne in mind. Then the argument that the railways were the highways of the country was wholly inaccurate; because Railway Companies, like Canal Companies, or coaches, were associations formed for the purpose of conveying passengers and goods from one part of the country to another. At all events, if the hon. Member's argument held good, the Government ought to purchase, not only the railways, but the canals, and the steamboats which afforded communication with our Colonies, and possibly tramways and many other commercial undertakings. As to the value of the Irish railways, the hon. Member for Galway (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett) stated last Session that the total capital was £22,963,270, but to-night the noble Lord said it amounted to £27,000,000. But last year, when the capital was only £22,963,270, the hon. Member stated that the Government would not be able to purchase the railways for less than £30,000,000, and if the value went on increasing in the same proportion as it did last year, we should have to pay £36,000,000 or £37,000,000. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had intimated that if the State purchased the Irish railways, it would only be at a reasonable price. But how could he get at the price except by arbitration or agreement. He certainly could not got it by the compulsion of an Act of Parliament. And looking at the valuation of the telegraph system, and considering how the value rose when the purchase

  1153
  was contemplated, who could tell what would be the case with respect to railways? He believed the country would not be able to obtain for less than £40,000,000 the Irish railways, the capital of which did not exceed £25,000,000, and the value of which was little more. And what would be the result? There would be a constant pressure on the Government to reduce the fares, to construct branch lines, which meant nonpaying lines, and these would reduce the value of the purchase. The House ought also to consider the increase of the National Debt which would be caused by the acquisition by the State of the railways. If the State bought the Irish railways the property would be inalienable, and could never be sold. The increase of the National Debt would therefore be a very serious matter. The purchase of the Irish railways would be the first step towards the purchase of all the railways in the United Kingdom. When this subject was recently discussed at the Statistical Society's meeting, the estimates of the cost of the construction of existing railways varied from £600,000,000 to £800,000,000. Whether they cost the larger or the smaller sum the State would not acquire them for much less than £1,000,000,000, and even if they could be got for £800,000,000, that would double the National Debt and raise it to £1,600,000,000. The largest National Debt in the world was now owing by France, and it amounted to between £1,100,000,000 and 11,200,000,000. As France had been unable to borrow the latter portion of her debt for less than 7 per cent, how could we expect to borrow £800,000,000 at 3 per cent? In time of pressure or danger could we hope to borrow so vast a sum on any terms whatever? And consider, too, what our position would be after having raised our debt to such a colossal sum if we ever had to go into the money market again. Then also, there was the possibility some day of some invention—he knew not what —which might supersede railways altogether. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but less than 60 years ago people laughed at the idea that coaches and canals would ever be superseded. Something might be invented to override railways, and then the State would have purchased at a high price and at a great risk property of very little value. There
  1154
  was another consideration which the purchase of the railways by the State involved—the question of State control. He wanted to know how it could be expected that a Government already overburdened with work—which had hardly time to consider what had best be done for the public interests, and which had. reason to complain that the House of Commons had also too much to do, could undertake satisfactorily the control of large sums of money, the management of a vast body of men, and arrangements affecting the lives of the community, and the conveyance of enormous quantities of goods and minerals. Some persons affected to believe that if the Government had the control of the railways there would be no railway accidents. Was it, however, possible that a pointsman, because he was in the service of the Government, would be less likely to go to sleep, or that a signalman would never make a mistake, or that a stationmaster would never delay until too late shifting a train into a siding? He ventured to say that railway accidents would be just as numerous as ever. They had been gradually diminishing for many years, and now the proportion of fatal accidents was only one to about 31,000,000 of passengers. Such a result showed great and creditable care on the part of the present railway managers. How was one Minister to manage a number of lines that now required the constant attention of several Boards of Directors? The Chairman of the London and North Western had not long since stated that his Board had nearly as much as it could do, and that it could not undertake any considerable amount of additional labour. That was equally true of all the other great lines, and no Minister could manage to his own satisfaction or to that of the country, the whole railway system of the Empire. He would require for his assistance an enormous Board, far larger than the Indian Board, and a number of officials equal to the number of persons now employed as railway directors. Consequently the argument that State purchase would give greater economy of management would not hold water. The authority of Captain Tyler had been quoted in favour of the purchase of railways by the State; but it was natural he should look for promotion, and if the purchase were made, Captain Tyler

  1155
  would no doubt have a very good place in the new arrangements. Besides, there was a natural acquisitiveness on the part of Government employés. But he would rather rely upon the evidence of one who had been connected with railway supervision, and was so no longer—such a man, for example, as Captain Galton, who had had a largo experience in railways, and who was strenuously of opinion that it would be against the public interest for railways to be purchased by the State. Then came the question of patronage. If the Government had the patronage of 300,000 railway employés, it would disturb the whole machinery of Government. It might be said that, practically, the patronage would not rest with the Government; but even if a graduated system of promotion existed there would be 20,000 places to give away every year and all kinds of influences would be brought to bear in favour of particular persons. It might be said that these persons would be appointed by competitive examination; but he failed to see how pointsmen, signal men, and railway porters could be selected under a system of competitive examination. So large an amount of patronage in the hands of the State would be a source of great evil and danger to the Government of the day, and would be a constant cause of difficulty and trouble to Members of that House. Hon. Members could not have forgotten how they used to be asked to obtain the influence of the Secretary to the Treasury to get places under Government, and how salutary had been the change effected in that respect by the present Prime Minister. If the Government bought the railways this difficulty of patronage as it formerly existed would be more than doubled. Again, many of the great Railway Companies had embarked in other undertakings. The Great Western had extensive works at Swindon for building carriages, &c. The London and North-Western had similar works at Crewe. Some Railway Companies had docks, others steamers and hotels, and recently they had been contemplating the purchase of coal mines in consequence of the difficulty in obtaining regular supplies of coal. If the State purchased the railways it would be necessary to take over all these undertakings. The tendency of the present day was to
  1156
  forget that the duty of a Government was not to trade but to govern. If it traded at all it was only permissible to do so in such matters as dockyards, ships, and the manufacture of arms and uniforms, which were necessary for the defence and therefore for the government of the country. To go into enterprises such as might be legitimate enough on the part of Railway Companies, but which after all were not necessary for the State, was, however, travelling out of the proper province of a Government, and was an error against which Members sitting on the Liberal side of the House were especially bound to protest. Then they would find gigantic Unions organized throughout the country among the railway operatives; and if the Government did not give satisfaction in the matter of wages they would, probably, have gigantic strikes to deal with, and that it was possible for the Government not to give satisfaction he, as a dockyard Member, had ample experience. They had, moreover, a recent instance of this in the discontent which had existed among the employés in the Civil Service. Then, in addition to the questions which would continually engage the attention of the Government in respect to fares, rates, and extensions, and so on, there would be the question of compensation; and we should, probably, find the Government employing half the legal talent of the country in connection with actions brought against them under the Passengers Act and the Common Carrier Acts. All these matters would add greatly to the difficulties of carrying on the Government, and one or two of them alone would be sufficient to counterbalance the imaginary advantages which would accrue from the State purchase of railways. Again, it would, he believed, be almost impossible to overrate the disturbance which would arise from the pressure which might in times of danger be brought against the Government. About one matter, however, there could be little doubt. Whatever was to be done it was above all things desirable that her Majesty's Government should speak out. Last Session the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his speech upon this subject, at one moment implied that Her Majesty's Government were seriously considering the policy of purchasing the railways, and at another

  1157
  said that the Government were not prepared to accede to the proposal that they should be acquired by the State. This ambiguity of phrase had had an unfortunate result, and he had even been informed that the possibility of the State purchasing the railways had been regarded in some quarters in Ireland as so strong that no proper attention had in the case of some lines been paid to the permanent way, it being thought unnecessary, because Her Majesty's Government could do it better. He could not help holding that such speeches as the one to which he referred were calculated to excite false hopes. So much, he believed, had this been the case in the present instance that the market price of the shares in even unremunerative lines had gone up considerably since the agitation of last year. He therefore begged Her Majesty's Government to give a decisive, and he hoped a negative answer to the question raised by the Motion of the noble Lord opposite. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the purchase of the Irish Railways by the State would be financially inexpedient, would unduly enlarge the patronage of the Government, and seriously increase the pressure of business in Parliament,"—(Mr. Goldsmid,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought that those hon. Members who could not concur in the argument of his hon. Friend who had just spoken would at the same time feel the justice of his appeal to the Government that they should speak out on this question, and not only that they should speak out but speak early. He did not accept the censure of the hon. Gentleman upon what had been said last year by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) on behalf of the Government on this subject. What his noble Friend had expressed, and what Government had expressed, was this—that, looking to the state of the railway system in Ireland and to the wide-spread feeling in Ireland, it was the duty of the Government to do what without very
  1158
  great cause they would not have done at all—namely, to make a thorough examination of the subject, and arrive at a conclusion, aye or no, on the question whether they could propose to Parliament the purchase of the Irish railways. That was the undertaking into which they entered, and of course it followed that when time had been allowed for the redemption of the undertaking they should state the result to the House. He did not go along with his hon. Friend who had just spoken to the full extent as to the connection sought to be established between the Irish and English railways; but in one proposition he had pronounced he did emphatically concur, and he referred to it now, because it must lie at the root of every discussion on the subject. His hon. Friend had said that the business of Government was not to trade, but to govern, and they must not conceive that it was always an open question whether Government should or should not take into its hands the management of some great trade or undertaking. Nothing but a case that might be said to amount to very nearly a rigid necessity could warrant the State in undertaking a trade or business. It was upon that principle that Government had undertaken the business of the Post Office, which was a business that no one else could perform with tolerable satisfaction. It was upon the same principle that Government had undertaken that peculiar system of banking originally involved in the Savings Banks, where the State was the principal agent, and in the Post Office Savings Banks, where the State was the sole agent. It was on the same principle that the State, going one step farther, and acting on perhaps a less rigid definition, had acquired the telegraph system, and the question was now whether it was possible for the State to purchase the railways of Ireland. There were very serious reasons why this subject should be taken into consideration, and for his own part, had the transaction been merely a financial transaction—had it been merely a question of acquiring the proprietorship of the railways, and then of using them as a great landlord used his lands, in leasing them or letting them for a term at a rack-rent to those who could manage them—he should have regarded it as one of great difficulty. He might say, in the first place, that the noble Lord

  1159
  had discussed the question with great fairness. The Irish railway system as it now existed was comparatively a weak system. Ireland itself had great capacity for the development of traffic, and the development of that traffic would be of enormous benefit to that country. In England we had attained magnificent results under a railway system which had extended to every available district in the country, and which had more than met the demands made upon it. In Ireland, however, these results had not been attained to anything like the same extent, for the system, while extremely limited and confined geographically within what they might call very narrow bounds, was also very disjointed and wanting in that union and connection which were so necessary to its efficiency. That the amalgamation of the Railway Companies would be of very great moment he could not doubt, and that Ireland desired that this purchase should be made by the State he also did not doubt. He felt bound to say that he did not see that the adoption of the principle with regard to Ireland necessarily involved its extension to England. He went a little further. Not only would it not render necessary the adoption of the same principle in Great Britain, but it would not have any sensible effect in prejudicing, or weakening the position of Government for resisting any plan in England or Scotland that might be brought forward. The circumstances were so different that he did not feel that the judgment of Parliament would be compromised by any step that it might adopt with reference to Ireland. These admissions he freely made. Before going farther he would urge his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldsmid) not to press his Amendment, because it was not an Amendment in the proper sense of the word; it was a series of negatives, and it would be better that the House should vote on the affirmative or negative of the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton.) So far as his own opinion was concerned the consideration he had given the subject had been conducive of disabling him from supporting the Motion of his noble Friend opposite. He frankly admitted the abundance of the declarations they had had from all the organs of Irish opinion with respect to the willingness of Ireland to assume the pecuniary liability which the carrying out of the
  1160
  scheme might involve. He must, however, claim the admission on the other side that no distinct plan for the purchase of railways, and for charging the possible cost of the plan upon Ireland, had ever been presented to Her Majesty's Government. That was a point of great importance. How was the cost of these railways to be charged upon Ireland? Because, he assumed—of course, he did not question for a moment—that if these railways were to be purchased, it must be for the purpose of giving to the Irish people the benefit of a very large reduction of fares and rates. If that were so, a very considerable risk would necessarily be run. His noble Friend opposite had referred with great fairness and propriety to the Report of the Commissioners and others who examined this matter, and who were thought to have taken rather a sanguine than a desponding view, but who showed there would be for a considerable time a charge of no small amount to be met. How was Ireland to supply the deficiency? Was it to be done by a rate upon Irish property? There had been no indication of how the engagement would be met, although the readiness to enter into it had been so freely professed. If it were to be met by a rate on Irish property, they should bear in mind that they were in the midst of a discussion as to local taxation—a subject the extreme difficulty of which they all acknowledged—and also that the three kingdoms—even including Ireland—were suitors for relief from local burdens out of the Imperial Exchequer. And if the local burdens of Ireland were to be augmented by laying upon her people a serious addition, at all events for a term of years, for the purpose of bearing the charge of the purchase of the railways, he had to ask himself whether that would not have a very important effect either in strengthening the case of Ireland for relief from the Imperial Exchequer in respect of her local burdens, or at least quicken agitation in Ireland—he used the word in its legitimate sense—for the purpose of obtaining such relief. So that they might find themselves in this position—that if they imposed on the land and real property of Ireland a direct charge in consequence of the acquisition of the railways, they might find that fact in some degree an incentive to augmented activity in Ireland in urging a demand for the reduc-

  1161
  tion of charges which that property now bore. It should be remembered, too, that the Railway Companies in Ireland during the whole of the discussion as to the purchase of their property, which had extended now, off and on, over a period of 10 years, had never shown the slightest sign of life, or the slightest indication of a wish to give facilities. Everything that had been done had been done by the Irish public. No doubt the holders of shares had shown that they had formed their own impressions as to the bearings of the matter, but the companies had studiously remained on the defensive. Virtually they had said to Parliament—"If this matter is to be entertained you must become suitors and petitioners to us. We are not asking you to purchase our property. If we were, you would have a right to expect us to tender it upon terms of great moderation. But you take the initiative. You ask us to sell, and therefore we have some title to demand our own price, and are not to be dealt with as those who are willing to be expropriated, and should receive a pretty handsome allowance in consideration of our unwillingness." Another view of the case ought not to be left out of consideration. A Royal Commission had been appointed to examine into the whole subject of railways in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he was the person responsible for the choice of its members. The head of the Commission was the Duke of Devonshire, and its vice-head was the present Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley. The object in view in forming that Commission was to bring together as much experience, assiduity, impartiality, intelligence, and general weight as it was possible to secure within the limits of a Royal Commission, and undoubtedly the Commission was formed of men of whom he could, from his own personal knowledge, say that, in reference to the purchase of the railways by the State, and particularly of the Irish railways, they had not any adverse bias. There were some of them whose leaning was distinctly in that direction; but they were not men governed by any foregone conclusion. Notwithstanding that fact, the result at which they arrived was not only adverse to the purchase of the English, but also of the Irish railways. He did not say that that circumstance ought to govern
  1162
  the opinion of Parliament; but it certainly ought to be borne in mind in considering a matter in which authority must necessarily have something to do. For his own part, he drew a great distinction—he did not know that all his Colleagues were prepared to go as far as he did—between the merely financial and the trading operation. Assuming that they could obtain the railways on reasonable terms, was it possible to deal with the matter as a financial operation only? Would they be justified in expecting that they could instruct the Railway Commissions about, probably, to be appointed, to lease the railways to private persons, so that the management and conduct of the railways should continue to be a matter of private enterprise?—that thus, too, the questions of patronage, of the undue pressure of local interests, of accidents, of strikes, and those other matters to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldsmid) had alluded might be avoided? For his part, he did not regard the mere financial operation as a matter of hopeless difficulty, although he was by no means sure that it was one which Parliament would be ready to adopt. There was much in what his hon. Friend had said to the effect that those things were extensions of public liability—new weights laid upon the public credit. But though he was conscious of that fact, he thought the acquisition of the property, which was real property, was a matter which need not alarm them if the public benefit to be attained was very great, if it could be attained in no other way, and if nothing but the financial operation were in question. But here he was met by a difficulty which he, for one, knew not how to get over, even if Parliament could be induced to get over the objection as to the extension of the public credit. He put aside the argument as to the probability of some new invention superseding the railway system. It was too remote, and they could, he thought, afford to part with it. A most important question was this—if it was practicable for the State to become the purchaser of railways, was the State, after it had purchased them, to manage them as a Scotch landlord generally managed his landed property—namely, by leasing it out to cultivators, which cultivators were invested with temporary interest in the soil sufficient

  1163
  to induce them to give all their time to the cultivation of it? He spoke here not of his own authority; but he was assured on all sides that the system of working railways by leasing them had been tried repeatedly, and had not been found practicable upon an extended scale. If it had not been found practicable under private companies, still less, he was afraid, would it be found practicable under the State. Now that lay, he thought, at the root of the whole matter. In trading concerns he confessed that he was not prepared to deal; and he doubted if his noble Friend (Lord Claud Hamilton) was himself prepared to adopt such a principle, because he certainly referred to the leasing of lines as the method to be contemplated. As had been already well said, their trade was not to do the business of trading, but to govern. If the State undertook to work railways, the Government would become involved in a multitude of questions which he knew not how to escape. Was it to be supposed that a Railway Department could be worked under a Railway Secretary of State, or a President of Railway Management responsible to that House? One of the most obvious things to his mind was that that would be totally impossible. It was totally impossible to suppose that if the State attempted to work railways directly, and under principles of Parliamentary responsibility, the persons intrusted with the carrying out of that system would not be liable to pressure, legitimate and illegitimate, in every sense from every quarter. When they spoke of the passenger traffic of the country they spoke of something sufficiently intricate, but the passenger traffic was child's play compared with the goods traffic. In one company alone there were charged not less than £3,000,000 of rates for different goods from different places. [An Hon. MEMBER: £4,000,000.] Whether it were£ 3, 000,000 or £4, 000,000 how was it possible that the Government could have elasticity and flexibility enough to make itself the Guardian of the public interest in such infinite details. A Commission such as that which they were about to institute could never govern in details like these. He would not dwell on the question of patronage. He thought that admissions to: railway service might be managed as admissions to the public Departments were managed;
  1164
  but with regard to promotion under a railway system, that could not be put into the hands of the Administration of the day. It must be given to some public and permanent body like the Railway Commission, which would thus grow to much larger proportions than they had proposed to give it. He was not much inclined to those great Parliamentary creations, whether under the name of a Commission or under any other name. They had not in. them the wholesome constitution which belonged to really popular functions, and nothing but the strongest necessity would induce him willingly to entertain the question of appointing such a body. He had admitted and lamented the evils of the railway system in Ireland, and he was most anxious on this subject, because he thought the delay in remedying those evils might have operated injuriously against Ireland in other respects. He could not help thinking that great benefit might be conferred on Ireland by the extension of British Railway influence into Ireland. He could not conceive that anything would be more advantageous to Ireland than this—that the great companies which now communicated with the West Coast of England and Scotland should communicate with the east coast too. The distinction between the East and the West was gradually being weakened and effaced. It appeared to him that these great companies might, with the greatest advantage, concern themselves further than they had yet done with the development of Irish traffic, and endeavour to establish arrangements between the Irish Railway Companies and themselves. He understood that the Great Western Railway Company had made some step in that direction. He had heard of small railways combined into one in the south-west of Ireland, and forming a system comprising nearly 400 miles. That was a germ of improvement which he hoped would be developed. With respect to the recommendation given in the year 1837, that the Irish railways should receive exceptional treatment, he would say a few words. He had already said that they could not possibly undertake the purchase and working of Irish railways, and the purchase and working were inseparable, and even if they could be separated it would be very difficult to induce Parliament to accept the pur-

  1165
  chase even without the working. As to the State giving pecuniary assistance to Irish railways in the form of loans at low rates of interest, he admitted that it would be advisable to advance money at a low rate of interest if the public were to derive the benefit of a development of traffic; but it was one thing to advance money in order to promote the development of traffic, and another thing to lend money to a Railway Company in order to avert the last extremity—the seizure of its rolling stock. It was impossible for the Government to take the initiative in any plan for the advance of these loans; they must depend entirely upon applications from the Railway Companies themselves; and he was only going to state what was a possible mode or means of conferring a certain amount of benefit on Ireland without entailing undue responsibility upon the finances of the country or in any manner interfering with the general work of the Government, or adding tasks to an Executive that might be already said to be overdone. It was quite plain that there was room for a large economy in Irish railways. In the first place, there would be a very large economy in management if the Railway Companies found it for their own interest to unite. It could not properly be said that they could not unite because one was rich and another poor, because the poor railway could find out what it was worth and the rich railway would know on what terms it would be warranted in paying the poor line; and he knew of no reason why amalgamation should not take place if the parties were so disposed. He had heard it stated, on very high authority, that in this way some £50,000 a-year would be saved. Upon the Irish lines there was an amount borrowed upon debenture and other security of £6,345,000, and he presumed there would be a saving, if it were wise for the public to assume that debt, and become creditor—supposing the security were in all cases perfect—of such an amount as would enable them to make a present to the Railway Companies in Ireland of not less than £70,000 or £80,000 a-year. If to that sum were added the £40,000 or £50,000 per annum which could be saved by economy of management resulting from amalgamation, there would thus be a total sum of £130,000 per annum standing to the credit of the Irish Railway
  1166
  Companies. The income of the Irish railways, after paying the working expenses for the period for which the latest Returns had been received, amounted to £1,050,000, and that sum, together with the £130,000 he had just referred to, would give a net dividend of 12 per cent on the share capital of those lines. There was evidently a clear margin within the limits of which very large reductions might be made in the fares, and especially in the rates of the Irish railways, and thus a great benefit might be conferred upon Ireland without pecuniary risk, without drawing this country into any extended engagements or legislative innovation, and without giving rise to any serious practical difficulty. It was quite impossible, however, for the Government to take the initiative in such a matter, because it depended entirely upon the arrangements and upon the economical management of the Railway Companies themselves. The first and the most essential step would be that the Irish Railway Companies should agree upon some reasonable principle of amalgamation, and should arrange among themselves for the transfer of the debt; and when that step had been taken the initiative would lie with the Railway Companies, because the security could only be accepted in the event of it being perfect. It would be the duty of the Government in the event of the companies assenting to the arrangement he had indicated to take care that any reduction in the fares and rates which the companies might agree to make should be added to the amount of the debt. He had gone thus far into the scheme, because the Government had a most sincere desire towards remedying the admitted defects of the Irish railway system, provided they could do it without interfering with private enterprise and without raising serious political or practical difficulties. He hoped what he had said might be sufficiently intelligible to the noble Lord who had brought forward this Motion, and Ito was sure that it would be taken as an indication of the readiness that was felt by the House in all quarters to provide by any fair measure that did not involve any false or vital principle, for the extension to Ireland of those enormous benefits that this country had so largely derived from the railway system. The principle was not new; it was one that had been

  1167
  already acted upon, only rather for the purpose of meeting overhanging evils and pressing necessities, than as an instrument for drawing forth new and extended energies. He had no means of judging how far any practical result would flow from this expression of willingness on the part of the Government, but of course the matter would depend entirely upon the decision at which the Irish Railway Companies themselves arrive with regard to the course they should pursue in relation to this question. With regard to the purchase of the Irish railways by the State he trusted that in the remarks he had made he had shown that the Government had fully redeemed the pledge they had entered into to give the subject their most careful consideration, and it was with much reluctance on the part of some of them, and perhaps, therefore, with the more authority, that they had felt compelled to arrive at the conclusion that it was their duty to meet the Motion of the noble Lord with a negative, although they at the same time fully sympathized with the motives that had induced him to bring the subject forward.
  MR. O'REILLYcommented upon the absence of any authoritative body which could speak in the name of Ireland, and asked whether the Telegraph Companies initiated the movement which led to their purchase by the Government? There were sources of revenue exclusively Irish from which any possible loss arising from the present proposal could be met, and he saw no reason why the new Commission could not manage the Irish railways. He deprecated an increase of such influence as the English companies at present exercised in Ireland, involving, as it did, an unnatural diversion of traffic and in some instances a great sacrifice of public convenience by traffic being forced round. Amalgamation in limited areas was advantageous; but if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was well acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland, he would have hesitated to look forward to any great development of the Irish system, either from amalgamation or the extension of the influence of the great English companies in Ireland. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was that if the Irish Railway Companies, having amalgamated to some undefined extent, and having gained
  1168
  £50,000 by that amalgamation, applied to the State, the State should, by advancing the amount of their debts, save them £80,000 a-year, which, added to the £50,000, would amount to a total saving of £130,000. He stated that these advantages would be given to the companies on condition of their giving reciprocal advantages to the public; but he did not show how the reduction of rates was either to be defined or regulated. The scheme could not be carried out by a proportionate reduction of fares, [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!], but only by an entire recasting of the fares. There would also be this difficulty in the way—that the price paid to the different companies would be greatly diversified and inversely to the advantage the public ought to gain, for the largest loans were held by the poorer companies with short lines, on which reduction of rates would yield in the aggregate little relief to the public. The great companies, like the Great Southern and Western, the lowering of whose rates would benefit the public, would gain little by the proposed arrangement—at most a half per cent in the rate of interest they paid. The Government of France, though it supervised, certainly took no part in the management of the railways; and it was rather odd that the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) should pass from the railways of France to those of Germany without taking those of Belgium on the way. In Belgium the State managed almost all the railways, and in the Belgian Parliament, the question having been fully debated whether the State ought to manage the railways with a view to profit or with a view to the advantage of the public, the conclusion which prevailed was that the public advantage should be the great object of their management—not the production of revenue. That principle had been acted upon in Belgium, where the opinion had been largely expressed throughout the country that the State should acquire the management of all the railways. That was the system which he advocated for Ireland. With regard to accidents, he believed they were fewer in proportion under State management in Belgium than under the management of companies in this country. It had been asked—How could one Minister manage the whole of the railways? Nobody had suggested that one Minis-

  1169
  ter should manage all the railways in the United Kingdom; and as to the Irish railways in particular, why a single English company managed a more extensive system. Again, it had been urged that it was the business of the State not to trade but to govern; but in regard to a matter like providing proper means of locomotion throughout the country for the benefit of the whole people, it might well be for the advantage of the public that such functions should be discharged by the State. They all knew how great was the influence of the railway interest at this day even in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, in a memorable passage, often quoted, had stated, not that legislation in respect to Ireland should always be in conformity with Irish opinion, but that in matters affecting Ireland exclusively or mainly the opinion of Ireland ought to prevail. Well, this was a proposal which concerned Ireland alone; and it was admitted that the Irish people desired that their railways should be purchased by the State. They were practically unanimous in that desire, and they did not seek to involve England in any financial responsibility. No doubt the opinion of the majority of the Imperial Parliament ought to prevail on all Imperial questions; but it ought not to prevail on local questions, and those who sought to overrule the wishes of the Irish people on this question would incur a serious responsibility.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that having taken part in the discussion on this subject last Session, he should like to say a few words on the altered aspect of the question according to the proposals made by the Prime Minister. He thought the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were exceedingly liberal, and that if they were accepted by the people of Ireland and the Railway Companies in the spirit in which they were made, they would be productive of great good. By adopting that plan no question as to the amount of capital would enter into the discussion at all, and no great disturbance of the existing state of things would take place. But the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) complained that the Primo Minister had not shadowed forth any mode by which the railways in different parts of Ireland could be grouped together so as to be worked as a whole in the same manner
  1170
  as railways in this country had been grouped together—in particular the north-eastern group of railways had been referred to. Knowing something about the amalgamation of the lines covering a great part of the North of England, he could state that as regards their amalgamation no question of the amount of capital was stirred or required to be stirred. There was no question of capitalizing the railways and saying—this was worth so many millions, and that was worth so many more. The principle upon which the amalagamation took place was this:—One railway, say, earned 1½t, another 3, and another 5, and they united on the principle that as long as the profits stood at these amounts, each company would get exactly its 1½or 5 per cent., as the case might be; but whenever, through the economical working of the railways, the revenue increased 5 or 10 per cent, the dividends which each company had been earning was to be increased to that extent; and since the amalgamation the railways of the North of England had nearly doubled their revenue. In that case there was no question of the amount of capital—it was a simple plan for uniting them together for economical working. If the new Railway Commissioners were to be instructed to divide the railways in Ireland into perhaps three groups or more, as they thought most convenient for their working, and if they were to encourage all those railways forming each group to unite together on the principle he had explained, then if they could save £40,000 or £50,000 in their working expenses, immediately to that extent would the dividends of the shareholders be increased. In like manner, if the Government lent the money at the rate of 3½ per cent, no doubt to the poorer companies it would save 1 per cent, and to the others 1½ per cent, and in that way very great benefit would accrue to Ireland. Moreover, in that case the Government would not require to interfere in regard to the working of the railways. If, on the other hand, the principle which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Claud Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Longford advocated was to be adopted, just look at the consequences that would follow; and he was quite satisfied that while the arrangement would be beneficial to the present rail-

  1171
  way shareholders of Ireland, it would not be quite so beneficial to Ireland as the plan shadowed forth by the Prime Minister. The present capital of the Irish railways was about £27,000,000. He did not suppose that the Government would deal with the Irish railways in the same extravagant manner as they dealt with the Telegraph Companies; but he would assume that the Irish Railway Companies would get one-third more than the present capital; that would bring the £27,000,000 up to £36,000,000. The present net revenue from. those railways was about 11,050, 000 a-year, which on £27,000,000 of capital would give 3¼ per cent. But if the Government were to pay £36,000,000 for them it would only pay 2¾ per cent. Then it was contended that no good would accrue to Ireland from a change in the present system unless there was a large reduction of fares. But assuming only a very moderate reduction to take place instead of a very large reduction, a very moderate reduction would reduce their 2¾ per cent to 2 per cent. Where were they then? The Government would have paid £36,000,000, on which they were to get 2 per cent. But, said the hon. Member for Longford, "Oh! the deficiency will be made up;" or rather lie meant that there would be no deficiency. He (Mr. M'Laren) could not understand how the hon. Member arrived at that conclusion—but supposing that the statement was made in perfect good faith, that the deficiency would be made up, how would it be made up? A deficiency in revenue there must be —perhaps of 2 per cent, and an assessment would have to be laid upon all the property of Ireland in order to replace it. Were the people of Ireland prepared to do that? Was the land of Ireland to be saddled with a tax of £1,000,000 a-year for the purpose of enabling those who travelled by railways to do so at reduced rates, and of putting a bonus of one-third into the pockets of the shareholders? The shareholders of Irish railways were not necessarily Irishmen, as was well known; the shares were held to a large extent by Englishmen and Scotchmen. Well, if they were to give the man who had invested £1,000 in Irish railways, and who resided in London, a bonus of one-third on the value of his shares, what good would that do to the people of Ireland? Or
  1172
  supposing them to be all Irishmen, how would it benefit all Irishmen that individual Irishmen should receive a bonus of 33 per cent on their investment? For that was what it came to. For the reasons he had stated, he entirely sympathised with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. J. Goldsmid.) He thought the plan shadowed forth by the Government was a most liberal measure, and that it would confer greater benefit on the people of Ireland than any scheme for buying up the Irish railways to be worked by the Government.
  VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCEsaid, he should be sorry, as an Irishman, to support this Motion unless it was distinctly understood that the Irish should be fully prepared to bear the brunt of any shortcomings that might arise—and that in a manner the most satisfactory to the Government. It was hard to charge the Representatives of Ireland with having spontaneously originated this movement. The best way of ascertaining what the Railway Companies would take for their shares would be by appointing a Commission to inquire into the matter, and if their demands were extravagant he would not expect the Government to enter into the scheme. There were certain points and characteristics in the purchase of Irish railways connected with the industry and prosperity of that country that required relief. Immediate relief should be given to the manufactures of the country and the fishing interest in the reduction of transit fares. If that were done, a large quantity of fish might be transported to the English market. Conger eels and other coarse fish that could not be eaten in Ireland, would then be sent to England at a fair profit. If the directors of the various Irish railways were to adopt a liberal policy it would very soon amply repay itself.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsupported the Motion. He desired to express his disappointment at the proposal of the Primo Minister, which would, no doubt, be a boon to the companies, but would be of very little benefit to the Irish people. What they complained of was that the fares and rates were very much too high; that the accommodation was not sufficient; and that the interests of the public were entirely sacrificed to those of the shareholders. For instance,

  1173
  on the line which ran near where he lived the fares for first-class passengers for 100 miles were 18 s. 8d.; whereas on the Lancashire and Yorkshire line first-class fares for the same distance were only 12 s. 2d. Second and third class passengers, who were a class more deserving of consideration, paid in proportion. Then in Ireland, while people had to pay seven-eighths of a penny per ton per mile for carrying coals, the charge in England was only three-eighths of a penny, or less than half. Many persons were under the impression that the Irish railways were very badly managed. That was not so, as far as the present profit of the shareholders was concerned; but with a view to ulterior profit the companies would study their own interest better if they lowered their fares very considerably. Under the present system of management the interests of the public were totally set aside, and so it must be as long as the railways were in the hands of directors acting only on behalf of their shareholders, and in support of this he could not do better to express the real state of affairs than by quoting the few but very concise words of Captain Tyler, who said—
  "The object of company management is within certain limits to keep the charges at the figures which yield the highest dividends."
  and he described the result of State management and though the hon. Member would not commit himself so far as to declare himself a supporter of that system, nor was it the only alternative to the present system, yet it was very worthy of consideration. Captain Tyler in contradistinction to company management, said—
  "The object of State management would be to reduce the charges to the utmost, consistently with the avoidance of loss and the realization of a moderate margin of profit. It cannot be doubted that under State management a fair return would be obtained with charges very much reduced and a traffic enormously increased, nor that such charges would be of incalculable benefit to the country."
  The Prime Minister had said the Railway Companies had shown no inclination whatever to sell their property; but the right hon. Gentleman could not have known that last autumn the shareholders of the Great Southern and Western were consulted and 95 per cent of them assented most gladly to the proposal to accept for their interest in the
  1174
  railway the price of the shares on the last day of the previous year, plus 25 per cent. This showed as clearly as possible the disposition of the largest railway in Ireland.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that a Petition signed by 90 of the Irish Members and all the Irish Peers had been presented praying the Government to take this matter into their own hands, and it was expected that they would take the subject into consideration and give the result of their deliberations, and he was therefore amazed at the speech which had been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. If there was any one measure on which the Irish people were of one mind and on which the Irish Members would go into the lobby it was the question of Irish railways; and yet the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) protested against the boon being granted lest the people of England and Scotland should desire the same thing, and he had no doubt that the English and Scotch Members would unite to defeat the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton). The hon. Member for Rochester had asked why the Irish people did not manage their own affairs. He answered, because the hon. Member would not allow them. The Prime Minister had proposed a scheme by which the Railway Companies would be helped out of their difficulties, a proposal which would be very acceptable to the holders of railway shares, but would be no boon to the people who wished for lower fares and cheap transit for their produce. Whilst assistance to the extent of £79,000,000 had been granted to India, and guarantees had been given to Canada and New Zealand, what had been granted to Ireland? The way in which the Irish railways were treated by the Treasury was certainly not encouraging. In one case a Railway Company—the Dunmanway and Skibbereen, of which he was a director—obtained the sanction of Parliament to borrow money to the extent of two-thirds of its capital, or £53,000, and that sum they proposed to borrow from the State upon a baronial guarantee worth £150,000 a-year. But the Treasury declined to entertain the application, although it was pressed upon them several times, and although the security was ample. In the end the directors, who owned

  1175
  large and valuable estates, offered to borrow the money on their own personal security, under the provisions of the Act 1 & 2 Will.IV., but still the Treasury declined to entertain the matter. The State was ready enough to give guarantees to Indian, Canadian, and New Zealand undertakings, and why might not similar help and a similar guarantee be given in the case of Ireland? As it was, the Irish Commissioners of Works, who should surely be the parties to decide whether loans were to be made for Irish purposes, had to communicate with the Treasury in this country, and the result was that endless difficulties were thrown in the way. What was the result of the many interviews with the Government to induce them to help Irish Railway Companies, and of the agitation that had been carried on upon this subject for years? Merely this—the right hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that Railway Companies in Ireland would unite, which he knew perfectly well they would not do. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) wished the people of Ireland were at liberty to manage their own local affairs. He would endeavour for the rest of his life to obtain for them that liberty, for it seemed that nothing was to be done for Ireland by the British Parliament.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that before the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken could cut loose the moorings of Ireland from England there were others to be consulted, and England was determined that these moorings should not be cut away. England was very anxious for the interest and welfare of Ireland, and that Ireland should be governed by just laws and by every means that would conduce to her advantage; but she was not going to do for Ireland what she was not prepared to do for herself or for Scotland. Now, he, for one, was not prepared to purchase the railways of Ireland, England, or Scotland. [Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING: Allow me to say that I have not said one single word in favour of the purchase of the railways.] He asked what the hon. Gentleman's speech had been about, then. Had he been giving the House another example of Ireland by not knowing what he was talking about, or even the subject before the House? The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said that after mature deliberation the
  1176
  Government had come to the conclusion that they could not advise Parliament to sanction the purchase of the Irish railways by the State; but he should have gone a little further, and have removed all false hopes on the subject of the purchase of any of the railways of the United Kingdom by the State. He blamed those who sat on the front benches on both sides of the House for leading the people of Ireland to believe that something was to be done in the matter of the purchase of the Irish railways by the State; but whatever they would have done, it was a proposition from which the sound sense of the House would have revolted by a large majority. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had announced that he was prepared to advise that a certain amount of money should be lent to the Irish Railway Companies, at a less percentage than they could obtain it elsewhere, with which to take up their debenture stock. But had the right hon. Gentleman considered that the result of this course would in all probability be to bring forward infinite claims on behalf of other Irish enterprises for similar loans? If Ireland was anxious to prosper she should learn the secret of prosperity. Irish Railway Companies should learn how to amalgamate and how to make their lines pay, and Ireland generally should take care not to frighten away capital, as had been done in the case of the recent riots among the fishermen in Bantry Bay. The proposition to purchase the railways was outrageous and unsound, and one no Government would have a right to undertake. He trusted that the Railway Commissioners who were to be appointed under the Bill which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would be able to do something to benefit the Irish railways. He should deeply regret that a patronage as extensive as that of the railways should devolve upon any Government, who would be sure to use it for the purpose of serving political purposes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) lad complained of unfair treatment that he and some friends of his had sustained in not receiving a loan from the Commissioners of the Treasury through the Irish Board of Works for the purpose of finishing a

  1177
  railway between Skibbereen and Dunmanway. He should be unwilling that Irish Gentlemen should think there was any unfairness in the treatment of the hon. Member, and he would therefore state the facts of the case. The railway was founded by an Act of Parliament, in a plain and sensible manner, and it was to cost £80,000, to be raised in two portions; £40,000 by shares, and £40,000 pari passu by mortgaging the lands and buildings of the railway. In the original Bill a clause was inserted to the effect that the baronies through which the line passed would guarantee that the dividend for 35 years should not be less than £5 per cent. When the Bill came before the House of Lords a clause was inserted in it under which power was given to authorize the Irish Board of Works to lend such sums as might be required to complete the line, on the security of the guarantee to which he had referred. [Mr. M'CARTIIY DOWNING remarked that this provision was contained in the original Bill.] Well, that made no difference. One would suppose that the Railway Company had nothing to do under these circumstances but to set to work to raise its £40,000 of share capital, and to raise the remaining sum required by mortgage, especially considering the boundless wealth possessed, as the House had been informed by the hon. Gentleman, by those interested in it. But the promoters took a different view of it, and this was the plan they devised for making the railway. They proposed to raise £16,000 by debentures, and to borrow £53,000 from the Irish Board of Works, without raising one single sixpence of capital by means of shares. This plan being submitted to the Treasury, he found, among other objections, that though the £53,000 was to be borrowed "upon the said guaranteed portion of the share capital," there was no such guaranteed capital. There was the guaranteed dividend of not less than 5 per cent after the railway had been opened, but that did not guarantee any capital, and would not come into effect till the railway was opened; thus the railway was to be made by money borrowed on the strength of the dividend it was to earn when made. He pointed out, what nobody could doubt, that there being no guaranteed capital in the Act of Parliament, there was nothing on which this money could be borrowed, and
  1178
  therefore he had no security. It was true the directors offered their personal security, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman was a most excellent surety, but there was no power in the Act for him to lend money on personal security, and therefore he had no power to do it. Under these circumstances he was reluctantly obliged to refuse to have anything to do with lending the money, and this railway, which was in the hands of those wealthy gentlemen, remained, he was sorry to learn, unmade, because they could not make up their minds to raise £40,000 in shares.
  MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, he could not admit the validity of the objections which had been urged to the Motion. He was in favour of placing the railways in the hands of the State, as also turnpike roads in the hands of the county authorities. As a free trader he held that every facility should be given for the transit of goods and passengers. The notion of patronage was absurd, for as Chairman of two railways he could testify that appointments were made by the heads of departments, and that if the directors interfered they would have "all the fat in the fire." If the Government, after purchasing the railways, were to attempt the exercise of patronage, they would be pulled up before the country and punished for their misdeeds. This objection, was therefore, all a bugaboo. For the last 10 years successive Governments had held out hopes of purchasing Irish railways. The present Government had held out such hopes, and had concealed the feeling, only disclosed to-night, of intense hostility to such a measure. Why had they not disclosed it before? Why had they humbugged the country? His belief was that had parties been closely balanced as in former Parliaments, the same humbug would have been continued; but the present Government, thinking themselves too strong to care for the Irish vote, had thrown Ireland over. This would be the feeling in Ireland; but for his own part they had never humbugged him, for he had always said they would never buy the railways. As to State loans, with their unpractical conditions, he would not touch them with a pitchfork. It would be slavery to have anything to do with them, and as to going near the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, nothing

  1179
  would induce him to do so. A loan had been granted to a line in Carlow and Wexford at 5 per cent, but when the company applied for a reduction to 4 per cent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer peremptorily refused, and on himself repeating the application he was contemptuously refused. The Irish companies were disposed to do their best for the country, and they had constructed 2,000 miles for £27,000,000, or £13,500 a mile; while in saving, economic Scotland, the cost had been £25,000; and in England £50,000 a mile. Ireland was unfairly dealt with by the Union. The Irish laws were made by a parcel of Dublin Castle hacks, the Dublin Castle lawyers framing the laws, while the Chief Secretary, a "shave-beggar," as O'Connell called him, passed them through Parliament. There were no business representatives of Ireland in the House, and the many Acts passed for England by business men were not extended to Ireland, on the grounds that the Irish Government took care of that country, and badly they had taken care of it. If Ireland had retrograded it was on account of legislation being in the hands of Dublin Castle. He was for any system which would drag Ireland out of the present sort of legislation it received. Of course a population of 30,000,000 was more effectual than a population of 5,000,000, and if the Prime Minister were to raise the flag of equal legislation for England and Ireland he would have all Ireland at his back; but instead of that he busied himself with sentimental grievances and year after year brought Irish Members over to this country to consider measures that wore not worth talking of in comparison to a question like this. The hon. and gallant Member for Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) was mistaken in thinking that Ireland was at the present moment prosperous, she was nothing of the kind. The people were flying out of the country like red shanks, and if there should be a bad harvest for two years successively none of them would stop there. As it was, the population was not larger now than it was at the time of the Union. If England had gone through the same crucial ordeal as Ireland, its population instead of being 22,000,000 would have been only 9,000,000 at the present time. If England through bad laws had her manu-
  1180
  factures and trade destroyed and her population reduced like unto Ireland, the country would have passed through many revolutions. What he wanted for Ireland was the same business laws as prevailed in England, and so long as the Prime Minister and Parliament refrained from granting her that boon he maintained it was not disposed to do justice to Ireland. He trusted the result of this discussion would be, not that the Irish would be treated as beggars, but that they would enjoy the same laws as England. The Dublin Castle legislation ought to be abolished, and English business-like laws extended to Ireland. If this were done he did not hesitate to say that Ireland would go ahead "like a house on fire." He hoped the Prime Minister would initiate some movement to give Ireland the benefit of Parliamentary representation, which that country certainly did not now enjoy. Why, he challenged any Irish Member to say that the Irish Members had anything to do with the making of Irish laws. In 1870, for instance, the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) introduced a Bill to assimilate the coroner's law of Ireland to that of England; but although four-fifths of the Irish Members were in its favour, the English Members voted against it, and caused its rejection simply because the then Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse) opposed the measure. He hoped that henceforth another system of legislation would prevail, and all he could say was that he would not be satisfied with Ireland for the Irish, as he wished to have Ireland, England, and Scotland too for the Irish. Upon that principle he would stand or fall.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he saw no reason why the capitalists of the country should be called on to pay towards the making or support of Irish railways when the result was the nonpayment of capital or interest, and constant applications to the Government for an extension of the period within which their loans were to be repaid. If the railway referred to by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) were as prosperous a concern as he represented it to be, there ought to have been no difficulty in procuring any money that was required in the ordinary way. It had been too much the practice of late years for Irish Railway Companies to knock at the door of the Treasury. The

  1181
  hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had some reason to complain that the decision of the Government, which was announced this evening, had been so long delayed; because the speech of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) last year led to the belief that the Government intended to purchase the Irish railways. He was glad that at length some decision had been reached, though he could not say much for the result, when he considered what was the panacea for the grievances of which complaint was made. As to the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 proposed to be advanced by the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government, he did not see what inducement had been held out to Parliament to make a sacrifice in order to reduce the rates and fares for goods and passenger traffic in Ireland. This question only interested a small number of the Irish railways, as most of them were in a flourishing condition, and he did not think that any case had been made out for an advance such as that which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed. Then again as to the saving anticipated to be made by the amalgamation of Irish railways. It should be borne in mind that the right hon. Gentleman made it a condition that there should be a harmonious union among all the Railway Companies before this could take place; but if they were capable of bringing about such a union they would be in a position to carry out all his suggestions and be quite independent of any assistance from that House. Beyond this, if a reduction of £50,000 a-year were effected in the expenses by amalgamation, such a saving must of necessity be accompanied by £20,000 to £30,000 dead weight of compensation, because it must not be imagined that gentlemen would sacrifice their lucrative positions without stipulating for some compensation.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he had been greatly disappointed when the Prime Minister announced that it was not the intention of the Government to purchase the Irish railways, seeing that if ever reparation were due to Ireland it was for the mistakes made by the Government and Legislature of England in regard to the railway system of Ireland and in defiance of the recommendations of the Railway Commissioners. He had been still more deeply grieved to hear the
  1182
  Premier refer to the absorption by the great English companies of portions of the Irish lines as a desirable thing in itself. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not use the word "absorption."] He (Mr. Murphy) wished to see the closest communication between the lines of the two countries; but he failed to see in the measures shadowed out by the Premier any hope of developing branch lines, reducing mileage rates, and generally developing the railway traffic of Ireland. With respect to the amalgamation of the railways for the purposes contemplated by the Government, would it be necessary that every railway in Ireland should unite in coming to the Government, or would it be sufficient that groups of railways should associate together, so that they might expect to obtain the advantages promised by the Government? [Mr. GLADSTONE indicated his assent to the latter proposition.] He regretted that the Prime Minister, while declining to purchase the Irish railways, had not propounded any plan for the development of them.
  DR. BALLsaid, that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government hail no peculiar application to Ireland. They were equally applicable to the purchase by the State of similar property in any other country. He confessed he distrusted all such arguments. The relations of Government and governed differed in different countries, and the wisdom of the world was not centred in England. He found that in France, Germany, Belgium, and even Egypt the railways belonged to the State, and in no one of those countries were they worked at a loss. No doubt, as a rule, he thought that the Government ought not to embark in a trading concern; but there were some exceptions in which immense advantages accrued to the public by the State doing so. The Post Office Department was one of them, in which the Government had never lost by any system of management. The railways were somewhat analogous to the Post Office, inasmuch as whilst the latter was the medium of communication given to the people of one kind, the former was the medium of communication they had of another kind. He did not wish the State to embark in their purchase without experience; but in Ireland the amount -to be advanced was small and the matter

  1183
  was comprehended within a limited and defined area. What was asked was that an experiment should be tried there. The request was not made on behalf of the shareholders. He advocated the purchase by the State because he thought that the State would not be a loser in the matter, and because there would be enormous advantages gained by the accomplishment of this object. The railways would be governed with a view to the good of the community rather than the dividends of competing shareholders. In the first place, the good of the community would be vastly promoted in the shape of reduced fares and more convenient means of locomotion; secondly, there were vast and important military and other purposes, with which private individuals had no concern; and if the railways were in the hands of the State that would be a great advantage if there should ever be a trial of strength with the English Government. If it were conceded there would be no pecuniary loss, what were the objections to the purchase? Why should not the country give a guarantee against loss? What was the difference between taking a guarantee from each county under a coercive Act and taking a voluntary one from a county grand jury. Such guarantees had been given and no loss had resulted. It was not fair to compare the railways in Ireland to those in England. The multiplicity of engagements in Ireland was not by any means so great as those in England. The right hon. Gentleman evidently looked at Ireland in connection with this subject through the medium of his knowledge of the gigantic mediums of communication existing in England. He agreed with hon. Members opposite in thinking that there had been certain indications given by the Government in respect to the Irish railways which were not to be met or answered by a mere loan of money. The loan would be a direct benefit to the shareholders—many of whom were English—who were not disposed to give the slightest assistance to the proper development of their usefulness. The reason why the Government interference was now asked was because the railways in Ireland were not managed with that skill and judgment necessary for the benefit of the country. What was asked for was that which they knew would benefit the country and at the
  1184
  same time give safety and security to the Government. His own opinion was that in the course of time those railways, in the hands of the Government, would produce an increased and safe revenue. It had been asked by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) why it was that so much had been done by the Government for India and our other Dependencies, and so little in the way of pecuniary benefit for Ireland. He was unable to lay the whole blame of this upon the Government; but he recalled the proposition of Lord George Bentinek, supported by Mr. Drummond, to provide Ireland with a well-considered scheme, which would develop her resources, and which was defeated by the Irish Liberal Members. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government found that the Irish Members, though sometimes failing him in debate, never failed him in the lobby, why was he to incur the opposition of his English and Scotch supporters, who might not entertain, perhaps, such generous views as himself? The Chancellor of the Exchequer last night used a phrase which elucidated and explained this point. He spoke of the rebellion which had occurred on the Ministerial side of the House. What was rebellion? Rebellion implied the relationship of Sovereign and subject. Who were the subjects that rebelled? For once the Irish Members, who ventured to oppose by their votes the Education Bill of the Government. They were rebels—he trusted repentant rebels—and he hoped that in their repentance they would remember the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that night, and the end of the promises of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the purchase of the Irish railways.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he regretted that the Government had not acceeded to what were the unanimous wishes of the Irish people. He believed that if the State acquired control over the Irish railways it would lead to great economy of management and much benefit to the entire country. Under the present system there was waste and mismanagement, as might be shown by the fact that in the county of Cork lines which together were 72 miles in length were under the care of 32 directors, and other lines, 78 miles in length, had the benefit of being looked after by 44

  1185
  directors, four traffic managers, four secretaries, and several solicitors and engineers. He denied that in the question of railways the Irish people had shown any want of enterprise.
  MR. LAINGsaid, the question of the purchase of railways generally by the State might be at once dismissed without any serious consideration. He was convinced that a system of Government management of railways in the United Kingdom would be totally unsuited to the wishes and habits of the community; but, at the same time, he admitted that the Irish railways might be looked upon as an isolated case, entirely separate from the English railways. The area was limited; the railway system was not extensive, and required simplicity of management, coupled with as low a tariff as possible. He thought the Prime Minister in estimating that a consolidation of the railways in Ireland would save £50,000 or £60,000 a-year was quite within the mark; and as regarded the fares, he (Mr. Laing) believed that a reduction of one-half, though attended with some temporary loss, would, in five or six years, be recouped. The Irish people offered to give a guarantee that there should be no loss to the taxpayer, and if the guarantee was valid in the abstract their proposal was a reasonable one, and might be fairly entertained. The practical question was how to give effect to it. There were two ways. They might adopt the compulsory purchase of the railways by the State, and then lease them to a company to work. That solution was adverted to by the Prime Minister, and he seemed to think that if it were a financial question it might be entertained; but that there were great practical difficulties in the way. The difficulty in his (Mr. Laing's) mind was entirely a financial one. If that were removed, it would not be difficult to find companies to work these lines on lease, for terms of years and at fixed rates, to be settled by the State. The proposal of the Prime Minister was a practical one, and as a condition of such assistance the companies might be required to reduce their fares by 20 or 25 per cent, and to agree to a periodical revision. The adoption of an abstract Resolution would raise exaggerated expectations and enhance the value of the-shares, and the most convenient course would be to negative the Motion, on the understand-
  1186
  ing that if hereafter the companies would amalgamate or offer to sell on reasonable terms the question would be considered. He doubted if the question of purchasing all the railways of the kingdom by the State would be ripe for practical solution in the lifetime of the present generation.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he regretted that he could not vote for the Motion, for, though sensible of the evils of the existing system, he felt the evil of an intimation by the Government of an intended purchase, the result in the case of the telegraphs having been that the price went up so considerably previously to the completion of the purchase that it became doubtful whether a reasonable bargain could be made. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) had said that the Irish railways were treated differently from those of England; but he would not consent to any treatment of the one different from that of the other. On the contrary, knowing the difficulties that Ireland laboured under in that respect, he would consent to no difference of treatment for Ireland except in a direction favourable to Ireland. In fact, the statement of the hon. Member for Cork showed that that was the case; because the manner in which he stated he had raised money for railway purposes would not be permitted to be done in England. While English railways were not allowed to borrow more than one-third of the amount of their capital, Irish lines were allowed greater latitude, and the Standing Orders Committee, whenever practicable, relaxed the Standing Orders in view of the difficulties which those lines encountered. A proposition of this kind should emanate from Ireland, by the shareholders, or other persons interested, stating on what terms they would sell, whereupon the country could consider the matter. The railway system of Ireland was disunited; the different companies were jealous of each other, and he would advise those interested in Irish railways to follow the example of England and unite themselves under one management, when their position would be considerably improved. A healthy competition, would remedy the grievance; but as the latter was not likely to be accomplished, the next best thing was amalgamation, which would lead to a saving in management. He suggested the appointment

  1187
  of another Committee to inquire into the subject, a mode by which the House would be able satisfactorily to deal with it both in the interest of shareholders and the public generally.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, in deference to the opinion of the Prime Minister, he would withdraw his Amendment, in order that the division might be taken on the original Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 197: Majority 132.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERT,in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed, with power to take evidence, to inquire into the advisability of extending the protection of a close season to certain Wild Birds not included in the Wild Birds' Preservation Act of 1872, said, last Session a Bill was brought in to protect a similar class of birds. It was enlarged so as to include all birds, and in the end a compromise took place, to the effect that hon. Members who opposed legislation would cease to do so provided certain birds were not included. He had received a great many letters from different parts of the country on the subject. One young lady wrote to inquire why the amiable and accomplished chaffinch had been left out of the Act? Another wrote—"What sort of a protection is this when you find no room for the thrush?" And a third wrote—"If the Members of your House of Commons are fond of pleasant sights and pleasant sounds, I cannot help thinking that the song of the blackbird will always be a reproach to them." All he asked for was an inquiry, and he had the fullest confidence that his clients would make out a case for including these and other birds in the Act of last Session.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he hoped the House would grant the Committee not only on the score of humanity, but because linnets, chaffinches, and birds of that description were interesting in themselves, and afforded pleasure to many persons amongst the humbler classes.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, with power to take evidence, to inquire into the advisability of extending the protection of a close season to certain Wild Birds not included in the Wild Birds Preservation Act of 1872."—(Mr. Auberon Herbert.)
  MR. BARCLAYopposed the granting of a Select Committee, on the ground that many of the birds in whose interest the Committee was asked for did very considerable injury to the crops of farmers and market gardeners. The House devoted a large amount of time to the consideration of the subject last Session, and it would be well to wait and see what was the effect of the legislation which was then passed. He considered the present Motion altogether unnecessary.
  MR. CLARE READalso opposed the Motion. The hon. Member for Nottingham ought to be satisfied with the victory he achieved in this direction last year. He succeeded in changing a very useful Bill into a silly unworkable Act of Parliament. When the Wild Fowl Bill was introduced to the House by his hon. Friend the Member for South Essex (Mr. Johnston) it was a measure which, whether a Member was a sportsman, a naturalist, or a lover of a good dinner, could be understood and appreciated. But the Committee had introduced into the Schedule a number of birds that were quite capable of taking good care of themselves. The question was not whether blackbirds and thrushes could sing sweetly and eat snails—no one doubted that—but whether fruit could be protected from their ravages without shooting them. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Forfar-shire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that the Game Laws were a great protection to small birds, not only, as he had mentioned by the destruction of birds and animals that preyed upon them, but also in the unmolested sanctuary they enjoyed during the breeding season in the plantations and woods were game was preserved. We should soon have a close season, not only for hares and rabbits, but also for rats and mice. The House of Commons was supposed to be a place for the transaction of business, and not for the discussion of ornithological questions, and he hoped the time of hon. Gentlemen would not be wasted any further upon such a matter, for however interest-

  1189
  ing the inquiry might be to the naturalists, the result would be the extension of legislation in a direction which he considered had already gone too far.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought that much useful information with regard to the habits of birds would be obtained if this Committee were appointed. At the present moment hedge sparrows were condemned because they were sufficiently unfortunate to bear the name of sparrow, although they were as totally distinct in their habits and nature from those much-abused birds as the owls were from the pigeons, and he had heard a man, misled by the name, say that the wheatears came in the autumn to eat the ripe corn, whereas, in fact, they always came in the spring. As a practical observer of birds all his life, his conviction was that there was no bird that did not do more good than mischief. What was wanted was to prevent, the wholesale capture or destruction of these birds, for the purposes of sale, during the close season.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he hoped the House would grant the inquiry which had been asked for.
  MR. BRUCEsuggested for the interest of both parties that the Committee should be granted in order to ascertain whether the Bill of last year should be amended by enlarging the Schedule.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he thought the Act required amendment because it was founded on a wrong principle—namely, that birds should be destroyed unless it could be shown that they were harmless; whereas the true principle should be that no birds should be destroyed in the breeding season unless it could be shown that they were mischievous. This would throw the onus of proof on the destroyer.
  MR. PARKERmoved, as an Amendment, that the Committee should be granted for the purpose of considering the advisability "of amending" the Act of last Session.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "extending the protection of a close season to certain Wild Birds not included in," in order to insert the word "amending,"—(Mr. Stuart Parker,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 16: Majority 146.
  Select Committee appointed, "with power to take evidence, to inquire into the advisability of extending the protection of a close season to certain Wild Birds not included in the Wild Birds Preservation Act of 1872."
  And, on May 15, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. STURT, Colonel PARKER, Mr. ROWLAND WINN, Colonel BERESFORD, Mr. SYKES, Mr. HAMBRO, Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, Mr. H. B. SAMUELSON, Sir DAVID WEDDEREURN, Captain GREVILLE, Mr. HERON, Mr. JONES, Mr. PRICE, and Mr. AUBERON HERBERT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—RESOLUTION.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved the following resolution:—
  "That when the House after a Morning Sitting resumes its Sitting at Nine o'clock, and it appears on Notice being taken that Forty Members are not present, the House shall suspend Debates and proceedings until a quarter past Nine, and Mr. Speaker shall then count the House, and if Forty Members are not then present, the House shall stand adjourned."
  He regretted that the Rule of the House, which would not allow Opposed Business to be proceeded with after half-past 12 o'clock, precluded his bringing forward other Resolutions which he had also placed upon the Paper.
  Resolution agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM,in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relative to Building Societies, explained that it was a Bill of only 11 clauses, and was for the better regulation of these societies. The necessity for such legislation was shown by the three or four Bills for that purpose which had been introduced by those interested in such societies during the present and previous Sessions. The Government had fully recognized the necessity for such legislation, and they had, as the House would remember, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire and report upon the subject. The Royal Commissioners had fully considered the matter, and reported thereon in 1872; and the House was under great obligation to the Commissioners for the care

  1191
  bestowed upon the investigation. The Report was presented too late to enable the Government to prepare a satisfactory measure last Session, although they had been pressed to do so by those acting on behalf of the societies. Had they done so without due consideration, it would have been treating with slight respect the elaborate Report made by the Commissioners. The Government had now fully considered the subject and the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Lancashire. In 1836 an Act was passed for the management of building societies, incorporating certain Acts then in force with respect to friendly societies, under which Act all building societies were now carried on; and, although originated and conducted as friendly societies, they had outgrown the original intention and developed to enormous proportions, being now of a totally different nature. The Commissioners in their Report pointed out that, in the place of terminating societies originally existing, permanent societies now predominated, and powers to regulate them were now necessary. He did not think the growth and change in the organization of these societies were to be regretted. Building societies had been the means of great good, and the Government were desirous to encourage them. The change in the character of these societies had given rise to difficulties, especially in three points. 1. It was doubtful which friendly society Acts, in fact, applied to them. 2. As to the exercising of borrowing powers, which, after being recognized for 20 years, had been declared illegal, and again in 1869 partially recognized. Next, as to the mode of issuing fully-paid-up shares, which had been questioned by the present Lord Chancellor when at the bar. Parliament should now, therefore, deal with this subject fully and definitely. The Bill introduced by his hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) dealt compulsorily with all classes of societies but terminating societies, extending their powers and confirming their past transactions. The Government were not prepared to go so far as that, and to deal thus compulsorily with societies varying so much in detail, and of which even now little was known, for the Royal Commissioners were unable to estimate even the number of them. Again, many of the existing societies were satisfied with their present position, and did not wish to be inter-
  1192
  fered with. Their members might fairly object to finding themselves members of societies of much more extended character. The main feature of the Bill which he now laid before them was, that it was wholly permissive. Secondly, if any building society chose to register under it the effect would be simply to incorporate it without change of any kind as to its organization or the liability of its members—a most important consideration; in fact, the societies were of many different kinds. Thirdly, the Bill would give powers to societies so incorporated to extend their purposes, to acquire powers to borrow, issue paid-up shares, and to confirm any past transactions as if such powers had existed. The Government had not desired and did not intend, as had been suggested to make Joint Stock Companies of them. That would be an impossibility. The hon. Gentleman then quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission to show the essential difference between a Joint Stock Company with a fixed capital divided into shares and building societies, whose capital was constantly fluctuating. It was necessary now to find some simple law for these incorporated building societies. The law as to Joint Stock Companies was clearly inapplicable. A new and special law was contained in the 40 clauses of Mr. Cross's Bill. The Government proposed to apply such clauses of the Companies Act of 1862 as were suitable to these societies. If hon. Members would take the trouble of comparing the clauses with the 40 clauses of the Bill already before the House, they would find a singular parallel. He would point out that every clause of the Companies Act had been thoroughly discussed in the Law Courts, and the advantage thus gained over a Bill of which every clause would have to stand the test of litigation was, in his estimation, very considerable, The code proposed in the Bill of Mr. Cross must go through a like ordeal; whereas the Act of 1862 was entirely understood, and its clauses applying to building societies were thoroughly workable. It must, however, be distinctly understood that, if they gave a new status to building societies, Government responsibility must cease, and the registration be an open one. At present the Registrar certified to some extent the legality of the rules; but this must no longer exist. The registration

  1193
  must be absolutely free from Government control or responsibility. He was aware that in this matter they were at variance with the Royal Commissioners; but there must be no misunderstanding on that score. The societies must be totally free—free to do as they liked, and not subject to the control of the Government at all. Government were anxious to show their good will to these societies; and were prepared to say to them that, although it would be impossible to justify the enjoyment by these large societies of the fiscal exemptions they had enjoyed as friendly societies, yet he had the authority of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that, if this measure were accepted, every exemption which they had hitherto enjoyed should be secured to them. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: And new societies?] No. Societies to be hereafter established must not expect and would not enjoy any such exemptions; and they would have to be formed under the proposed Bill of the Government—that is, under the Companies Act. Save as to these exemptions, old and new societies would be in exactly the same position. He would ask the House to fully consider the details of this measure, and compare it with the Bill already before the House he would also ask those acting on behalf of the building societies to fully consider it; and he trusted that all parties would help to the passing of such a measure as might be found advantageous to the interests concerned. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: What day does the hon. Member fix for the second reading.] Monday week.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Building Societies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 141.]

  LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the effect of the use of Locomotive Engines on Turnpike and other Public Roads, and as to the limitations and restrictions which ought to be imposed by Law on their use upon such roads for securing the public safety and protecting the public interests."—(Mr. Cawley.)
  And, on May 6, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. FREDERICK STANLEY, Mr. BIDDULPH, Mr. WILBRAHAM EGERTON, Mr. JAMES HOWARD, Mr. HICK, Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HURST, Mr. ASSHETON, Mr. WILLIAM WELLS, Sir
  1194
  GEORGE JENKINSON, Mr. FORDYCE, Mr. GREVILLE-NUGENT, and Mr. CAWLEY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  DIVORCE BILLS.
  Select Committee on Divorce Bills nominated: —Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, The LORD ADVOCATE, Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Colonel FRENCH, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. HEADLAM, and Colonel WILSON-PATTEN.

  PRISON OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN GRAY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Superannuation of Prison Officers in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN GRAY, Mr. PIM, and Mr. ION TRANT HAMILTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 142.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Fulford Chapel Marriages Legalization* (82); Canonries* (83); Railway and Canal Traffic* (84); Land Titles and Transfer (85); Real Property Limitation* (86).
Second Reading—East India Stock Dividend Redemption (67).
Committee—Report —New Zealand. Roads, &c. Loan Act (1870) Amendment* (76).
Report—Marriages (Ireland)* (75).
Third Reading—Portpatrick Harbour* (71), and passed.

EAST INDIA STOCK DIVIDEND REDEMPTION BILL—(No. 67.)
(The Duke of Argyll.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD CAIRNSpresented a Petition of the East India Company, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that although the East India Company was now only a shadow, it continued still a heavy burden on the Government of India; and this measure had been introduced for the purpose of bringing to its ultimate conclusion the arrangement made 40 years ago—in 1833—when the commercial character of the Company was abolished. The East India Company's Charter Act of that year provided that the capital stock of the Company might be redeemed by Parliament, at the expiry of 40 years, by the payment of £200 for every £100 stock, and in the meanwhile secured to the proprietors payment of interest at the rate of £10 10 s. per annum. It also provided that 12 months' notice, in writing, signified by the Speaker of the House of Commons, by the Order of the House, should be given to the Company of the intention of Parliament to redeem the debt. The 40 years would expire next year, and already the Speaker of the House of Commons, in pursuance of that provision of the Act, had given notice that the stock would be paid off. The Bill contained the necessary enactments for the purpose. It provided that the dividends and capital stock might be presently redeemed or commuted upon terms to be arranged between the Secretary of State for India and the respective proprietors; and that such proprietors as should not assent to commute should on the 30th April, 1874, be paid off, receiving £200 for every £100 stock. As it was well known that when the time specified by the Act should have expired this would be done, he could not understand how it was that any surprise should be

1115
expressed at the introduction of the necessary Bill. The Bill was, to all intents and purposes, a matter of course—and as such it had been received and dealt with by the House of Commons. Nevertheless, during the passage of the Bill through the other House objections were raised by the agents of the East India Company, who desired some Amendments, for the better security, as they supposed, of the stockholders. Some of their proposals had been accepted by the Government, and were contained in the Bill now before their Lordships. The Bill provided that all redemption money, in respect of stock and dividends which should remain unclaimed for 10 years after the 10th of April, 1879, should be transferred to the Secretary of State in Council, and should be by him held or applied as part of the revenues of India, subject to the claims of the parties entitled thereto. The arrangement proposed by this Bill had been already discounted by the Viceroy of India, who calculated that paying off the East India Company would be a saving to the extent of £450,000 per annum to the Exchequer of our Indian Empire. There was another clause which referred to a matter of the greatest interest. As he had already said, the commercial character of the East India Company was put an end to by the Act of 1833; the power and authority of the Company—much diminished by previous enactments—was dissolved by the Act of 1858, and the Government of India transferred to the Crown. The present Bill would put an end to the last purpose of its existence, and it was difficult to perceive what object there could be in prolonging a nominal existence—it was the shadow of a shade. The 36th clause, therefore, enacted that on the 1st day of June, 1874, the powers of the East India Company should cease, and the said Company should be dissolved. If the noble and learned Lord who had presented the Petition from the East India Company (Lord Cairns), praying to be heard against this Bill, thought it desirable that it should be referred to a Select Committee, he (the Duke of Argyll) was willing to consent to that course; but he did so solely on the ground that the inquiry might elicit further information useful to their Lordships, or suggest Amendments which would facilitate the carrying out of the Bill; but he held
1116
that the Company not being a commercial company had no locus standi before a Committee, their commercial character had been put an end to 40 years ago, and this Bill merely provided legislative means by which the financial arrangements at that time enacted could be carried into effect.
Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a acordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in calling your Lordships' attention to the state of the law relating to the title of land and the transfer of land I know that I am addressing an Assembly which has a great interest in the matter, and the majority of whose Members must have a very considerable practical knowledge of the evils which any improvements of the law on this subject would be intended to remove. I therefore feel that, in travelling over the ground which to some extent I must traverse in introducing the measures which I have to propose to your Lordships, I shall be going over a route more or less familiar to all those who have given any attention to the matter—and include in that number most, if not all, of your Lordships. I may consequently feel warranted in touching some points with that comparative brevity which is allowable when one is addressing those to whom the subject in hand is not altogether strange. My Lords, most of your Lordships are owners of land, and nearly all owners of land, on some occasion or other, buy or sell land. Most of your Lordships may have had occasion both to buy and to sell, and therefore know something of the nature of the titles by which land in this country is held, and the process which has to be gone through when a transfer of land is proposed. I shall not, therefore, deem it necessary to do more than simply to point out the condition in which the law is, and what steps have been proposed from time to time to improve upon the existing system. In 1859 my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) took a leading part in respect of a measure for remedying evils affecting the present

  1117
  system of land conveyance, which he described in a manner which I cannot attempt to rival. The effort then made by him marked an epoch in the history of this question. A cumbersome, dangerous, and expensive process has to be gone into upon every occasion when there are to be dealings with land. First of all you must have a contract; and, in making a contract there are innumerable pitfalls, so that if a man have not all his wits about him, and do not very carefully guard himself against difficulties, he may make a contract which subsequently he may find himself unable to perform, and any attempt to perform which may possibly involve him in questions which may entail infinite trouble and pecuniary loss, and, perhaps, even raise questions as to his title. The next step is the abstract. This is a very formidable matter. The abstract must contain the whole title concisely as regards every dealing, while as a whole the document is anything but concise, because if the contract is to give the purchaser a perfectly good title, the abstract must go back for 60 years; and all the transactions, all the deeds, all the charges, all the mortgages, all the family settlements, and all the devolutions and descents for that period have to be deduced. Next there is the examination of all deeds, and searches have to be made in public offices to find out every charge that affects the lands. Then there are all the objections that practised legal intellects can devise. All those objections have to be answered, much time is occupied, questions of doubt and difficulty arise, litigation not unfrequently ensues; and as a final result very large costs are incurred, even if no dangers in respect of the title have been discovered during the process of objection and inquiry. I cannot compare this system to anything better than to what a surgeon does when he amputates a limb. As he has to take up every vein and tie them all one after another, so the conveyancer has to deal with all the points, difficulties, and questions which arise in the course of tracing these titles. Some persons might, perhaps, suppose that if what I have been describing in respect of land has been done once, it has been done for ever. But this is not so. It has all to be done over again whenever the owner for the time being mortgages, or sells. The difficulty, delay, danger, and expense
  1118
  which beset the owner every time he attempts to deal with his landed property are not only injurious to him, but operate as a serious obstruction to the commercial transactions in land. Long ago—though not longer ago than most of us who are not very young can remember—it struck some reformers that an improvement on this system was not only most desirable, but would be of great public advantage—that there were other kinds of property which were dealt with in a very different manner, and with a facility, simplicity, and absence of expense which, if they could possibly be applied to dealings with land, must greatly enhance its value. It struck them that, as in the sale of stocks in the public funds, shares in public companies, and shipping, there were no deductions of title, no abstracts, no objections, no requisitions, no suits for specific performance, and no long bills of costs coming after, but only a simple entry in a public Registry, it was worthy of consideration whether, while recognizing the difference between the nature of the things themselves, it might not be possible to establish approximately the same simple system in the case of dealings with land. And I think, my Lords, I may say that all who have carefully inquired into the subject have come to the conclusion that, though you cannot in every respect come to an identity of system in dealing with these different kinds of property, you can approach very nearly to such a result. The real points of difference in the things themselves are these. When you are dealing with stocks in the public funds or shares in public companies, you are dealing with abstractions—with aliquot parts which bear an arithmetical proportion to the whole thing, which is a homogeneous whole, capable of subdivision, but no particular part having a value greater or less than another; and which no one can possess in specie. It is easy to deal with abstractions such as these. You can do so by simple book-keeping. It is not quite the same thing with ships. A ship is a specific thing—it is a real thing, and so far it is more like land than stock or a share; but while one ship differs from another, and one is of different value from another, each ship is a unit in itself, all the parts of it contributing to the use and value of all the others; and though you may fix on particular parts

  1119
  into which it may be divided, all parties having an interest in the ship have it in her as a whole, and none of them have a separate interest in any particular part; and it is therefore capable of subdivision, so that you can fix upon a certain numerical quotient by which the interest can be divided among any number of owners, so that, after all, it will be found that property in shipping is not very dissimilar to that in public funds or in shares in public companies. But there is this difference in land—that each particular part of the land has its own particular qualities, and is therefore capable of specific subdivision. There is not a uniformity of value throughout the land, and each person entitled to a portion of it desires to possess that portion as a specific thing. These distinctions exist in the nature of the several things; but, allowing for these differences, there is no reason why an attempt should not be made to approach, in respect of dealings with land, that simplicity and facility which exist in respect of the transfer of stocks, shares, and ships. Before I advert to the history of the question—its political and Parliamentary history—I wish to say something with reference to public interests as distinct from those which are private. I do not agree with some theories of which I have heard and read with respect to the possession of land. The possibility of a universal or general distribution of land among the citizens of any country I regard as out of the question. In my opinion such a scheme is altogether delusive—it is a mere chimera, which could never be realized; and if it could be realized I much doubt if its results would be satisfactory. But, setting aside all such sublime and visionary notions, I think it is most true, that it is for the interest of the community to facilitate to the greatest extent dealings with land—to facilitate the acquisition of land by all who may desire to acquire it and have the means to do so, be they rich or poor, great or small. The public have a very clear interest in facilitating all kinds of dealing with all articles of value on which the wealth of the nation depends; and as land is the basis of all property, in one shape or another, there cannot be any doubt that to facilitate commerce in land is as important to the public as to facilitate commerce in any other kind of
  1120
  property. This was felt long ago, and steps were taken to work out these interesting and important problems. Without dwelling on what Mr. Stewart, Mr. Wilson, and other legal gentlemen wished to accomplish, I may refer to the effort made in 1853 by Mr. Henry Drummond and Mr. Headlam, who in that year prepared a short Bill on the subject. This was followed in 1854 by the appointment of a Royal Commission, composed of eminent men, who took three years to consider the matter, and reported in 1857. In their Report they stated that the problem to be solved was how, consistently with the preservation of existing rights, we could obtain such a system of registration as would enable the owners of land to deal with it in as easy and simple a manner, as far as title is concerned, as we could now deal with moveable chattels or stock. The Commission thought it was practicable to obtain this object, and to approximate very nearly to the simplicity that belongs to a transfer of stocks, or shares, or ships. In recommending means to carry out this object the Commissioners stated that the principle of simplicity must be kept in view, and that they must deal only with those interests which are simple in their legal character, and at the same time subjects of commercial contract. They proposed that only fee simple estates, leases, charges, and mortgages should be placed on the Register, and that none of the other complicated modifications of property which have sprung up under our real property law should be placed upon it. They proposed that when once these interests came upon the Register they should always remain on it, and should be capable of being transferred only by a simple form of transfer on the Register itself, and that those persons who had unregistered interests might save them by caveats, which would entitle them to notice before any dealing with the registered title was permitted. Your Lordships know that stock always stands in the name of some person, and in ordinary cases that person has an unlimited power to transfer the stock standing in his name and to give a good title to the person to whom it is transferred; but if the stock is held in trust by the person in whose name it stands, the beneficial owner may have a distringas, which will entitle him to 14 days' notice in case of

  1121
  an intention to transfer the stock by the person in whose name it stands. If within those 14 days the beneficial owner takes no steps to prevent the transfer, the person to whom it is transferred by the nominal owner obtains—assuming there to be no fraud—a good title in equity as well as in law. The Commissioners proposed a caveat in the case of land somewhat similar to the distringas in the case of stock. The Commissioners also considered the question whether the Register should be open only to titles which had been examined and proved to be unimpeachably good, or to all under which property was held by persons claiming to be in the position of owners of fee simple in land. They came to the conclusion that it was indispensable that it should be an open or unfettered registry, and that all persons in that position should, without any inquiry into the title, be enabled to register. Of course, in the case of titles which were not investigated, they would notwithstanding the registration be subject to all outstanding claims which other persons might be entitled to set up in point of law—they would not thereby be made indefeasible, but they would be dealt with only on the Register; and after the lapse of a certain period the registered title would become evidence of so high a character as to exclude all prior and competing claims. Those owners of land who wished to have their titles examined and placed on the Register as ascertained and guaranteed titles were to be at liberty to do so, and machinery was proposed for such examination. The Commissioners also recommended a guarantee fund, but that recommendation has not been followed in any of the Bills based on their Report. It has, however, been adopted in the Australian Colonies, though I do not know that in practice resort has often been had to the fund. All who have considered this subject with a view to legislation have to acknowledge their obligations to the Royal Commissioners of 1857 for the contribution which that Commission made towards a solution of the problem. The next step after the Report of the Commission was taken in 1859 by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), who was at that time Solicitor General. The measure which he introduced in that year may be described as one, though it was contained
  1122
  in two Bills—one for the clearance of title, and the other for registering the title so cleared. My noble and learned Friend departed in one or two points from the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. He did not propose to register any titles but those which had been investigated and found good. The mode in which he proposed to investigate titles was also different from that suggested by the Commissioners—the Royal Commissioners had in view an investigation by a Registrar; but my noble and learned Friend proposed that it should be made by some such tribunal as the Landed Estates Court which exists in Ireland. My noble and learned Friend did not propose, even when the title was investigated, to give an indefeasible title to the person who obtained the registry, but only to any person who purchased from him for valuable consideration; so that the owner effecting a registration would have no better title than before, unless he went into the market and sold the estate. The Bills of my noble and learned Friend were interrupted—and I think it is to be regretted that they were interrupted—by one of those political events by which the best measures are sometimes liable to suffer. There was a Dissolution of Parliament and a change of Ministry, and the Bills were not again brought forward. But in 1862 Lord Westbury and Lord Cranworth introduced two other Bills, both of which became law. They were intended to accomplish the same object, though in different ways. Under Lord Westbury's Act the investigation was to be by a Registrar; under Lord Cranworth's it was to be through the medium of the Court of Chancery; but the object of both Bills was the same. Lord Westbury's Bill contained a clause, intended to authorize registration without an indefeasible title; but it was fettered with conditions almost as onerous as if the title were to be guaranteed; so that, practically, by neither of these Bills was any provision made for that larger and more unfettered registration of title which the Commissioners recommended. In Lord Westbury's Bill in the case of indefeasible registry strict proof of title was required, and this part of the Bill was encumbered by conditions so stringent as to render its general adoption impracticable. Lord Westbury's general plan aimed at what, if practicable, offered

  1123
  considerable attractions; because by it not only fee simple and leaseholds, but every species of interest in the land was attempted to be made commercially marketable; but, as I have stated, the strictness of proof, rendered necessary in order to obtain an indefeasible title, was greater than under the ordinary conditions of English titles it was possible to obtain—the title required to be made out was such as the Court of Chancery could compel a purchaser to take who had bought in open market. In like manner Lord Westbury's Bill required that in every case notices should be affixed on the land, and that not only all persons who had interests in the land themselves but all persons who had interest in the adjoining properties should have notice, in order that they might come forward and be present at the settlement of the boundary of the estates. Notices of this kind may often raise dormant questions of difficulty, and may lead to litigation, and this has been felt to be a serious obstacle to the working of the measure. In short, this system, as the event has proved, is encumbered by conditions so difficult and so severe, as to take away the inducements from the owners of property to avail themselves of it. Under Lord Westbury's Bill all kinds of assurances might be registered; and there was also this peculiar feature in the plan—that when land was once on the registry it need not of necessity remain there, because power was given to any owner who had placed his land on the registry to take it off again. In 1865 there was passed for Ireland an Act which in many respects was like Lord Westbury's, but which contains some provisions founded principally on the experience which had been obtained in the Colonies. And here I should like to state to your Lordships something about what has been done in the Colonies. The Australian Colonies have adopted legislation founded on the recommendations, and perhaps in some respects on the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1857. Sir Robert Torrens may be, I think, regarded as a public benefactor to those colonies in respect of the efforts he made for the introduction of this system. The first colony to adopt the new system was South Australia in 1861; New South Wales in 1862; next came Tasmania in the same or the following year. Vic-
  1124
  toria followed in 1866, and New Zealand in 1870. The main difference between the scheme at work in those colonies and that recommended by the Royal Commissioners is this —that the Colonial Acts followed the plan proposed by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) in 1859, inasmuch as they do not admit any title to the registry without examination. An indefeasible title is guaranteed in every case, but only after an examination. Therefore, the registry is not generally accessible, but accessible only to those who are willing to go through a careful examination of their titles. There are other points on which the Colonial differ from the English Acts. They do not follow Lord Westbury's Act, but rather the Bill of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) and the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. There is one important provision in the Colonial Acts to which I should call the attention of your Lordships. It is this—that the rights of persons actually in possession of land are saved, so as not to be affected by the registry. I will not go into questions of detail. There are some things which I have thought it right to adopt in consequence of the experience of the working of the Colonial Acts, but these chiefly relate to matters too technical to be dealt with in a statement such as I am making to your Lordships. I believe, my Lords, I may say that these measures have been completely successful in the Australian Colonies, and that the results have been of a most satisfactory character. It is stated that in Melbourne and, I believe, in almost an equal degree throughout those Colonies, the success has been perfect, and that the Acts enable persons, often without the intervention of attorneys or solicitors, for only a few shillings and with wonderful despatch and facility, to transfer large estates. It has been asked why, as the Australian Colonies have adopted this system, we should not put ourselves in an equally advantageous position. But it is not to be expected that an old country like England can put herself exactly in as advantageous position in this respect as new countries like the Australian Colonies. The Australian Colonies have considerable advantages in respect to title to land which we do not possess; but I want to point out that the experience of

  1125
  the Australian Colonies does prove two things which are equally applicable here —first, the great public benefit and the great private benefit which arise from a ready transfer of land; and, secondly, that whenever such a change as has been there effected is well established here we shall want time only to get out of the groove in which our English system has placed us, and have a system of title which can be worked with facility, simplicity, and cheapness. The advantage possessed by the Australian Colonies is that they have not to struggle with the traditional difficulties and perplexities in which our titles, being of a much more ancient date, are involved. In this country a sixty years' title is a thing which almost everybody who sells land guards against being obliged to prove; and almost everybody who buys land is content to take a great deal less. This difficulty did not exist to any great extent in Australia, and, consequently, to fulfil of the requirement of proving an absolutely marketable title was, comparatively speaking, easy. These are the main causes which have contributed to the success of the system in Australia. I now come to the inquiry which has recently been made into the working of the legislation of 1862 in this country. First of all, I may state what has been the operation of the statutes passed in 1862. The Commissioners, appointed in 1867, reported in 1869. I find that in the period over which the evidence taken by them extends, from the 15th of October, 1862, when the Registrar under Lord Westbury's Act was appointed, to the 9th of January, 1869—a period of six and a half years—there were 547 applications to have estates registered, in all cases with indefeasible titles. Of these, 274 estates had actually been so registered, the aggregate value of which is stated in the evidence at £3,550,761, and other titles had been accepted ad interim, although not perfected, comprising 75 estates of the value of £885,590. Adding these figures, the registered and accepted titles were at that time 349, and the value of the land under them £4,439,351. Besides these, there were 54 other applications pending at the time that Return was made. We have not got the acreage of the entire quantity, but the acreage of what was valued at £4,068, 372 was 39,911 acres, exclusive of buildings. Subsequent
  1126
  dealings with the land are thus stated—there had been transfers and mortgages completed, 968, amounting in value to £2,362,974, and pending, 81—in all, 1,049. There were 585 separate estates on the Register, and in ten instances persons who had registered had been so much dissatisfied with the result that they removed their estates from it. The Commissioners took the evidence of experienced solicitors and others who had tried the Register, and collected other information; they also had the evidence of the Registrar, and of the officers who assisted him in the Office. Before I state the effect of that evidence, I may say that, although the quantity of land I have mentioned, and the value, is by no means unimportant, yet, looking to the number of years over which the operation of the Act has extended and the whole area and value of the landed estates in this country, the utility of the Act has fallen very far short of what every one must desire who wishes to see a really general and valuable simplification of title and facility of transfer. The evidence enables us to understand what are the real causes of the comparative want of success of that system. Some persons have supposed that the system is unpopular with the legal profession for reasons not of a public kind. The whole evidence taken by the Commission went to negative that supposition, and tended to show, I believe, on good grounds, that if the legal profession generally were once satisfied that the system was safe for their clients and convenient to be worked, they would be by no means indisposed to assist in bringing it into operation; but, of course, if they were satisfied that the tests to which titles were subjected and the operations which had to be gone through to get them authenticated were of such a kind as might possibly endanger titles—might bring forward and expose any latent defects, might lead to litigation, and cause an amount of trouble and expense without facilitating future transactions in a degree necessary to obtain the desired advantage—no one could blame them for any dislike to the system which they had shown. The main cause of failure was, that to get on the Register the title must be a strictly marketable title, such as the Court of Chancery would compel an unwilling purchaser to accept—or, in other words, a 60 years' title,

  1127
  The result is to exclude the great majority of titles if you require strict proof of that kind; and, therefore, you must relax it in some way or other, if you really intend the system to become of general utility and in general operation. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the notices as to boundaries, provoking questions between adjoining proprietors, were disliked, were the subject of fear and uneasiness on the part of some who otherwise might have registered their lands, and in some cases did actually lead to the revival of dormant claims and active litigation. Then it was also the opinion of some solicitors, and of the Registrars themselves, that the provision which required that all the several interests from time to time created should be put upon the Register was, and would more and more become, cumbersome and inconvenient, and that if a good system were to be introduced, it would be necessary to revert to the original recommendation of the Commission of 1857 and confine it to the register of simple titles—that is, fee-simple titles. In substance they advised a return to the principles of the Report of 1857. Two things, above all, they they recommended—first, that any person claiming a fee-simple or a power to dispose of the fee should be enabled to present his title for registration, and that the recency of the date should be no objection, precaution being taken against bringing in merely fictitious titles by requiring affidavits and notices or inquiries on the spot, but the title being investigated only as from the date to which the owner desired to have his title fixed; and, second, whatever might be the period of investigation, that the Registrar should be empowered to accept titles commonly known as good titles, though not technically marketable. These I may call their cardinal recommendations. They also recommended that lands once on the Register should not be permitted to be taken off, and that all transfers should be on the Register. At the-same time they recommended that the Acts of Lord Westbury passed should still remain in operation in favour of such as might wish to acquire an indefeasible or Parliamentary title. A Bill was laid on the Table of your Lordships' House in 1870 by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Hatherley) but it was not proceeded with. It did not in all points
  1128
  follow the recommendations of the Commissioners, though it did adopt several of the most important of them.
  I will now proceed to state the substance of the measures which I shall have the honour to lay on your Lordships' Table. I propose to revert to the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1857 on these main points. First of all, to permit and, as your Lordships will see hereafter, to some extent to require an unfettered registry of all existing fee-simple titles under such safeguards merely against fictitious claims as the Commissioners of 1869 recommended. Secondly, to allow them all to be registered without any certificate of title, unless the parties seeking registration desire to have certified titles; but, at the same time, it is proposed to give all persons the option if they think fit to apply for registration with certified titles. It is proposed that in all cases the registered estates should be either fee-simple estates, or leases, or charges, and that all other trusts or similar interests should be protected as it was proposed to protect them in 1859 by notices or caveats, but that they should not be entered in the Register. It is proposed that those interests once registered should in every case carry with them an absolute power of sale, no notice of trusts in the absence of fraud being a bar to the purchaser, and that they should never afterwards be withdrawn from the Register. A very important part of the provisions of this Bill consists in the option given to be registered with or without a certified title.
  And here I should like to put your Lordships in possession of the reasons which the Commissioners of 1857, or some of them, gave in favour of the main recommendation of theirReport—namely, that titles should be registered without requiring that they should be indefeasible, or submitted to any other conditions than such as may test the bona fides of the application. They say—
  "We concur in the opinion of one of the witnesses who has given evidence before us that to make a judicial or quasi-judicial examination of title an indispensable preliminary to admission on the register would greatly narrow the benefits of registration. The expense alone of the examination would exclude nearly all small properties, and the trouble and expense combined would exclude many others. Defective titles would necessarily be excluded; and we do not see why a defect in the title to land, anterior to the introduction of registration, need deprive

  1129
  that land of the benefit of an improved mode of transfer subsequently. We think that a registration founded on ostensible or possessing ownership should be permitted in the first instance; and that on such registration the antecedent title might be left to be the subject of investigation, until by lapse of time, or otherwise, that investigation should become unnecessary."
  In the meantime the titles would be as good at least as they are at present, every year would tend to bring nearer the time at which the Register alone would be sufficient to prove the title, and every transfer from the Register would be unattended with at least a considerable portion of the present expense. I propose in this Bill to retain the substance, with some extension and enlargement, of the provisions of Lord Westbury's Act, and also of the Bill of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), which give the benefit of registry with an indefeasible title to titles under judicial sales, and in certain cases to titles ascertained by judicial proceedings. Following the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1869 and the precedents of most of the Australian Colonies, I propose not to require that questions of boundaries should in all cases be settled between registered owners and joint proprietors, and also not to make the Register conclusive in any case against persons who, not having had notice of the application, and not having intervened, shall be in actual possession of the land, or of any part of the land. I propose to proceed through the Register-office and not to establish any Court. I will not trouble your Lordships with any matters of mere machinery; but I come now to a very important part of the advantages which this Bill proposes to offer by means of registration to the owners of land for the greater security and clearance of their titles. I have said that an option would be given to register with or without a certified title. If without a certified title, the owner will not be obliged to submit his title to any retrospective investigation. All that the Registrar will have to do is to ascertain that there is such a state of possession as to show that the application is bonâ fide and not fictitious. But if a registered title is sought then it may be certified either as absolute or limited. The absolute title will not exclude everything, because there are some charges on land, such as tithe rent-charges, rights
  1130
  of way, easements, and so on, to which all the plans of Registration, both here and in the Colonies, have made the registered titles subject. An absolute title will be a title good, subject to those interests which are noted on the Register, and subject to that class of charges which I have just mentioned. A limited title will certify that from a particular date the title traced backwards has been sufficiently proved to be good. Everything prior to that date in the way of adverse claim will remain as before. But with that exception the title will be absolutely secure, and in the course of time it will become secure altogether. And in the case of a title not certified, or certified as limited, power will be given at any subsequent time, when the means of satisfying every possible requisition have been acquired, to obtain an absolute certificate. I confess I see no reason at all why registration by persons who do not want to sell their land should give them no immediate benefit, or why the benefit of a certified title should be postponed until they proceed to sell. If we wish to have a good working system we must, in my opinion, give the benefit of registration to the person who registers, and not postpone it until he sells his land. The next question is this, how are we to deal with the difficulty which has been pointed out by all the witnesses before the Commissioners—namely, the difficulty which is involved in the present requirement of a 60 years' title strictly made out? I propose to deal with it in accordance with the recommendations of the Report of 1869. It was foreseen, when the Commissioners of 1857 were inquiring into this matter, that unless some considerable helps and inducements towards the clearance of titles from doubts and difficulties, from outstanding claims, were afforded under the new system, it would probably fail. There is a passage in their Report to which experience has given weight, which with your Lordships' permission I will read. The Commissioners say—
  "It has been strongly urged upon us that if the provisions of the Registry should operate upon the subsequent title only, and if the old title should be left open to investigation for the full period during which it is now liable to be affected by latent rights, the utility of the Registry would be wholly lost to the present generation.….The question hence arises, whether the principal benefit of the proposed system, which is the avoiding the necessity for

  1131
  retrospective investigation of the title, may not be secured by fair and reasonable provisions at some period earlier than the full time when all possible claims existing anterior to the Registry would, by the existing law, have expired or become barred. We have been reminded (by Mr. Dobbs) that if the Legislature should adopt such a rule, it would be only following an analogy furnished by their predecessors. A statute of Henry VII. gave to a fine levied with proclamations, after five years, a conclusive effect. The proclamations were nevertheless in practice a mere fiction, and gave no real notice to others; and the period of five years was adopted at a time when communication was difficult and intercourse confined.….It has been further urged (by Mr. Clifford Lloyd) that, if provision be made for the due publication of the registration, or the application to register, the registration ought to be allowed to attain its conclusive effect, after the lapse of some period shorter than is now required by the general Statutes of Limitation to extinguish dormant rights—in other words, that the title, if not impeached in a given time, say a short term of years, after the title is put upon the Register, and full notice of it published, might pass into an absolute and unimpeachable title, at least for the purpose of sale, and thus retrospective investigation of the title avoided, in the case of sale to a purchaser."
  The Commissioners were not all agreed in opinion as to whether those views should or should not be adopted; but, with some difference of opinion, they concluded it was best to abstain for the present from any measure of that kind, allowing at the same time registration with a guaranteed title, but not in any way shortening the investigation of title. All available evidence tends to show, not only that something less that 60 years may safely be accepted, but that much shorter titles are practically accepted, in all the transactions of mankind. Mr. Drummond and Mr. Headlam in 1853 felt that what is commonly described as a "safe holding title" might be accepted; and it will be found in the Bill which I shall submit to your Lordships that its 32nd clause directs the Registrar to accept and certify as absolute a good holding title, according to which possession has been held for not less than 20 years under a conveyance for value made not less than 20 years back by some person claiming to be entitled to dispose of the fee-simple in the land. This will do no injustice to anyone who may think he has claims to an estate, because there is no sounder principle than that of limitation in favour of possession, and against dormant and long outstanding claims. Good and not evil will result from getting rid of dor-
  1132
  mant claims. The Bill, of course, proposes to reserve the existing remedies in all cases of fraud.
  I also propose, my Lords, to go further, and to accompany this Bill with another much shorter, but hardly less important, designed to shorten the periods of limitation now allowed by law for bringing forward adverse claims to land. By the Statute passed in the 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, a period of 20 years is given to any person dispossessed, and who is under no disability, to bring an action or suit for the recovery of land or rent. A like period is given in the case of land held under any disentailing assurance not effectual to bar remainder-men, commencing from the time when the person entitled under the entail was capable of effectually barring it. A like period is given to a mortgagor seeking to redeem as against a mortgagee in possession when there has been no acknowledgment within that time of the right to redeem. A like period is given to recover any legacy or principal sum of money charged upon any land when there has been within that time no acknowledgment of the subsistence of the charge and no payment of interest. It is proposed, in all these cases to shorten the period one half—to substitute the period of 10 years for 20. The longest period allowed by the recent Indian Act of 1859, in any corresponding case, is 12 years. I should state that these periods of limitation do not apply to all as between trustee and cestui que trust, and in case of concealed fraud the time only begins to run from the discovery of the fraud. There are two other provisions in the Bill dealing with similar matters. By the Act of William IV. a reversioner becoming entitled to possession after the tenant for life preceding him has been dispossessed is allowed the full period of 20 years from the time when his own right to possession accrues to bring his action or suit, however long the previous dispossession may have lasted; and it is possible, that by a succession of several life estates, perhaps created under resettlements made after the dispossession, successive rights of action for 20 years each might go on accruing in this way during an extremely long period of time. It is proposed to give any such reversioner either 10 years from the time when the preceding tenant for life was dispossessed, or five years from the time

  1133
  when he himself became entitled to the possession—whichever of those periods may be the longest—and no more. And, if the right of any one such reversioner is barred, it is proposed that the bar should also extend to any subsequent reversioner whose title is derived from any deed, will, or instrument executed or first taking effect after the original dispossession commenced. The other provision relates to another clause in the same Act of William IV., under which if any person is under any legal disability when his right of action accrues, five years are allowed from the time when that disability ceases, or from the time of his death, whichever first happens, for an action by him or by anyone claiming under him to recover land or rent, subsequent disabilities not being regarded; and the same effect is given to absence beyond the seas as to a legal disability. It is proposed to allow in such cases three years only from the cessation of the disability, instead of five. Three years are allowed for the same purpose by the corresponding provision of the Indian Act of 1859. Absence beyond the seas is no longer to be reckoned as equivalent to a disability. Upon the construction of 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, it has been judicially held that the period of six years, limited by that Act for the recovery of arrears of interest on a mortgage or charge, does not apply if a term of years in the land has been vested and is still subsisting in a Trustee for the creditor as part of his security, although such Trustee may not have been in possession or in receipt of any interest whatever for a longer period than six years. It is proposed now to declare that the limitation of 10 years as to principal and six years as to interest shall henceforth apply in all such cases. It is proposed, in order that any persons having claims which would be barred by the shortened periods of limitation may have a full opportunity of prosecuting them before this Act comes into operation, to postpone its commencement till the 1st of January, 1876.
  I have now to explain that I propose to make registration on every occasion of a sale of land in fee-simple compulsory after the lapse of two years from the commencement of the Act. Before sale, no one will be compelled to register a title or submit it for registration, but in each case when the land is sold
  1134
  the land will be brought on the Register. I need not say why it is desirable to make the system universal. The benefits are obvious, and certainly no harm will be done, because we do not propose to compel owners to submit titles for examination. I will mention only one other point of considerable importance before I sit down. In the case of lands held in trust the Trustees only will register, and the person for whose benefit the land is held will have nothing to do in the way of proof of title except to trace that title to the Trustee.
  I will not trouble your Lordships with further details, I may say that great pains have been taken to perfect the machinery of the Bill, and I hope that what I have said will be enough to gain for the Bill your favourable consideration.
  Bill to simplify Titles and facilitate the Transfer of Land, presented by The Lord Chancellor.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he did not rise to discuss so large and complicated a subject, but he desired to point out that many of the proposals of his noble and learned Friend seemed to be taken from a Bill applicable to Ireland which he had the honour to introduce as Solicitor General in 1850–13 & 14 Vict. c. 72. That Act provided that great care should be taken with respect to maps, but a direction from the Treasury was necessary upon this point, and, as the direction was never given, the Act never came into practical operation.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he was glad that the subject of the registration of titles and the simplification of the transfer of land, after being allowed to slumber for several years, had been taken in hand by his noble and learned Friend. No doubt the measure or measures which his noble and. learned Friend had now laid on the Table would meet with the fullest consideration; and he hoped that in some form they might become law, and enable the land of this country to be dealt with with much greater facility than it had hitherto been. Of course, it would be impossible at present to express any opinion upon the details of the measure which his noble and learned Friend had explained; and he only rose for the purpose of saying that it appeared to him most essential that a proposal of this kind, abounding as it did in details,

  1135
  should be a considerable time, not merely before the House, but before the country. It would have to be examined with great care in all parts of the country by those who were in the habit of dealing with land; and though he should be glad to see reasonable progress made with it, he feared there was not much prospect of its receiving the sanction of Parliament during the present Session. At all events, he hoped that an ample period would be allowed before the Bill or Bills were read a second time, and he suggested that not less than a month should intervene before the second reading.
  LORD HATHERLEYsaid, that if his noble and learned Friend were able to carry his present proposals he would remove a great blot from the land laws of this country, which were of a most discreditable character. Throughout the civilized world there had not for a long time been any civilized nation which did not possess a general system for the registration of land. In this country we did not possess such a system, and though attempts had been made to introduce one, such attempts had not proved very successful. He trusted that his noble and learned Friend would prove more successful. On this subject two points of considerable practical difficulty had always arisen in this country, though they were not insuperable. The first was the length of time required for the perfection of title—the result of which was that, largely as proprietors of land were interested in this question, it had been extremely difficult to create in the public mind sufficient interest to carry a Bill through the Legislature. If you produced a measure which would have no considerable effect for 60 years, few persons would take a lively interest in it; and the difficulty would still be felt even if the time were limited. A second practical difficulty had always arisen with regard to the parcels, not only in tracing the title, but in attaching that title to specific portions of land. The question of a map or no map had been a long litigated question among reformers of the land laws. He did not understand clearly whether his noble and learned Friend intended to have a map of the land or a simple description.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,referring to the remarks of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Romilly), said, he had
  1136
  not, perhaps, directed his attention so much to the history of this question in Ireland as he should have done, and had, therefore, not referred to the particular Act which had been mentioned, and which appeared not to have produced the effect anticipated from it; but no doubt the present Bill was based on the same principle as that of the Bill introduced by his noble and learned Friend when Solicitor General. In answer to his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down (Lord Hatherley), he did contemplate the introduction of a map as a rule; though there would be some cases, as for instance cases of incorporeal hereditaments, to which maps would not be applicable.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed (No. 85.)
  Then—
  REAL PROPERTY LIMITATION BILL [H.L.]—A Bill for the further limitation of Actions and Suits relating to Real Property—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 86.)

  FULFORD CHAPEL MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for legalizing marriages solemnized in Fulford Chapel in the parish of Stone, Staffordshire—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of CHICHESTER; read 1a. (No. 82.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.