Sitting of 17 June 1878

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Arthur John Otway, esquire, for Rochester; Alfred Giles, esquire, for Southampton.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Parliamentary Reporting, nominated.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—Aberdeen District Tramways; Belfast Street Tramways*; Blackburn and Over Darwen Tramways*; Boston District Tramways *; Glyn Valley Tramways*; Wallasey Tramways*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Collection of Rates (Dublin) * [220]; Public Health Act Amendment (Interments) * [221].
Second Reading—Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) * [178].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Epping Forest [188].
Committee—Valuation of Property [94]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Inclosure Provisional Order (Orford) [189]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) (re-comm.) * [207]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) (re-comm.) * [208].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ABERDEEN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL (by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the other night it was brought to the notice of the House that in this and five other Tramway Bills there was a power to run by steam. He ventured at the time to call the attention of the House to that fact, and these Bills had now been put down by Order for that day. He believed there were no less than six of them which were down by Order, and in every one of them there was a provision that steam engines might be run over the tramway. Now, that was a most important question, and one which he ventured to think ought not to be decided off-hand by the House. He had no desire to lay any great blame upon the Government; but, at the same time, he thought that the Board of Trade ought to have brought in Bills of that kind, and to have stated distinctly that they were going to ask the House to confer upon tramways the power of running by steam, instead of referring the Bills to a Select Committee in the ordinary course, and leaving the Select Committee to insert in the Bills provisions to give that power. Every hon. Member knew what it was to have steam power upon the roads, and if they granted it now to one tramway, they would soon be called upon to grant it to all. He thought some very stringent precautions ought to be taken in

    1575
    regard to the application of such a power. He was not prepared to say that these Bills might not contain some stringent precautions and powers, conferred upon the Board of Trade for regulating the work of steam engines. Still, he thought it was a great innovation, and one that ought not to be passed without the matter having been regularly brought before the House and discussed. In the streets, when a steam roller was employed, there was generally a notice put up—"Look out for the steam roller," that being done on account of the danger; but what that danger would be when they came to sanction the use of steam tramways, and found that the people who worked the engines were not very careful, and when the use of steam power came to be increased year after year, as well as the pace at which the engines might be worked, he was not in a position to say. As he had just said, they all knew at the present moment what the use of engines upon the high roads amounted to. There were several places he could name, where the traffic for carriages had been absolutely and entirely stopped, on account of the danger arising from these engines being driven over the roads. Under these circumstances, he thought it was one of these questions which demanded very serious consideration. He was sorry to appear in antagonism to the promoters of the Bill; but he thought it his duty to ask the House to reject the first Bill, in order that he might test what the opinion of the House really was. He admitted that it would be hard upon the promoters to lose their Bill, and not to be able to rely upon the investigation of the Select Committee; but he thought that the interests of the public were paramount. Without making any further remarks, he would move that the Aberdeen District Tramways Bill be rejected. He was sure there was not a Gentleman present in the House who did not know and feel what it was to have steam engines running over the roads.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he had nothing specially to do with this particular Bill, the rejection of which had been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). His (Mr. Peel's) only reason for rising now was, that he had been Chairman of the Select Committee appointed to consider the whole of the subject, and they had had a very long and arduous sitting, in which they had gone into the whole question as to what should be the regulations to govern the use of steam or power other than horse power upon tramways. It had been open to the Committee to decide whether the use of steam should be permitted upon tramways, or not; but the evidence before the Committee had been so overwhelmingly in favour of steam, that they had agreed to permit it. They had not only the evidence placed before them by various witnesses, but they had referred to them the Reports of previous Committees on the subject, and the evidence in favour of steam had been really so overwhelming, that they assumed as a fact that steam ought to be permitted, although they fully recognized that it ought only to be permitted under the most stringent regulations and safeguards for the protection of the public. The hon. and gallant Baronet said that the question was one that deserved serious consideration. He (Mr. Peel) quite agreed in that view, and he thought that, considering what had passed in reference to the question, the House would see that they had arrived at the point when it ought to be definitely settled. Already three Committees had inquired into the matter. There was the Committee which sat upon the question of Locomotives on Roads in 1873. In 1877 another Committee was appointed to consider under what regulations steam should be used on tramways; and Her Majesty's Government thought proper to appoint another Committee that year, which was the Committee over which he (Mr. Peel) had had the honour of presiding, and to whose decision he had just referred. They were asked to consider almost the very same question as that referred to the Committee of last year, and they had laid down regulations which were to govern the use of steam. They had, however, done much more than that. They had entered into the whole question

    1577
    of the conditions under which this novel undertaking should be allowed. They had considered, on the one hand, the interests of the promoters, and, on the other, the interests of the public. The Committee had drawn up, in the Report that was now before the House, a series of principles on which their recommendations were based; and he must say that he had heard these principles canvassed in two ways. On the one side, it was said that they were much too stringent, and would not allow the promoters to carry on their undertaking; and, on the other hand, it was said they were much too favourable to the promoters, and that the public would be prejudiced by the introduction of steam in the crowded thoroughfares of the large towns. With the permission of the House, he would detain them for a short time while he stated briefly what these principles were. The Committee considered that the use of steam in lieu of horses was, comparatively speaking, a novel undertaking. It was true that it had been tried in some places in this country already. There were steam tramways at Wantage, at Batley, and at Swansea, and abroad steam was in use in Paris. Cassel, in Germany, was, however, the head-quarters of these tramways. The Committee obtained evidence from all these towns, and they had further evidence from General Hutchinson, one of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, together with the Reports of that gentleman, who went into the whole question most minutely. After hearing General Hutchinson, the Committee came to the conclusion that, though it was a novel undertaking, it was so far established in use that it would be unwise on their part absolutely to prohibit the use of steam. At the same time, they thought that as the question was taking hold of the public mind in this country, it would be wise to lay down conditions which should protect them against abuse. They, therefore, thought that any concession to be made to the promoters should only last for a limited period of seven years, at the end of which time it would be competent for the local authorities to take up the rails on which steam tramways were used; and, in effect, to make the tramway cease, as far as it was a steam tramway, altogether. They felt, of course, that if
    1578
    seven years' experience had been gained, the objections raised to the use of steam would either be verified or refuted. They thought, also, that, considering the nature of the concession granted to the promoters, and considering, also, that steam tramways could be worked more cheaply than horse tramways, the public ought to be benefited by having the tolls as low as possible. They, therefore, inserted a provision that the tolls should be revised after a period of five years. They thought, generally speaking, that liberty of contract should be allowed between the local authorities and the promoters. The local authorities might be not unfairly assumed to be the best judges of the interests they were elected to maintain. The Committee were of opinion, therefore, that the local authorities should be able to make what contracts they pleased with the promoters who wished to institute steam tramways in any particular district; but they also thought that the public ought to be protected against the promoters on one side and the local authorities on the other. The local authorities, for instance, might, in some cases, be disposed to levy such an amount of black mail from the promoters of the steam tramway as would materially interfere with the undertaking. On the other hand, the local authorities might be promoters themselves, or might be induced to make such a bargain with the promoters of the Tramway Company as would be prejudicial to the interests of the public The Committee, therefore, said that if there was anything in the contract which made it objectionable to the inhabitants of the place in which it was proposed to lay down steam tramways, the Board of Trade should be constituted the friend of the public, and should be able to step in and see whether the terms of the contract militated either against any particular interest, or against the interests of the place in general. He knew very well that there had been in past times a feeling in that House against tramways altogether. When horse tramways were first started, there was a strong feeling against them; but he thought the time had now passed by when horse tramways were regarded as objectionable. Under all the circumstances, he thought the House ought to be very careful as to prohibiting entirely the introduction of steam tramways. Anybody who consulted

    1579
    the Report of the Committee which sat last year, would see what great use was made of tramways in the Metropolis and in other large towns. They would be astonished at the way in which the existing horse tramways were serving the public convenience. It was stated that in London, in the year 1876, three Metropolitan Tramway Companies carried no less than 48,000,000 passengers, and in Edinburgh, he believed, the number carried in one year—out of a population of 250,000—was about 8,000,000 or 9,000,000. That applied to horse tramways alone. But the convenience of steam over horse tramways—setting aside the obvious advantages of steam—was very great. First as a question of humanity. It was stated that the working life of an omnibus horse was only 4½ years, after which it was sold, and would not fetch more than £5 or £6. The life of a horse of a tramway car was even shorter than that of an omnibus horse. It was half-a-year shorter—4 years being calculated to be, for all profitable purposes, the life of the horse used in a tramway car. If Parliament sanctioned the use of steam, they would save this immense wear and tear of horses. They would relieve Tramway Companies from being required to keep up an enormous and expensive stock, and they would give the public the benefit of the change by enabling them to go from place to place, especially in the crowded suburbs, at a much cheaper rate than they could do now. Having spoken so long upon the principles upon which the Committee based the recommendations in their Report, it was only necessary that he should add, further, that, independently of the principles they laid down, on which their suggestions were formed, they embodied a recommendation in the Report that these suggestions should be made to apply to Tramway Bills, and to Tramway Provisional Orders alike. This was a very important matter. It was important that Private Bills and Provisional Orders on this subject should be treated in the same way. Independently of this, the Committee had endeavoured to make suggestions for governing the mechanical part of the question, by laying down principles which could be put in force in the shape of bye-laws. These bye-laws would govern the ingress and
    1580
    egress of the passengers, the emission of steam, the regulation of the light of the furnace, and, above all, the pace at which the tramcars would be allowed to run. It was only fair to add, that upon the question of the maximum speed, although there was no division in the whole course of the Committee's inquiry, and they were generally unanimous, yet, upon this point, there was a feeling that they might have placed the maximum speed at which the engines were to be permitted to run at too high a figure—namely, at eight miles an hour in towns and 10 miles an hour in the country. It was possible that the House might think that the maximum speed ought to be altered; but, inasmuch as this question had been over and over again referred to a Committee, and as the present Committee had accepted the principle of allowing the use of steam, and had laid down regulations for its use as safeguards for the pubic, he earnestly hoped that the House would feel that the time had come when, in the interest of these promoting tramway schemes, and, above all, in the interests of the great body of the public, the matter ought to be definitely dealt with. He did not believe that a single Member of the Committee had any interest in the matter. They only accepted the evidence placed before them, and upon that evidence they came to the best conclusion in their power. He had now discharged his duty by laying before the House the principles by which the Committee came to their decision, and although he was anxious that the House should accept what was the result of a series of very laborious sittings on the part of the Committee, yet, so far as the Committee were concerned, he would leave the question respectfully in the hands of the House.
    ADMIRAL EGERTON,as a Member of the Committee, wished to say a few words to endorse the statement of the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel). The Committee went most carefully into all the evidence placed before them in regard to these Bills; and if there were one point upon which they made up their minds more than another, it was in regard to the question of safety. What the Committee heard upon that point was almost decisive. The difficulty of stopping a horse tramway was very much greater than when steam

    1581
    was used, and, consequently, the liability to occasion accident would be less. But there was another point which ought to be considered. Probably, the greater portion of hon. Members of that House were not in the habit of using tramways, and for himself he could not say he was particularly partial to them; but they were used by a very large portion of the public outside. It was thought by many that they were extremely inconvenient to carriage traffic; but the enormous number of persons carried by them rendered them now almost a necessity. The evidence given to the Committee was, that at present the wear and tear of horse power was very considerable, and it appeared to the Committee that if tramways were to be extended, something must be done to provide some other motive power. It seemed to him, taking all the circumstances into consideration, that the application of steam power to tramways was indispensable, and he hoped the House would pause before they took the serious step of rejecting these Bills.
    COLONEL BEAUMONT,as a Member of the first Committee, was anxious to make a few remarks. He, for one, attached the greatest importance to this legislation. He rather fancied that the objection which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in regard to the third reading of the Bill, was not an objection to the use of mechanical power alone, but that the hon. and gallant Member wished to raise an objection to the whole system of tramways under cover of an objection to the use of mechanical power. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: No, no!] He (Colonel Beaumont) hoped he was in error.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the hon. and gallant Member certainly was in error.
    COLONEL BEAUMONTwas glad to find that the hon. and gallant Baronet repudiated that idea. Still, he fancied that a good many people who objected to tramways altogether, were anxious to take that opportunity of recording their objection to the use of mechanical power as a cover to their objections to tramways altogether. The importance of the tramways generally to the poor man could not be over-estimated; and he hoped he was not out of Order in stating his belief that the question the House
    1582
    was now called upon to decide was one of the greatest possible importance to the travelling public. It was all very well for people, whose carriages were put to inconvenience, to say that there was a danger in the matter; but it must be borne in mind that for one person who rode in a carriage, thousands travelled by tramways. The question was not a new one to the House in any sense. For two Sessions it had been investigated by Committees, and he hoped the decision of the House would endorse the conclusion arrived at by these Committees. He sincerely hoped that the House would not arrive at a decision which would practically have the effect of throwing cold water upon tramway enterprize.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was one of these who very much agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend who had moved the Amendment (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). His objection was not at all to the use of steam, as a mechanical power on the high roads, but he did object to the use of mechanical power where the roads were not wide enough to accommodate the carriage traffic as well. He knew more than one instance in which tramways were laid down in very narrow streets. How they obtained the general power to do so, in the first instance, he did not know—probably, by an arrangement with the local authorities; but there were cases in which almost the whole road was occupied by the tramways; and the result was, that Parliament had dedicated to a private company the road which was intended for the use of the public. The hon. and gallant Member who had just addressed the House (Colonel Beaumont) stated that thousands travelled by the tramways where only one rode in a carriage; but there were thousands of carts and carriages and other vehicles that made use of the high roads as well. He knew many places where the number of persons who travelled by tramways were by no means so large as the number who made use of the roads in other ways. It must further be borne in mind that the roads were constructed at the public expense for the public convenience, and yet it was now proposed to dedicate them to the use of a section of the public alone. As he had already said, he did not object to the use of mechanical

    1583
    power. He had no doubt that it might be brought under proper control, and might be made to work very well; but, unless better provision were made than he thought was made by the Committee in the present Bill for insisting upon a full and ample width of roadway upon the high roads used by steam tramways, they had better have the tramways without any mechanical power at all. Mechanical power, unfortunately, was less under control than horse power. He was acquainted with places where the existing tramways without mechanical power were dangerous; but, bad as they were now, they would be worse, and still more dangerous, if the use of steam were sanctioned upon them. Whether it had been accomplished by getting round the newspapers, or the local authorities, he was unable to say; but, in many instances, tramways were laid down in roads where they ought never to have been sanctioned, as the roads themselves were not wide enough for them. In such cases carriages and carts were constantly put to great inconvenience, and although in many instances the roads were too narrow for horse tramways, the inconvenience and danger would be much greater when mechanical power was used, and the result would be that many people who now used the roads would have to abandon them altogether. He did not object to the Bill because it sanctioned the use of mechanical power; but he did object to the omission on the part of the Committee of a satisfactory provision in regard to the width of the roads. He thought no road should be given up to a tramway unless there was ample width for two or three carriages besides the tramway car. He hoped the House would pause before they read the Bill a third time, and would support the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, or refer the measure back again to a Select Committee to take some means for providing that the public, as well as the tramway companies, should have the use of the roads. Under the present Bill, he did not think they would have that use of them which they were entitled to.
    MR. ASSHETONsaid, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had laid down the doctrine that tramways worked by mechanical power would be less under
    1584
    control than those which were worked by horse power. He (Mr. Assheton) protested against that assertion. The evidence which was given before the Select Committee on tramways last year fully convinced him that tramways worked by mechanical power would be even under greater control than tramways worked by horse power. When he (Mr. Assheton) went into the Committee on Locomotives on Roads, he had certainly some misgiving as to the propriety of sanctioning the use of mechanical power on roads, on account of a fear that it might frighten the horses using the road. The same objection to the use of mechanical power was, he believed, entertained by other hon. Members. As far as he remembered the result of the investigation of the Committee as to the question of mechanical power frightening the horses, it resolved itself into this—that if they could stop the noise, or the escape of smoke or steam, they would not frighten the horses at all; but if they did not succeed in preventing noise and the escape of steam and smoke, then the use of mechanical power would frighten the horses. He understood there was not the least difficulty in preventing the escape of smoke and steam, and the regulations proposed to be laid down by the Board of Trade distinctly provided that that must be done. In all cases it was to be necessary that the tramway cars should be drawn without noise, smoke, or steam, and in that case they could be driven with safety to the animal power engaged in drawing other vehicles. Whether the House were willing to adopt the principle of permitting the use of mechanical power or not, he should oppose the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend behind him, and should vote for the third reading of the Bill.
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the Bill raised a very important question, and he did not think he would be occupying the time of the House unnecessarily if he said a few words upon it, having had personal experience of the working of these engines on a road in his immediate neighbourhood. There was an ancient tramroad, which extended for about five miles along the Bay of Swansea, and close to his own residence. It had existed as a tramroad for some 70 years, or perhaps more. It became disused for the purposes for which it was

    1585
    originally constructed, and it was afterwards converted into a horse tramroad for the conveyance of passengers from Swansea to the village of Oystermouth, five miles away. The tramroad had been worked for this purpose for about 15 years, and it had satisfied every possible requirement. It had conveyed a large number of passengers for this distance of five miles without the slightest inconvenience to anybody. He was not aware that any accident had ever occurred. Everybody was perfectly satisfied, and the accommodation afforded to the locality was complete and satisfactory. He had himself, when he had the honour of commanding a Volunteer regiment, conveyed the regiment, 600 strong, along the tramway line without the slightest difficulty. Of course, he meant in a series of cars, drawn by horses; and that, too, on a day when there was considerable traffic, because it was necessarily a holiday. A short while ago the tramway was purchased by a London Company, and they proceeded last year, about the month of August, to put upon it one of these locomotive engines. He had no sort of prejudice against the use of the engine; on the contrary, he was rather glad to see that the engine was placed upon it, as he hoped an improvement in the shape of lowering the fares would be secured, and that the public would gain an advantage. The engine worked very badly, and in the month of December improved engines of the same kind as these proposed to be used on street tramways were introduced, since which people residing in the district had had practical proof of the working of these so-called noiseless engines. The tramway was situated immediately adjoining the turnpike road. It was not on the turnpike road, and was, therefore, not so disadvantageously placed as an ordinary tramway. It ran alongside the turnpike road, which was not deprived of any of its original width. The House would, perhaps, consider that this was an exceptionally favourable state of things. The tramway did not occupy the centre of the road, as was usually the case, but passed alongside the road, and yet so much inconvenience was experienced from the passing of this engine, that many persons were afraid to drive along the road at all. The engines in use were the smokeless, noiseless, and steamless
    1586
    engines, which were to be used under this Bill; but they were neither noiseless nor steamless. He gave this as a fact within his own knowledge, and he thought that hon. Gentlemen who had sat upon this Committee had been misled by the statements of engineers; at any rate, they had not had the experience he (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had had of these engines, and he was prepared, without the slightest hesitation, to say that the engines were neither noiseless nor steamless. Smokeless they might be, because it was possible to use fuel which would not send out smoke; but noiseless or steamless they were not. On the contrary, the noise of the engines could be heard for a long distance. He had heard it himself for more than half-a-mile, and he was told by others that they had heard it for more than a mile-and-a-half. The noise made by the trains in running along the line was very considerable indeed, and he was quite certain, from the knowlege he possessed of mechanics, that they could not construct an engine and make it run at the rate of some eight miles an hour without its making considerable noise. Then, again, they could not construct a steam engine from which it would be possible to prevent steam escaping at times. It was quite clear that every steam engine must have a safety valve. It was ridiculous to suppose that they could construct a steam engine without a safety valve, and from time to time the steam must escape from the valve. Then, again, the engine would prime in consequence of the water collecting in the cylinder, and that water must be driven off by steam. He had, in fact, seen the steam constantly escaping. Horses were also frightened by the fire of the engine. At night there was the reflection of the fire on the road, and thus meeting one of these engines at night was calculated to frighten horses seriously. There was no doubt about this fact, because it occurred from day to day. Horses were constantly frightened; and, as a matter of fact, his own family had been almost driven off the road in consequence of the running of the tramway engines. He believed that engines would not have been allowed on the line, if it had not been an existing tramway; and the persons who were aggrieved contended that the Company had no right to use engines upon it, although it was an existing

    1587
    tramway. He had himself brought the matter before the County Road Board. They had commenced a prosecution, which was sub judice, and the decision expected shortly in the Court of Chancery. Various affidavits had been made in support of the injunction prayed for. The injunction was to restrain the use of locomotives upon the line; and, perhaps, the House would allow him to read the affidavit of a farmer with regard to an accident which happened to him not very long ago. John Beynon, a farmer of Oystermouth, in the county of Glamorgan, said that—
    "On Saturday, the 22nd of December, 1877, he was returning from Swansea, about 6 o'clock in the evening, and that, after passing the turnpike gate, he heard the tram-engine coming from Swansea, there being at the time two carriages in front of him, and a large omnibus immediately behind, which wanted to pass. He had to draw his horse to the left hand side of the road, nearest the tramway, in order to allow the omnibus to pass, and as the tram-engine came up, it greatly frightened the horse, which started off and came in contact with the omnibus. The vehicle was overthrown, and his wife and himself were both thrown out. His wife had her shoulder much bruised, and he himself fell upon his head, which was badly cut. He was taken home and attended by the doctor for five weeks, during which time he was unable to leave his house, and he had not recovered yet; and, indeed, he had been told by the doctor he never would get over it completely."
    There were numerous affidavits with regard to other accidents, and he need not remind the House that this was not the case of a narrow street, but of a turnpike road with open ground around it. He asked the House if they were prepared to pass incidentally, and in this manner, clauses which would introduce such a system as this into the main thoroughfares of the large towns? He did not regard this as a broad question which had already been thoroughly discussed and settled by the House. Very few hon. Members knew that the question was coming before the House that day. When he himself heard it, he had to hunt through the Papers in order to ascertain how it was to come before the House, and he discovered that it was to be brought forward, incidentally, in certain clauses, which had been introduced into a Private Bill. It was quite true that the Committee had investigated the case; but, unfortunately, they had only had one side before them, and he
    1588
    had not had time to read the evidence. The Report of the Committee was dated the 7th of June. The House rose on the 7th of June for the Holidays, and he really had not had time yet to read the evidence upon which the Report was based. Indeed, he doubted whether any hon. Member had had time to read it. He contended, therefore, that if the House sanctioned this Bill, they would be passing an Act and admitting a principle which would drive the public off the roads of the country. He was perfectly certain that the House was not aware of the danger of legislating in this incidental manner. If steam power were to be sanctioned, let the question be thoroughly discussed in the House. The Report of the Committee itself showed that the Committee were in doubt whether they had sufficient evidence before them to act upon. They said—
    "A difficulty at once presented itself to your Committee. Parliament had, in two instances, sanctioned the use of steam for the experimental use of mechanical power; but the instances were too few, and the trials of too partial a character, to allow a definite judgment to be formed."
    Nevertheless, although the Committee said the instances were too few to allow a definite judgment to be formed, the House was called upon to legislate as if the most definite judgment possible had been formed. He ventured to say that it would be unwise and precipitate legislation. If they were going to adopt a new principle, let them thoroughly consider and discuss it, and think it out. Some statements, had been made in regard to the use of steam tramways in Paris. He was in Paris last week, but he saw no engines in use. He saw hundreds of horse-cars working well, and without any strain upon the horses. He did remember once, two or three years ago, near the Gare de Lyon, seeing one of these things running; but if they had been successful in Paris, they would, long before this, have had them running in all the great thoroughfares. The lines which run up to the Exposition were worked by horse power, and he contended that they could work tramways by horse power, not only without inhumanity, but with perfect safety and economy. He had seen them working both in Paris and America; and with proper brakes,

    1589
    such as were used in those countries, the carriages could be stopped instantaneously. There was no sort of safety which could be gained by the use of locomotive power, which could not far better be gained by the use of horse power. The argument had been used that the horses were soon worked out, and rendered unfit for service. That could easily be prevented by adapting the weight of the draught to the power of the horses. In that case, the horse would be no more worn out than in drawing a carriage. There was nothing to prevent horses being used with humanity in connection with the tramway system. He would not detain the House longer, and would simply add that he did not believe the public would obtain any saving in consequence of the use of steam power. He believed that it would turn out in the end that it was just as expensive, and the public would gain no benefit. He would not have detained the House at such length if it had not been that he was anxious to give the result of his own personal experience in connection with the use of steam upon tramways.
    MR. BATES,as a Member of the Committee, supported the Bill. The Committee were intrusted by the House of Commons to take evidence, and they had formed their opinion entirely on the evidence they had taken. He must say that the evidence brought before the Committee was such that he was compelled, even against his will, to assent to the propriety of authorizing the use of steam. The only objection he took was to the speed at which engines were to travel. He did think that eight miles an hour in towns so densely populated as these of Lancashire, where these tramways were proposed to be made—such as Blackburn, Accrington, and Darwen—where factory children were coming out in large numbers at stated hours, was too great a speed, and that there ought to be some alteration in that respect.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that having been a Member of the Select Committee on Tramways, he might be allowed to say a few words. The questions remitted to the Committee to consider were—first, whether or not steam should be allowed to apply to tramways; secondly, if so, under what rules and regulations it was to be applied; and, lastly, to adapt
    1590
    those rules and regulations to certain Bills and Provisional Orders? With one exception—namely, with regard to the speed at which the tramway locomotives were to run—the Committee were perfectly unanimous in the conclusions they arrived at, and the rules and regulations which they thought ought to be laid down. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had, he thought, shown undue fear as to the application of steam to tramways—especially upon narrow roads. In every case power was given to the local authorities to say whether these engines should be run on narrow roads or not. The Committee thought that the persons locally connected with the district were the best judges of the necessity of the case. Moreover, they gave the right of appeal to the general public to the Board of Trade in the event of danger being apprehended. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had told the House that the public roads were made at the public expense, and he seemed to infer that the tramways were allowed to use the roads for nothing. He (Mr. W. Holms) thought the evidence showed, as a rule, that the local authorities called on the tramway authorities to bear an unduly large proportion of the expense of repairing the roads. The Committee had evidence from Paris, Philadelphia, Hesse-Cassel, and Glasgow, to the effect that in these cities steam power was in use, and that the cars could be pulled up in as short a space as cars drawn by horses. Then, again, it was proved that tramcars drawn by steam could easily run over gradients that would be almost unworkable by horse power. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) said that in his part of the country steam tramways had been found neither smokeless, noiseless, nor steamless. The hon. Member ought, therefore, to accept the regulations embodied in the present Bill, because they gave power to the public to appeal to the Board of Trade to have such tramways stopped if they did not comply with the regulations laid down with reference to steam, smoke, and noise. He wished, further, to point out that, instead of fixing an indefinite period for the existence of these tramways, the Committee had laid down as one of the leading principles that should not be allowed for a longer fixed

    1591
    period than seven years. At the end of seven years they might be subject to further regulations, and must necessarily come under the notice both of the local authorities and the Board of Trade. He would only add that the importance of the question could scarcely be overrated. They all deplored that their great cities and towns were so over-crowded. If they were to lessen that over-crowding, the best means of attaining the object would be by passing those Tramway Bills and Provisional Orders, the object of which was to provide means for the conveyance of large masses of the people by cheap and easy methods.
    MR. NEWDEGATEthought, in connection with tramways, that it would be found to be necessary to give the Board of Trade concurrent authority in all matters connected with the use of steam on railways. There were defects in the present regulations; but it was admitted that, so far, the use of steam had only been sanctioned as an experiment. He saw that the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham (Colonel Beaumont), who had already spoken in favour of the Bill, had placed upon the Notice Paper a Question upon the subject, namely—
    "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is empowered to grant licences for the experimental use of steam or other mechanical power on Tramways, in accordance with the paragraph 8 of the Report of the Select Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills; and, if not, whether the Government will bring in a Bill authorizing the Board of Trade to place all Tramway Companies on the same footing, whether they have or have not applied during the present Session of Parliament for the Confirmation of Provisional Orders?"
    It was evident that the hon. Member considered the use of steam sanctioned by the Select Committee as an experiment; and it was evident from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), that it was not always a successful experiment. He (Mr. Newdegate) doubted very much whether, as the evidence which the hon. Member had been good enough to read to the House had never reached the Committee, the Committee were fully aware of the dangers and inconveniences which might result from the use of steam power on tramways. What he would, therefore, suggest was this—that these Bills should be postponed,
    1592
    and that the House, before venturing further upon this experiment, should consider whether some extended powers, in connection with the use of steam on tramways, should not be given to the Board of Trade before such use was permitted; because, hereafter, they might be told, notwithstanding the seven years' limit, that if any interference was attempted they would be sacrificing the capital which had been invested. In justice to these who contemplated the use of steam power, he thought the Board of Trade ought at once to be armed with a power of interference.
    MR. O'CONORwas anxious to say a few words in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), having been a Member of the Committee to whom these Bills had been referred. It so happened that the Committee heard a great deal, during the time they were engaged in their deliberations, of the Swansea Tramway referred to by the hon. Member, as they had to deal with another tramway, upon which it was not proposed to use steam power at all; but which was intended to join the Oystermouth Tramway, and in this way the Oystermouth Tramway came before them. They found that the Oystermouth Tramway was a tramway which had used steam power without any authority at all, and was subject to no regulations. The Board of Trade, in point of fact, had no control over it, and the Company could run any engine they liked, and at any speed they pleased. It was not wonderful that, under these circumstances, the Oystermouth Tramway had become a nuisance to the neighbourhood. But if a tramway under this Bill were authorized, the Board of Trade could stop it at any time, if the rules laid down for the regulation of tramways were not carried out, or impose penalties for their own observance. It was very important, when the House came to divide upon the question, that no hon. Member should be under the impression that the experiences related to the House by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire were likely to occur under the present Bill.
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the engines used upon the Oystermouth Tramway were similar to these which were proposed to be used in the case of these Bills. They were known, he believed, as the "Hughes' Patent Engine," and

    1593
    they were said to be noiseless and steamless, and further, they limited themselves to a speed of eight miles an hour.
    MR. O'CONORsaid, the Committee had evidence from the owners of the Oystermouth Tramway that they proposed to run their trams at a rate of 15 or 20 miles an hour.
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he was a perfectly impartial witness in the case; but he wished to give his experience in opposition to that of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian). After the remarks that had been made by that hon. Member and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he felt that he ought not to sit still and not say a word. His experience had been gained in connection with a tramway which had been constructed in his own neighbourhood—namely, in the town of Wantage. It was a tramway of about 2½ or 3 miles in length, and it had given universal satisfaction. [An hon. MEMBER: Is it a steam tramway?] It was a steam tramway. They had a horse tramway originally, but found that it would not pay as a horse tramway; the wear and tear of horseflesh was very large; so they determined to ask for steam power, and they obtained it. They had now been running for more than a year, and their work was perfectly satisfactory. So far as horse tramways were concerned, he believed the most painful work they could put a horse to was drawing a tramway car. It was positive cruelty to horseflesh. It reduced the life of a horse to an average of about four years, while its value was reduced to £6 or £7. In fact, when it was done with for tramway purposes, it was only fit for the knacker's yard. Since steam had been established upon the Wantage Tramways no inconvenience had been sustained by the other traffic. He had ridden his own horses by the steam car; and, in addition, he might say that it was a neighbourhood from which valuable horses were constantly being sent to and fro from the stables in the district to the railway station. They passed these tram cars four or five times a-day, and he had never heard of any loss or any accident. In addition to that, the poor people who used the cars were able to ride in comfort and luxury. The working men upon his farms, for a fare of 2d., could have a ride of two miles. They were able to
    1594
    go backwards and forwards for that small sum, and they would save the great loss of time involved in walking. Under these circumstances, he earnestly hoped that the House would not reject the Bill; but that, by passing it, they would enable the working men of other localities to enjoy the luxury and comfort of travelling which had been enjoyed not only by himself, but by a large number of poor people in the district in which he resided.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he wished to make one or two observations upon a point which had not, as yet, been adverted to. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if steam were to be allowed on these tramways, in what respect would the tramways differ from railways, except that they would run on roads made for them by other people, whereas the railways were on roads constructed at great expense by the companies which worked them? He should like, also, to ask, whether the tramways would, or would not, be subject to the railway passenger duty? because, if they were, he should, at least, have the satisfaction of knowing that if he voted for this Bill, he should be aiding the increase of the country's Revenue; if they were not, they would be placed in a position of very unfair advantage over the railways of the country.
    MR. T. E. SMITHbelieved that tramways worked under steam power were worked much more quietly and noiselessly than these which were drawn by horses. In fact, one of these steam tramcars did not make one-half the noise which an ordinary tramcar made in the streets at the present time, or one-fourth of the noise which a steam roller made upon the Thames Embankment every day of the week. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be of great advantage to pass the present Bill. He believed that what had been already said had been quite true—that the opposition to the introduction of steam power was really an opposition to tramways generally, and the objection entertained to tramways was due in a great respect, he was afraid, to the unsatisfactory supervision which existed over the rails as they were now laid down. It was a most extraordinary thing that in London the rails were of a worse pattern than in any other town in Europe.

    1595
    On the Continent no inconvenience whatever was sustained from the rails; but in London the rails were only equalled by these in America, and were, undoubtedly, a nuisance. He was satisfied that steam cars would be much less nuisances than horse cars.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had nothing to say in regard to the general merits of these Bills for the use of steam power on tramways; but he had risen principally to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatch bull-Hugessen). He believed there was a clause in one of the Bills now before the House, by which it was proposed—
    "That notwithstanding anything contained in this Order, the promoters or any persons using any tramways &c., shall be subject and liable to the provisions of any general Act which may now, or hereafter, he obtained in this or any future Session of Parliament, or by which any tax or duty may be granted or imposed for or in respect of tramways or of passengers conveyed thereupon."
    The question asked by the right hon. Gentleman was a very important one, in so far as it related to the intentions of Parliament. If Parliament passed these Bills, and gave power for the use of steam on tramways, the question of taxation must very properly be considered hereafter. At the present moment, he apprehended the position of the House to be this—The question of the use of steam on tramways had been raised upon a certain number of Provisional Orders and Private Bills. Each of the cases had been investigated upon its merits by the same Select Committee. That Committee had decided, first of all, that certain regulations should be introduced in all cases in which steam power was to be allowed; and, secondly, it had decided to recommend that in the case of each individual Bill, it was a proper case for the application of steam. It was obvious that if they were to allow steam power to be used, it was impossible not to allow it in cases where the same state of things prevailed. Of course, each case must necessarily be examined on its merits. As to what the particular merits of that Bill might be, he had no knowledge at all, except that the Committee had recommended the House to pass it. The merits of the case did not, however, attract much attention in the discussion; but the discussion
    1596
    had rather turned upon the question whether steam power was to be used at all. If it were to be used, it must be used under regulations. Regulations had been prepared by the Committee, which had paid great attention to the subject. These regulations were inserted to prevent danger, and they went, as far as possible, to mitigate any inconvenience which was likely to arise to the public. They also laid down further restrictions, and gave power to the public and to the local authorities to appeal for further protection to the Board of Trade. If it were necessary to give further powers, he imagined they might easily be given. He apprehended there would be no difficulty in making further regulations; and, considering the care with which the subject had been investigated by the Committee, he thought it only reasonable that the House should adopt the conclusions of the Committee.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, that before the House went to a division, he should like to put a question. It was said that in regard to these who travelled by these tramways, the use of steam would probably cheapen the fares and facilitate the convenience to the public. The question he wished to put had reference, however, to the people who did not travel by them, but who were likely to be injured by them. In the 21st clause of the Bill, it was provided that securities for the protection and convenience of the public should be laid down by the Board of Trade, and the clause made reference to Schedule A, in which the securities were tabulated. The House had been told that the Committee had come to the conclusion that in principle it was desirable that the use of steam should be permitted, instead of horse power upon tramways, provided that due securities were taken for the protection of the public. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick, whether, looking at the Bill as it now stood, his opinion as Chairman of the Committee was, that the securities now embodied in the Bill were such as the Committee intended the public should have, and were sufficient for the security of the public who did not travel by tramways?
    MR. ARTHUR PEELremarked, that if he were in Order in replying to the question of the noble Lord, he would say that the Committee very carefully

    1597
    considered the mechanical appliances that were to provide safeguards for the protection of the public; and they took as their text some regulations which had already been drawn up by the Board of Trade. They examined the regulations on their merits, and had adopted some and modified others. Certain suggestions which were made to the Committee were rejected, on the ground that they were unnecessary or were deemed to be dangerous, because they would tend to confuse the driver, and to take off from him the responsibility which should properly attach to him. Then, again, other suggestions were rejected, because they were such as mechanical science had not perfected; and therefore it was considered that the present was not the time for insisting upon them. Powers were, however, given to the Board of Trade to make fresh bye-laws from time to time in regard to these mechanical appliances, if they should consider alterations or additional regulations to be necessary; and the bye-laws, so made, would apply to every Private Bill and every Provisional Order.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the point he had raised was, whether the Bill would give security to the public?
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, the securities taken were, in his opinion, sufficient.
    MR. MAC IVERwas of opinion that the Bill ought not to be passed until ample securities were provided for the protection of the public.
    MR. GRAYtrusted, that if the House did not think fit to pass the Bill, the proposal for adjourning the consideration of the question would be agreed to; because it would be a great injustice to the promoters of these six Bills, which were introduced at the beginning of the Session, to reject them after they had been affirmed by the Select Committee. He understood that these were the only Tramway Bills which contained powers for the use of steam; and he had no doubt whatever that the promoters would be ready to strike out, if it were necessary, all the provisions relating to the use of steam, rather than lose the entire measure. The Motion now proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was to reject the Bills entirely. He (Mr. Gray) thought that would be unjust and unwise.
    1598
    Tramways were very much desired by the public, and, even with the clauses relating to steam struck out, the Bills now before the House would be very useful. The sweeping proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex would, therefore, not only be a terrible injustice to the promoters, but would occasion great inconvenience to the public. All that discussion would have been avoided, if the Government had taken a bolder course in reference to the matter. Last year the Govern-introduced a Bill dealing with the question of the use of steam on tramways, and why they had not again introduced it this year he (Mr. Gray) was at a loss to know. It would have been far better for the Government to have taken up the question as proposed last year, instead of leaving it to be settled by a Select Committee upon a Private Bill.
    MR. PULESTONthought it would be hard that these Bills should be rejected merely because they contained provisions for the use of steam power. He had authority from the persons who represented the promoters of two of the Bills to say that they did not value at all the provisions for the use of steam power in proportion to the passing of the rest of their measures. He would, therefore, if in Order, move that the Bill be re-committed, with the view of allowing the matter to be reconsidered.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is already an Amendment before the House, and no other Amendment can be moved until that has been disposed of.
    MR. PULESTONasked, if he would be in Order in moving that the debate be adjourned?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak upon the Question.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA moved the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. DELAHUNTYseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
    MR. RAIKEShoped the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), who had moved the adjournment of the debate, would not persevere with that Motion. The matter had now received

    1599
    very full consideration at the hands of the House, and it was hardly to be expected that a greater amount of information would be supplied in any future debate than they had already before them. He (Mr. Raikes) had not intended to take any part in the debate, because he thought the course taken by the Select Committee had been sufficiently vindicated by the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel). Whatever his (Mr. Raikes's) opinion might be in regard to the abstract question, he could not help feeling that the matter had been carefully investigated by the Committee. He spoke himself as one who was not altogether in love with the use of locomotives or steam power on the public roads. He viewed with dissatisfaction and some distrust the course taken by the Legislature of late years in allowing engines of this sort to perambulate the public roads; but, in regard to these particular Bills, he thought the House at that time was dealing too late with the question. This discussion should have been raised at the proper time, inasmuch as the objections taken by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex and the hon. Member for Glamorganshire were second reading objections, and not objections which applied to the third reading. When the matter was brought before the House in the first instance—and he (Mr. Raikes) had called attention to these Bills as early as the 8th of February in the present year—that was the proper time for raising the question. He was bound to say that it would be very hard upon the promoters of these particular Bills, that, because the House had suddenly changed its mind, they should suffer for what was not their own fault. It appeared to him—although he did not concur in all the recommendations of the Select Committee, and although he should watch with some little interest and some little doubt the result of the experiment now proposed—it appeared to him that they would be doing an injustice to the suitors to Parliament if they were to refuse to read these Bills a third time. Under these circumstances, he trusted the hon. Member for Youghal would not persevere with his Motion; but that the House would be allowed to come to a conclusion upon the Aberdeen Bill, which might facilitate the progress of the other measures. He reminded
    1600
    the House that the Bills would still have to go to the House of Lords, and that the principle involved in them might be raised there.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that under these circumstances, so ably pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, he would ask leave of the House to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. PARNELLwished to ask a question before the House came to a division. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had pointed out to the House that last year the Government proposed a Tramway Bill which was not proceeded with, but referred to a Select Committee, which Committee had since reported. He wished to know if the Government had any intention of considering the whole question of the use of steam power on tramways, and of initiating legislation upon the subject; or, whether they proposed to leave it to individual tramway companies to include provisions of this nature in their applications to Parliament? He was desirous of pointing out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the course of the House would be very much simplified if the Government would grapple with the subject by independent legislation of their own. There would then be no necessity for continual discussions on the subject of motive power on tramways, whenever Bills of this kind came on for consideration.
    MR. DELAHUNTYdid not think that the powers now asked for by private companies of using steam power upon the public roads had been sufficiently considered, and the Bill ought not to pass the third reading until the clauses relating to steam were removed from it. The Bill would be very easily disposed of if these clauses were taken away. He gathered from the discussion which had taken place that the public were asked to give up half the road to private companies, and, in addition, to allow steam engines to run upon the roads, which would have the effect of depriving the public of the entire use of the road in any instance. He fully endorsed

    1601
    what the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had said—that by allowing steam tramways to be used upon the public road, they actually made a present of the road to the tramway company. If, then, there were to be a steam tramway upon a public road, he thought it ought to belong to the road authorities, and the Government should give power to the local authorities to establish steam tramways wherever it was considered necessary. He was in favour of having tramways and railroads in all directions, but he thought that the tramways on the public roads should be under the control of the local authorities. Under these circumstances, and being of opinion that these tramway Bills should be postponed until proper provision was made for the protection of the public, he would move that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Delahunty.)
    VISCOUNT SANDONstated, that he was not responsible for any legislation which had taken place upon the question, either last Session or in the present; but, in answer to the question which had been put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), he must say that as far as the Government were concerned they did not see at the present moment any necessity for general legislation upon the question. Of course, it would be necessary for the House to consider the matter carefully. He believed, however, that it been very carefully inquired into by the Select Committee, and the reasons they gave for affirming these Bills were so strong as to make it right not to oppose the decision to which they had arrived. That was the position which the Government assumed, and he hoped the House would be satisfied that there had been no haste in the matter. The subject had been fully investigated, not only by the Committee which sat this year, but by a Committee which sat all through last year, and which reported in favour of authorizing the use of steam on tramways.
    MR. BIGGAR,thought it would be well to adjourn the consideration of these Bills, so as to give an opportunity for striking out the steam clauses rather than sacrifice the whole measure. The Committee who investigated the subject
    1602
    had reported that it was desirable that steam tramways, under certain restrictions, should be permitted; but the House did not know whether or not these particular conditions applied to the Bill now before them. Of that they had no evidence whatever. Another question also arose—namely, to what extent the Committee which sat upon these Bills were informed of the real facts of the case? He was one who thought that the evidence adduced by the promoters of the Bills was not likely to be thoroughly impartial. The promoters, no doubt, made out the best case they could, and any evidence they tendered would be that of parties who were settled with outside before the matter came on for decision. For these reasons, he thought it desirable that a general Act should be brought in by the Government, which should apply to the whole question, and upon which there might be a full opportunity for discussion. He thought the best course would be to adjourn the debate.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 119: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 173.)
    On Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time?"
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he understood that the House had now divided in favour of the third reading of the Bill. It appeared to him that, on the part of a large number of hon. Members, there was a very serious doubt as to whether the steam clauses imported into the Bill, and which involved a most important principle, had been sufficiently considered. It was thought right to bring under the notice of the Government the propriety of giving further powers to the Board of Trade for the regulation of tramways. He was strongly of opinion that the question of authorizing the use of steam on tramways ought to be further considered. He would, therefore, move that the Bill be re-committed, with a view to the further consideration of the clauses which gave the power of working these tramways by steam.
    MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the hon. Member that, after the vote

    1603
    of the House upon the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, no other Amendment can be moved. The Question I have now to put is, that the Bill be now read the third time.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.
  ENDOWED SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS— EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RATHBONEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, having regard to the 12th section of "The Endowed Schools Act, 1869," which directs that
    "in framing schemes under this Act provision shall be made so far as conveniently may be for extending to girls the benefits of endowments,"
    he can inform the House how far the Commissioners have been able to give effect to that direction; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a tabulated statement of the Schemes in which such provision has been made?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Endowed Schools Commissioners have not lost sight of the section referred to, nor of the intention of Parliament in passing it. They have, however, found the same practical difficulty in giving full effect to it experienced by their Predecessors, and alluded to in their Report of December, 1876. The results, though falling short of what could be wished, are not in themselves inconsiderable, but could hardly be stated within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. A tabular statement, such as is asked for, could only be given after considerable trouble and research; but if the hon. Gentleman will confer with me, I shall be glad to go as far as I can in giving him all necessary information.

    POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. JOHN DALY.—QUESTION.
    MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Daly, late travelling clerk in the Irish Post Office Service, who was compulsorily retired subsequent to an accident to a train in
    1604
    which he was travelling; whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by the medical doctor to the Post Office, Dr. Toler, on the occasion of a suit for compensation instituted by Mr. Daly against the Railway Company to the effect that he was suffering from "mental derangement," which was completely disproved on the trial, and disbelieved by the jury; whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by the same gentleman, in the cases of Crowford, Darby, and Hilliard, who at various times took proceedings for compensation for injury by Railway accidents, and which referred their sufferings to totally different causes from these testified by the qualified medical witnesses who had attended them; and, whether he will cause independent inquiry to be made in the case of Daly, with a view to remedying any injustice which it may appear has been done him?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, my attention has been called to the case of John Daly, a sorter in the Irish Post Office Service; but I may say, without going into the details of the result of the inquiry that has been held, that Daly's conduct and the letters he has addressed to headquarters tend strongly to confirm the view that has been taken by Dr. Toler, and I have no reason to believe that injustice has been done, or that any advantage would be gained by further investigation. With regard to the other cases in which Crawford, Darby, and Hilliard have from time to time taken or threatened proceedings against railway companies for alleged injuries, my attention has also been called to them, and I see no reason to doubt that the opinion expressed by Dr. Toler was correct.
    MR. GRAY,in consequence of the answer he had received, gave Notice of his intention to call attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

    LAW AND JUSTICE—ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS.—QUESTION.
    MR. WILLIAMS WYNNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the fact that certain Assizes have been already fixed by the Judges for the week during which the Quarter Sessions are by Act of Parliament directed to be held

    1605
    which will prevent these Sessions being held upon their accustomed days in that week, and to the inconvenience that will thus be caused to the magistrates, counsel, and jurors; and, if he will be prepared, by a short Act of Parliament, to extend the operation of the Act 4 and 5 Will. 4, c. 47, to the Midsummer Sessions?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he was aware that it had happened in more cases than one that certain Assizes had been fixed by the Judges for the week in which the Quarter Sessions were held under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and this, no doubt, led to some inconvenience. A Committee of Judges, together with the Lord Chancellor and himself, had been considering the subject, with a view to make arrangements for the future, by which the inconvenience which had thus been occasioned would be avoided; and it was not worth while, therefore, to bring in a Bill that Session.

    INDIA—THE JOWAKI AFREEDIS EXPEDITION.—QUESTION.
    MR. HERSCHELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Despatches relating to the military proceedings against the Jowaki Afreedis have been forwarded by the Governor General to this Country; and, if not, whether he can explain the cause of the delay?
    MR. E. STANHOPE,in reply, said, that the despatches referring to the subject had been received.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—THE MILITIA—FINES FOR DRUNKENNESS.

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, What decision has been come to with regard to the disposal of the amount annually derived from fines for drunkenness in Militia regiments, which it was stated last Session would be referred to a Departmental Committee, and whether that Committee will shortly make their report?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that the Departmental Committee to whom the question had been referred had made their Report, and that their recommendations on the subject had been forwarded to the Treasury, with
    1606
    whose approval he hoped they would meet.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—QUESTION.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he can name the day on which he will move the Education Votes in Committee of Supply?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, he was afraid he could not name the exact day, but would endeavour to inform the hon. Gentleman as early as possible when these Votes would be brought on.

    PHYSICAL COMPETITION FOR THE ARMY.—QUESTION.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he intends to lay upon the Table the Report of the Joint Committee of the War Office of the Civil Service Commissioners appointed to consider the question, whether the present literary examinations for the Army should be supplemented by physical competition?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, he had no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Report referred to. In doing so, however, it must be understood that it was without prejudice to any action that might, or might not, be taken upon it.

  TRAMWAYS—MECHANICAL POWER.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL BEAUMONTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is empowered to grant licences for the experimental use of steam or other mechanical power on Tramways, in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Report of the Select Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills; and, if not, whether the Government will bring in a Bill authorizing the Board of Trade to place all Tramway Companies on the same footing, whether they have or have not applied during the present Session of Parliament for Confirmation of Provisional Orders?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I have no power to grant licences for the experimental use of steam or other mechanical

    1607
    power on tramways; and after what has passed on the subject in the House today, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that, supposing we considered general legislation desirable, it would be almost impossible for me to pass a Bill at this period of the Session.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—YEO- MANRY SERGEANT MAJORS.

    QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEasked the Secretary of State for War, What scale of pensions or compensation will be given to these Sergeant Majors in regiments of Yeomanry Cavalry who have acted as Adjutants, Quartermasters, and Paymasters, and who must shortly be superseded by officers on full pay from the Army?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that no scale of pensions was laid down for the rank and file; but, inasmuch as it had been brought to his knowledge that some of these non-commissioned officers had been performing duties which ought to be discharged by officers of a higher rank, they would be superseded, and it was his intention to apply for special allowances for them. Otherwise they would receive only 3s. 3d. a-day.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSION—NORTH SUNDERLAND HARBOUR.

    QUESTION.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Vice President of the Council as representing the Charity Commissioners, Whether any application has been made by the trustees of the Crewe Estate to sanction the appropriation of surplus funds of that trust for the improvement of the "North Sunderland Harbour;" and, if so, what reply has been given, and, if favourable, what amount is authorized to be spent on the improvement?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, that there had been some correspondence, but it was not yet concluded, between the Charity Commissioners and the trustees of the Charity to which he believed the Question had reference. The Charity Commissioners had informed the trustees that they were prepared to advise the appropriation of the surplus funds in question for the improvement of
    1608
    North Sunderland Harbour, as soon as they had been furnished by the trustees with professional opinion upon the expenditure involved, the means of meeting it, and the benefits which were likely to be derived from their application in that way.

  NAVY—RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCKYARDS—THE CLERKS.

    QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the re-organization of the clerical staff of the dockyards is likely to be proceeded with; and, whether, pending such re-organisation, the Admiralty will follow the precedent established by them in the case of the Admiralty clerks who in February last received an increase of pay as a preliminary to their re-organization?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the reorganization of the clerical staff of the Dockyards will be proceeded with as soon as the re-organization of the clerical staff in London is completed. The increase of salary given to the clerks in the Departments in London was given on special grounds, and not as a preliminary to the re-organization of the departments. I cannot hold out any prospect of a preliminary increase of the salaries of the clerks employed in the Dockyards, as the circumstances of the case are wholly dissimilar from that of the clerks of the Admiralty.

    LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRE- LAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
    MR. J. P. CORRYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he can name the day on which he will proceed with the Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): In the present state of the Public Business, Sir, I cannot name a day for proceeding with the Bill in question; but I shall take the earliest opportunity that may be afforded me of doing so.

    MERCHANT SEAMEN BILL—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.—QUESTIONS.
    CAPTAIN PIMasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he would state why the Petition of the British Seamen's Society referred to the Select Committee

    1609
    on the Merchant Shipping Bill by this House has not been printed with the Minutes of Evidence taken before that Committee, and why the evidence of one seaman only representing the interests of that class has been taken before that Committee?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I was not a Member of the Select Committee on the Merchant Seamen Bill, and the arrangements respecting the evidence, I believe, were made by the Chairman of the Committee, my noble Friend the former President of the Board of Trade, and in conjunction with the Members of the Committee. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give him the information he desires.
    MR. GOURLEYasked, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed this Session with the Amended Merchant Seamen Bill?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I have read carefully the volume of evidence taken by the Select Committee on the Merchant Seamen Bill, of which I was not a Member, and which was just concluding taking evidence when I became responsible for the Board of Trade. The evidence is of a very important character, both in its bearing upon the Bill, and also as raising very large questions connected with the Mercantile Marine Service; and it was, I find, only circulated on Saturday. It is obvious that, before we proceed further to legislate on the subject, these who are connected with the Mercantile Marine, both in Parliament and in the country, should have an opportunity of fully considering not only the Bill as it has left the Committee, but also the important evidence. And, as regards myself, I must frankly say that I am not prepared either to reject or to adopt many of the important suggestions made in it, without having had ample time to confer with others of large knowledge and experience respecting these matters, and to form my own independent judgment on the questions at issue. For these reasons alone, I think the House will agree with me that it is desirable to postpone the Bill to another Session. But, be this as it may, the Public Business on which Parliament is already engaged, and the short time left for the transaction of it, would make it impossible for me to hope to pass a measure of this importance at this late period of the Session.

    ARMY—THE TYRONE FUSILIERS— RATIONS.—QUESTION.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an officer of the Royal Tyrone Fusiliers in barracks at Omagh, who is also a grazier and dealer in live stock, having failed to sell in open market as fit for food a huge old sow no longer suitable for breeding purposes, succeeded in disposing of it to the meat contractor of his regiment; whether the meat contractor was permitted to supply the flesh of the animal as pork to the men of the Tyrone Fusiliers at the full contract price for good meat; whether some of the men did refuse to receive this pork at all, and whether the remainder did not throw it away as unfit for human use; whether it is not the case that the same officer has been already subject of complaint for his action towards the sergeants of the staff of the regiment in requiring them to supply themselves with meat from butchers designated by him; whether the officer in question is not a near relative of the colonel commanding the regiment; and, whether Government will institute a full inquiry into all the circumstances?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Member was amusingly put; but, nevertheless, it conveyed a somewhat serious imputation. The hon. Member had asked him a Question in reference to the matter at two hours' Notice on the last morning before the Whitsuntide Recess. He (Colonel Stanley) telegraphed to Ireland, and though the answer was not received before the hon. Member put his Question, it was received before the House adjourned, and the substance of it was immediately communicated to him. The allegation was distinctly denied. It was stated that there was no complaint whatever, and no appearance of discontent. Before the House adjourned, he asked the hon. Member to give his authority for the statement he had made, in order that he might follow the matter up. The hon. Gentleman had not, however, thought fit to comply with that request up to the present time. After waiting some days, he desired a letter to the same effect to be addressed to him, but to that letter he had received no reply. He would have no objection to institute inquiry into the

    1611
    case, when there was primâ facie evidence sufficient to justify him in doing so; but until then, he would not, of course, take any notice of the matter.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that to put himself in Order he would conclude by moving the adjournment of the House The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had, in his résumé of the conversation which had occurred between them, forgotten to mention one essential point—that he had told him that among his informants were soldiers of the Militia regiment in question. He had since, he might add, made further inquiries, and had received more letters, not only from soldiers, but from inhabitants of the town, and he should be happy to place these in the hands of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he would satisfy him that the persons who had thus written to him as a Member of Parliament would not suffer—["Oh, oh!"]—from any disciplinary measure in consequence. This was not a mere condition of his own. The persons who had written to him requested their names should be kept secret; but they asked for an investigation, and they stated that, if the Government chose, they could find plenty of evidence on the spot.
    MR. MACARTNEYhoped the House would allow him to state what were the real facts of the case.
    MR. SPEAKER: I beg to remind the hon. Member that he is not in Order, as there is no Motion before the House. The hon. Member for Dungarvan has not concluded with any Motion.
    MR. MACARTNEY: The hon. Member for Dungarvan said he would conclude with a Motion; but he did not do so.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. MACARTNEYagain rose. He said, he would not have intruded on the House with this question, but he had received a letter from his son, who was the officer of the regiment who examined the rations on the day in question.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is proceeding to the discussion of a Question; but there is no Question before the House.
    MR. MACARTNEYunderstood that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had moved the adjournment of the House. If he was not in Order, he would sit down; if he was, he would go on.
    MR. SPEAKERrepeated that there was no Question before the House.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, in that case, he would beg to second the Motion. He had received a letter from his son, in which he stated that the contractor was entitled to issue pork rations twice a-week, but that the men were not compelled to take them, and could obtain beef rations instead. On the day in question four pork rations were refused, and beef rations were issued in their place. One man refused the ration of beef because it was too bony, and another ration was given to him, about which he made no complaint whatever. He believed this was the origin of the complaint brought forward by the hon. Member.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND)—THE ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
    MAJOR NOLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Queen's College Estimates will be proposed?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am not able at this moment to name a day for taking the Queen's College Estimates. I think it will be convenient that the Bill relating to Intermediate Education in Ireland should be introduced in the other House first; and that, I hope, may be done soon—possibly, in the present week. After that proceeding, I shall probably be in a position to state when the Estimates in question can be taken.

  TURKEY—THE MURDER OF MR. OGLE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the result of Mr. Consul General Fawcett's inquiry into the murder of the late Mr. Charles Ogle in Thessaly; and, whether the Government intend to institute a fresh inquiry?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, it would be more convenient

    1613
    that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should answer the Question.
    MR. BOURKEobserved, that the hon. Member had added to the Question since he gave Notice of it.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he could explain his reason for doing so. He had put a series of Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer late on Friday night, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman himself was to give him an answer that day. He thought there were to be no more technical objections on the part of the Foreign Office.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he wished to state that there was no desire on the part of the Foreign Office to delay the production of these Papers; but, on the contrary, they were extremely anxious that they should be produced, and he could not understand why the hon. Member should be under the impression that there was a desire on the part of the Foreign Office to keep them back. When the House saw the Papers, they would be of opinion that no unnecessary delay had arisen in producing them. The fact was that the Papers were only received about three weeks ago. They extended over 62 pages of the Parliamentary Blue Book, and many of the documents being in the Turkish and Greek languages, there had been some little difficulty experienced in getting them translated. When Papers left the Foreign Office, that Department was not responsible for any delay that occurred, but the printers. Delays had taken place in consequence of the unfortunate printers taking a holiday for a day or two at Whitsuntide, and from its being necessary to have a sketch made to accompany the Papers. He was happy to say that 25 copies were at that time in the Vote Office, containing all the information that it was possible to give with regard to this lamentable affair. The result of the inquiry was contained in the long Report which Mr. Consul General Fawcett had sent home, and it would be more satisfactory that hon. Members should themselves refer to it. As the hon. Member had not seen the Report, it was rather premature in him to ask whether the Government intended to institute a fresh inquiry.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONgave Notice that he would take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject, and moving a Resolution.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ENGLAND AND RUSSIA.—QUESTIONS.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I wish to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is now able to confirm, or to deny, the authenticity of the document which appeared in ''The Globe" newspaper last week, purporting to be the copy of a preliminary arrangement come to between England and Russia with reference to the modification of the Treaty of San Stefano; and I beg further to ask him, whether, in the event of that document being authentic, he expects to be able shortly—or, at all events, before the conclusion of the Congress—to lay Papers upon the Table of the House, or to make any statement explanatory of that paragraph which referred to the special duty which would henceforth rest upon England of protecting the Ottoman Empire in Asia from the danger of the extension of Russian conquests in that direction?
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question of the noble Lord, I may, perhaps, ask him another Question, of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether any other agreement has been signed between England and any other Power, or between Russia and any other Power, relating to the Conference; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of such agreements?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I hope the House will not believe that it is from any indisposition to give a frank and plain answer, that I am compelled to give one of a restricted nature. The Paper, to which reference has been made, has evidently been obtained by some person who has had access to confidential communications; and, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, is not only unauthorized, but surreptitious, and, as a statement of their policy, it is incomplete, and, therefore, inaccurate. With reference to the Question of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), I can only say that, at the earliest proper moment, the Government will be prepared to give the fullest information to Parliament; but they must, in the meantime, appeal to Parliament to support them in not answering particular Questions on the subject unnecessarily.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
    In answer to Mr. CHAPLIN,
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that on Tuesday he would be able to fix the day for the discussion of the Cattle Plague Bill, and that on Thursday further Estimates would be taken in connection with the Army.
    MR. W. HOLMS: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private Notice—Whether, looking to the importance of the Motion of which I have given Notice for to-morrow night, and which asks for the appointment of a Select Committee in regard to the Established Church in Scotland, whether he will allow the discussion on that subject to be taken at the early Sitting tomorrow? It may be in the recollection of the right hon. Baronet that I gave way, and did not bring forward my Resolution on a previous occasion, in order to allow the debate to proceed on the moving of the Indian troops to Malta. I balloted for another day, and, having got the first place for to-morrow night, I think I have some claim on the Government. In the event of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not seeing his way to give me the Morning Sitting, I would ask him to use his endeavours to make a House in the evening.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government are well aware of the importance of the question the hon. Gentleman is about to raise, and they are also aware that he kindly gave way to allow an adjourned debate to proceed. Therefore, he can rest assured the Government will do all in their power to obtain for him a good audience; and, as the Morning Sitting will be devoted to an important Scotch matter, no doubt a good number of Members will be present.
    MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intended to stop the ordinary Business of the House before 12.30, in order to give facilities for the progress of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not in our power to stop the progress of the ordinary Business.
    MR. MAC IVERgave Notice that in consequence of the answer of the President
    1616
    of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), he would take an early opportunity of bringing forward his Motion on the subject of Merchant Seamen. He was afraid there would not be time this Session, but he would take the first opportunity next Session.

  THE "NINETEENTH CENTURY"—THE ARTICLE ON LIBERTY IN THE EAST AND WEST—(MR. GLADSTONE)— MR. HANBURY'S MOTION.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury), of which I have given him private Notice. I am sure that it must be his own opinion, and I am sure it must also be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, that, at a time when the Congress is sitting, the Motion of which the hon. Member has given Notice would be very inopportune. I, therefore ask him, Whether it is not his intention to withdraw it?
    MR. HANBURY: Sir, I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has asked me this Question, because I wish to state frankly to the House the course I intend to take. It is quite clear that a Motion of this kind is one that ought to be pressed forward for discussion at the earliest opportunity; and, at the same time, it is one that ought not only to be discussed, but ought also to be put to the fair test of a division and a vote. But, even now, this Notice stands only ninth on the Paper, and I have had no opportunity of bringing it forward; and I, as yet, fear that to-night, and even on Thursday, I may be again prevented. I am as anxious as I ever was to discuss the issue which I have chosen to raise by it. ["Oh, oh!"] It is usual in this House to believe the word of an hon. Member. I repeat, that I am still as anxious as I ever was to raise that question; but, at the same time, I cannot be blind to the fact that my wish is not supported by the Government, and that a large number of hon. Members are opposed to it on this side of the House. It is felt—and felt, I must admit, with some justice—that a time like this, when an European Congress has just commenced its sittings, is, perhaps, the worst

    1617
    time possible for carrying on a discussion of this kind, in which very large in questions affecting both our foreign and our Indian policy will be raised. Even since I gave Notice of my Motion I may remind the House that an Amendment has been put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), which shows the very wide, and it may be even the mischievous, issues that may be raised. Sorry as I am to withdraw a Motion of this kind—because I feel the act is liable to misrepresentation, and feeling that it is no light thing to bring such a complaint against such a speaker, at the same time I do not think I should be justified, in the face of the feeling against this Motion which has been growing, and which has certainly grown largely since it was received with cheers by this House. I should not be justified in proceeding with a Motion of this description, which might not only exaggerate differences at home, but would do that which I earnestly wish to avoid—namely, the spreading in India of a knowledge of the very language to which the Motion refers, and which I am anxious to condemn. Even, with all these reasons, I should not feel justified in withdrawing a Motion of this kind, involving a very grave complaint against a very important Member of this House; but I would ask the House to remember, that in the very terms of my Notice of that complaint, I have produced the evidence on which I rest the charge. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERintimated to the hon. Member that he must keep within the limits of an answer to the Question which had been put to him. He was not entitled to enter on a discussion as to the merits of the Motion.
    MR. HANBURY: I do not wish to go beyond the fair limits of debate, and will only further say that, with the permission of the House, I will be glad to withdraw my Motion.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish, Sir, to take my stand on an appeal to the indulgence of the House, and to avoid making one of these Motions for the adjournment of the House, which are certainly inconvenient on account of their interfering with the course of Public Business. But the circumstances of this case are peculiar. A transaction, entirely unknown to me until I heard it
    1618
    a few minutes ago in common with other hon. Gentlemen in this House, has passed between the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I think that the House may feel that they are entitled to know from me whether I challenge the resolution of the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion of which he gave Notice; or, if I acquiesce in that resolution, why I acquiesce in it, seeing that the hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to the House for their permission to do that which, so far as I am aware, he was entitled to do without any permission whatever. I believe that as he was master enough to give this Notice, and to use what I presume he would call his discretion in giving it, so he is likewise master enough to withdraw it. But it is difficult for me to listen in silence to the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet that he thinks I myself must feel that the Motion ought to be withdrawn, because the Congress is sitting, and to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, who says that he feels it would be inconvenient and injurious that this Motion should be discussed, and that he likewise finds that it is opposed to the general sense of the House. No doubt, Sir, there are strong reasons why the hon. Gentleman should not proceed with the Motion, which I think the hon. Gentleman might have taken into his view at an earlier period. The hon. Gentleman gave his Notice deliberately, and, as I am informed—for I was absent, and I was not made aware by him that any Notice was about to be given—as I am informed, and as he states, it was given amid cheers, which he calls the cheers of the House, and which I am told certainly were the rather animated cheers of a portion of this House, who appeared to have sympathized with, and to have joined their counsels with these of the hon. Gentleman, and from their collective wisdom to have produced this Notice. Now, it appears to me that no such Notice ought to be given unless in circumstances in which it can be persevered with. As long as it is a mere Notice, it is not within the jurisdiction of anyone except the person who gives it. I except, of course, these peculiar circumstances in which you, Sir, as the organ of the House, see ground for objecting to the retention of a Notice on the

    1619
    Notice Paper; and I cannot too strongly state that I feel how wisely, Sir, you have acted in taking no such objection in the present case. The Notice, then, stood on the Notice Paper; and, in my opinion, such a Notice, which is virtually a Notice for the expulsion of a Member of this House, not in form but virtually—and which can have no other possible result—such a Notice, I say, ought not to be given except with the firmest intention to persevere with it. The argument that it is difficult to find a night, and that it cannot come on on Monday, and probably cannot come on on Thursday, is an argument which, if it has any force at all, must have been fully in the view of the hon. Member at the time when he gave his Notice. Sir, I do not consider myself to be very greatly concerned in the Notice. It appears to me to be very much more, indeed, a matter between the hon. Member and the House than it is between him and me. If the hon. Member had made his Motion, the House would then have had jurisdiction over it, and the House would have had the power of considering whether, in respect to this proceeding of the hon. Member, it should take a course similar to that which was taken almost with unanimity on a very similar proceeding 40 years ago. But, Sir, he does not make that Motion, and I do not intend to challenge him to make that Motion. It is for the House to consider whether he should be challenged to do so. I, for my part, do not intend to challenge him to make it, and on this ground alone—that I think the general arguments in favour of going forward with a Motion of this kind are of a strength which cannot be overstated. But I own that after the description which it has pleased the hon. Gentleman to give of the article in which I have striven to do my duty as a loyal subject of the Crown—after that description has been attached to that article—I am by no means assured that a discussion upon the question would be for the public interest, I do not mean with reference to the Congress or anything that is going on in Europe. But I so far concur with the feeling which has, perhaps, prompted others, that, on the whole, I believe it might be best for the public interests connected with the topics to which the article was addressed, that if, in the circumstances of the case, the hon. Gentleman
    1620
    chooses not to persevere with his Notice, I should not assume the responsibility of challenging him to go on. In. the circumstances, I do not intend to exercise any such right of challenge. I am in the hands of the House to move the adjournment or not. I do not mean to say more. I would have said less, but for what fell from the hon. Member, and the hon. and gallant Baronet who put this Question. I have no desire myself to prolong the discussion on the matter, and unless a wish be expressed for the adjournment of the House, I shall not move it.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    EPPING FOREST BILL— [BILL 188.]
    (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Noel.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the scheme proposed under this Bill would, on the whole, give great satisfaction to these persons who were interested in the preservation of Epping Forest. The arbitrator, to be appointed under the Bill, would have to determine what compensation should be given in respect of that part of the Forest which was some time ago wrongfully inclosed, and which would now be restored to the public. As many other questions would have to be decided by the arbitrator, it was hoped that the Government would state to the House who the arbitrator nominated by the Government would be. There were some objections to the Bill in points of detail. With regard to the constitution of the Board of Management, the Government were wise in confiding the preservation of the Forest mainly to the Corporation of the City of London, as they had shown a great interest, and taken an active part, in asserting the rights of the commoners. There were to be 12 members of the Corporation on the Committee of Management. He suggested the addition of two or three representatives of the East of London and other parts of the Metropolis that were specially interested in the preservation of the Forest. He held that the popular element should be represented on the Committee. It had been suggested

    1621
    that this might be done by the nomination of the hon. Members for the time being for Hackney and the Tower Hamlets, who might serve as ex-officio Members of the Committee. He also thought it not undesirable that some nominees of the Crown should be members of the Committee of Management. In saying that he did not wish to throw any doubt on the management of the Corporation of the City of London of the Forest. His only fear was, that they might do too much by attempting to convert the Forest into an ornamental park instead of simply preserving its natural beauty. He hoped the latter course would be adopted by the Committee. He objected to the method in which the Bill dealt with the rights of the inhabitants of Loughton. Many hon. Members of the House, he durst say, were aware that the inhabitants of Loughton had from time immemorial enjoyed the right of lopping trees of the Forest for firewood during the winter months. They believed they enjoyed that right through a grant of one of the Tudor Kings. They believed the grant was given on the condition that at midnight on every 11th of November they should perambulate the Forest and strike an axe into a particular tree. It certainly appeared that from time immemorial the inhabitants of Loughton had lopped trees upon a part of the Forest consisting of about 1,200 acres. The Bill proposed that the question of the validity of the right claimed by the inhabitants of Loughton should come before the arbitrator. The Epping Forest Commissioners had distinctly announced that this right existed, and, therefore, there could be no reason for putting the inhabitants to the great expense and possible risk of having their right decided upon by the arbitrator. Suppose the arbitrator decided that the custom or right existed, then the Bill provided that it should cease, and that compensation should be given to the inhabitants by moans of an annual payment of money or by doles of fuel. That solution appeared to him to be a very unwise and unsatisfactory one. He ventured to suggest that the Bill should recognize the custom as it had existed from time immemorial, and that it should be left to the arbitrator to decide in what way that right should be exercised for the future; or if it were thought desirable that the custom or right should cease
    1622
    to exist, then that some compensation should be awarded by the arbitrator in a manner which might be clearly beneficial to the inhabitants of Loughton. He had to thank his hon. Friend opposite for bringing forward the Bill in this shape. He believed that, on the whole, it would give satisfaction to the people of London, and he ventured to hope that under this Bill the Forest of Epping would be restored to its original position as a forest containing something like 6,000 acres, instead of being curtailed to, say, about 3,000 acres—that, for generations to come, it would be left in its wild condition; that it would not be improved and ornamented, but be left as a forest in the widest sense.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that, after the way in which the Bill had been received by the hon. Gentleman opposite, he did not think it was necessary for him to trespass long on the time of the House. He agreed that the settlement of this long-vexed question would confer benefit, not only on the inhabitants of the district itself, but upon the dense population of London. With regard to the arbitrator, the appointment would be one which would, no doubt, command the complete confidence of the House. The arbitrator had been chosen; but the Government could not, at present, name him, as he had not really consented to serve. However, he hoped to be able to give the name of the gentleman before the Bill passed through Committee. The hon. Member for Reading had expressed an anxiety that the Conservators would not attempt to turn the Forest into an ornamental park, and he entirely agreed with him upon the point; because, if the Conservators would content themselves with improving the drainage of the land and effecting certain similar improvements, the Forest would remain one of the most enjoyable bits of wild scenery in the neighbourhood of London. The hon. Member had referred to one or two points on which he differed from the framers of the Bill. In the first place, he did not altogether approve the constitution of the authority who were to be intrusted with the management of the Forest. The hon. Member had, however, acknowledged fairly enough that, after the efforts the Corporation of the City of London had made for the preservation of the Forest, they were entitled to be intrusted with a large share

    1623
    in the management of the property, especially as the Corporation would have to provide funds for the payment of these claims which might be established before the arbitrator. Another body of people, who were deeply interested in the maintenance of the Forest as a recreation ground, consisted of the inhabitants of the localities abutting on the land so devoted to the benefit of the public; and, in the opinion of the Government, they were entitled to be represented on the Board of Conservators by those whom they might elect. It was therefore provided that the Verderers would be eventually elected by the commoners generally. Difficulties would arise in making any Members of that House ex-officio members of that Board, and, in his opinion, the Corporation of London would take sufficient care of the interests of the population of the East of London. He thought, on the whole, that the Government had selected these to act as Conservators who would fairly represent the people interested in the proper management of the Forest. The interests and feelings of the Crown would be sufficiently represented by the Ranger. He trusted that the Bill would now be read a second time, in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee, and that the result of its coming into operation would be to preserve the Forest for the recreation of the public, and to add one more to the air-breathing spaces of London.
    MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he was glad to be able to give his cordial support to the Bill. It embodied the main purposes of the agitation which had been raised on the question, and, at the same time, treated with indulgence those persons who had acted illegally. He thought that the Corporation ought not to have so predominant a share in the management of the Forest; but that some persons representing the feeling of these portions of the Metropolis which were contiguous to the Forest should be added to the Verderer and the executive committee, in order to secure more of a balance of power and a fuller consideration of various tastes and interests. He hoped that that matter would be dealt with in Committee.
    Bill read a second time, and committed, to a Select Committee. Three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.

  VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.
    BiLL 94.
    (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Salt.)

    COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [14th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Valuation of Property Bill).
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no re-adjustment of the system of assessment will be complete or satisfactory to ratepayers until a representative county board is established, with power of hearing appeals on questions of value, and for securing uniformity of assessment,"—(Mr. Clare Read,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the House, that when the debate on this Bill stood adjourned on Friday last by lapse of time, the Question before the House was that the hon. Member for South Norfolk be permitted to withdraw his Amendment. The Question, therefore, that he had now to put, was—"Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn." ["No, no!"]
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that he could not allow this Bill to pass with silent acquiescence. Its direct effects would not be altogether satisfactory, but its indirect effects would be positively mischievous. The objects of the Bill were incontestably right; for it certainly was much better that there should be only one mode of making the assessment, and that it should be made by one authority, instead of three different authorities upon three different principles. It was equally incontestable that it would be beneficial to have an equality of contribution between one Union and another in a county. But it was upon the means of obtaining these objects that difficulties arose. The introduction of the surveyor of taxes would lead to an undue amount of centralization, and cause the Government to be unpopular in the country. Under the

    1625
    Bill, rents would be taken as the basis of assessment, the result of which would be most unfair and unsatisfactory. The Bill also was defective with regard to the subject of appeals, it giving an appeal from the better-informed to the worse-informed authority. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the measure alternated between two opinions. He wished to bring about a permanent assessment, and yet he seemed to have a desire to postpone arrangements for bringing about a lasting settlement until the County Boards Bill had been passed. It seemed to him to be a point open to considerable question whether, if the opportunity were lost this year of establishing County Boards, it would occur again for a very long time. The late Government proposed to deal with this question in a particular way, but they failed—either from want of time or opportunity. When Her Majesty's present Advisers took Office they also proposed to deal with the question, and to commence the process by reforming the existing system of county government. When he saw the County Boards Bill at the front of the Government measures relating to this question, he hoped that the Bill would be passed—with the elimination, perhaps, of the clumsy highway clauses—and thus the way would be cleared for further reforms in the same direction; but now the Government seemed to have shrunk back from the kernel of the business, and to be inclined to content themselves with its shell. If it were necessary that one of this series of Bills should be passed this Session, the County Boards Bill ought to be the first. But the Cattle Plague Bill was a measure of far greater urgency and importance to the agricultural interest, and ought to be dealt with before all the others. The strategy of the Government, in postponing the most important and putting forward the less important Bills, seemed to invite opposition; and the disposition of the Irish Members must have greatly changed within the last few days, if they were not disposed to make the most of the unwieldy bulk of this Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to press this Bill further forward this Session, but to allow the House to devote its time to getting through the Cattle Plague Bill, and, if possible, the County Government Bill.
    MR. RYLANDS: I am quite prepared to give every credit to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for his desire to reform the local administration of the country, and I appreciate very highly the ability with which the right hon. Gentleman fulfils the duties of his important Office. Still, it is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact, that the group of measures that are now before the House having reference to his Department have by some means or other got into something very like a muddle. I think it is not very difficult to find out how it is that, notwithstanding the great ability of the right hon. Gentleman, these Bills have got into a state which is not fully satisfactory to either side of the House. I think it is simply because Her Majesty's Government have adopted in these measures a timid and feeble policy. They seem to me to have been influenced by several currents of opinion which have been moving in contrary directions. There is no doubt that there is a very powerful current of opinion at the head Office of the Local Government Board, which always moves in favour of centralization and increased authority on the part of the Government Department. There has also been another current which has been brought to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman from the counties and the agricultural societies, who have pressed upon the Government that the Local Government Board should provide greater facilities for the representation of opinion in the localities and greater power for the management of their own affairs by the ratepayers in these counties. This local current which is in favour of local government has been divided into two other subordinate currents. One current has been to obtain representation for the farmers and other ratepaying occupants of property in the counties, and who naturally say—"Let us manage our own affairs either by our own judgment, or, at all events, let us have a voice in the appointment of these who have to manage our various local affairs." The other local current is from the magistrates in the counties, who say—"We have a certain authority which we do not like to part with; we do not like the Government to bring forward any measure which would lessen our authority in the counties, or take it from us and

    1627
    give it to the ratepayers." The Bills before the House are a compromise between these three powerful opinions. The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, tried as far as possible to please these different classes of opinion, and the result has been that he has satisfied nobody. The great point in the compromise was, that the County Government Board Bill should be the first to be brought in and passed, and the Valuation and Highway Bills should hang upon the County Government Bill. We find that the circumstances have entirely altered. This compromise has disappeared, and we are told that the County Government Bill is not to be brought on. What lessons are we to learn from the present state of things? Simply, that where you have three powerful currents brought to bear upon the Government, the current which is least powerful will be pushed aside. The farmers have the least power, and, consequently, they have gone to the wall. The other currents of opinion remain to a very large extent embodied in the Bills now before the House. I know the right hon. Gentleman says he is not in favour of centralization, and I am quite prepared to believe it; but he is surrounded by public officials who are all in favour of centralization. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I know very well how these public officials say—"You must take care to keep the power of the Government over the local administration;" and so it is that the surveyor of taxes occupies a very important position in the Bill, for that satisfies the current of opinion among the permanent officials of the Department; and then, on the other hand, the whole question of valuation in reference to appeals is left in the hands of the county justices, and the farmers and ratepaying occupants of the counties are refused any additional voice in the determination of the ultimate decision with regard to valuation. I should like, if it were possible, that the right hon. Gentleman would place himself in this position for a short time, and get rid of official ideas. If he would go down to his county, and look at the question from a point of view of a ratepayer or farmer, he would form a very different judgment. The fact is, it is no use telling the people in counties that you can manage their
    1628
    business for them better than they can do it for themselves. I dare say you can; but they want to have a voice in the management of their own affairs; they do not want to be controlled by any Government officials, or the entire power to be left in the hands of the, no doubt, highly respected body of magistrates who are yet in no sense possessed of a representative character. I believe that the assessment committees have acted remarkably well; and I am strongly of opinion that additional experience would enable them still further to improve the system of valuation over which they preside. But the assessment committees are not trusted by the right hon. Gentleman, and he, therefore, brings in the surveyor of taxes. I observed that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) seemed to be astonished at more not being said on this side of the House on that subject. I stand here with the view of protesting against the position the surveyor of taxes occupies under this Bill. I am sorry to say that, in consequence of the change that has taken place in the structure of the Bill, an impression has been produced in the country that a great concession has been made in reference to the position of the surveyor of taxes. Now, I recollect very well, when the Bill was before the House on a former occasion last year, that the surveyor of taxes occupied a very powerful position in that Bill, so powerful that it was clear that if he continued to occupy it, the assessment committees would practically feel themselves placed in the position of nonentities. There is an alteration in the position of the surveyor, certainly; but what is the position now? The assessment committee will, according to the best of their judgment, decide upon the value of property in their locality. That judgment will be differed from by the surveyor of taxes, who will have the power not only of appealing against the assessment committee to the petty sessions and the quarter sessions, but of having a special case taken up to the High Court of Justice. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to have this power of appeal in order that justice might be done to the poor ratepayer. But the surveyor of taxes would appeal against the assessment committee with the whole power of the Government at his back; and, therefore,

    1629
    he would have appeal after appeal, so as to make the assessment committees hesitate before taking up a position in opposition to him. I am sorry that the surveyor of taxes, although under a different form, is maintained in a position of such power and authority. I do not object to the assessment committee taking advantage of the experience of the surveyor of taxes. I think the committee will necessarily go to the surveyor of taxes and get from him very valuable information. But at present he is only an assistant of theirs; he is not in a position in which he can harass and control the committee. I will oppose any plan for putting the finger of the Government into local administration in such a form as will prevent additional power being given to the local administrators. With regard to the assessment committees, I know something about them. I have never sat upon them; but I know very well the kind of work which is done by them in the district with which I am connected. I say you have upon them magistrates who, from, their knowledge, their experience, and their ability, are eminently suited for the position in which they are placed, and you have associated with them members of Boards of Guardians who also are men of great practical knowledge of the property in the neighbourhood. These assessment committees form a board which, I believe, is really unequalled for the purpose. They have generally great knowledge of the circumstances of the locality, and great knowledge of the value of property, and as they have every reason to deal with the matter in such a way as is likely to be satisfactory to the ratepayers, whom they represent, I think that instead of taking away from the weight and authority of the assessment committees, you should increase it and improve them in every possible way; and, to do this, you should not discourage efficient men sitting upon them. But my fear is that the course Government are taking—not only in this Bill, but in other measures—will have the effect of driving capable men away from Public Business by always thrusting in the control of the Government. I think that there should be no appeal to petty sessions from the decision of the assessment committee. In my opinion, it is altogether absurd that decisions of an assessment committee
    1630
    should be reviewed by magistrates who were not to be compared to the committee for their knowledge of the subject in hand. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman should, without any hesitation, strike out the appeal to the petty sessions. If the Unions only were concerned, I suppose everybody would agree that it mattered comparatively little whether property within the Union was assessed upon a low level, or upon a high level, provided the whole of the property was equally assessed. But we are not dealing with the Unions alone; we have to consider that the property assessed in the Union will have to pay towards the common funds of the county. Therefore, it is of great consequence that the basis of assessment in one Union should be upon the same lines as the basis of assessment in the other Unions. I think that there should be a County Board with power to consider whether the valuations of the Unions in a county were on a basis which would render them fair as between Union and Union. It is, in my opinion, quite right that if there were a valuation list in one Union that was much lower than that of another, or based on a principle that was not fair as regarded the other Unions, there should be some county authority who should have the power of deciding how the respective Unions should deal with the valuation list. This was, in point of fact, the crucial question of the Bill; the real point being how to get a county authority to step in between Union and Union to settle what the basis should be. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), who has done a good deal of service by the part he has taken in the consideration of these matters, has put upon the Paper a Notice of Amendment, by which he challenges the opinion of the House on this crucial point of the Bill. It appears, however, that the hon. Member, having delivered his fire, now wishes to run away from his guns. In my opinion, the hon. Gentleman ought not to do anything of the sort. On the contrary, he ought to stand by his principle, which appears to be a sound one. The Amendment of the hon. Member is—
    "That no re-adjustment of the system of assessment will be complete or satisfactory to the ratepayers until a representative county board is established with the power of hearing appeals

    1631
    on questions of valuation and for securing uniformity of assessment."
    I will not say that I go with the hon. Member in every word of that; but with regard to the declaration that there should be a County Representative Board for securing uniformity of assessment, that, in my judgment, is the vital principle of the Bill, and the House ought to have an opportunity of voting on the Amendment, in order that these who feel with the hon. Member may have the opportunity of expressing their opinion that the Bill will not be satisfactory unless it contains some clause asserting such a principle. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will say it will be somewhat inconsistent on my part to vote for the Amendment I have just read, because it is well known that I do not wish the County Board Bill that has been brought in by the Government to pass this year. But, if that were said, my reply would be that I do not want the County Board Bill to pass, because I consider it unsatisfactory, insomuch as it has been drawn up on lines of compromise to which I object. But I will say that, if the right hon. Gentleman will bring in a Bill that will give to the country a system of County Boards, whose members shall be elected by and fairly represent the ratepayers under certain reasonable and necessary regulations—Boards who will have a due sense of the responsibility of the duties imposed on them, and who, to a large extent, will represent the true principle of local self-government—I will withdraw my objection to the measure. But there does not appear to be any hope of such a measure being brought forward this Session, and, therefore, I feel bound to say I do not want the Government County Board Bill already before the House passed this year; and even if the Government were still proceeding with that measure, the fact that they were taking such a course would not prevent my voting for an Amendment which sets forth that the system of assessment now proposed cannot be satisfactory, unless it is accompanied by the establishment of Representative County Boards for securing uniformity of assessment. Last Friday, on the occasion of the last discussion on the present Bill, I observed that suggestions were made to the effect that the County
    1632
    Committee might be strengthened by the addition of gentlemen having a representative character. And the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has himself said he should be very willing to associate with that committee of magistrates the chairman of each of the assessment committees. He has added, however, that he did not put any Notice of such a plan on the Paper, because he had felt that by so doing he might have prejudged the question of the future establishment of County Boards. I do not see that this ought to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from making the suggested change in the Bill. But I am bound to say that I think the proposal would, at the present moment, be inconvenient on the ground that it would merely be the establishment of an ad interim arrangement in the counties, whereas I think it would be far better to have the system settled on a durable basis. Some hon. Gentlemen, on the last occasion when this subject was debated, spoke of the proposed committee as a sort of "stopgap," which could never get fairly into work, because it would have the feeling that it was simply appointed for a time, and that its position would soon be occupied by another body. If I had the choice, I should be inclined to say to Her Majesty's Government, in reference to the several Bills connected with county interests that were now before the House—"Take all these Bills back again, at any rate, as far as the present Session is concerned." I trust the right hon. Gentleman will adopt this course, in order that he may thereby have the advantage to be derived from the further discussion of these measures throughout the country, as well as of the arguments that have been used in this House, and that the result will be a considerable modification in regard to the Valuation Bill. There can be no doubt that this discussion will suggest to him and to Her Majesty's Government various points on which the provisions of the Bill may be improved, and I think that the Government, by postponing the Bill, and determining to deal with the question on a broad and popular basis, will be enabled to propound a system which will not only give a thoroughly efficient local administration with regard to highways and other local matters in counties, but which will give the Government the

    1633
    opportunity of establishing the County Boards which they propose to create on a wide and intelligible basis, of conferring on them an enlarged authority, and of opening a new avenue for the exercise of public spirit in the fulfilment of important public duties. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk is pressed to a division, I shall certainly give it my support.
    COLONEL RUGGLES- BRISEsaid, that in the country there was a lack of interest in this Bill, and there were other Bills which would be far more acceptable. There had been no opportunity of discussing this Bill at the Chambers of Agriculture this year; but it was discussed last year, when the opinion unanimously expressed was that if they were to have a Valuation Bill, the appeal court must be a County Board. As far as his own county was concerned, there was no real necessity for a Valuation Bill, for there was a county rate committee, the local rates were assessed on the same basis, and there was no unfairness. It was said that the main object of this Bill was to attain uniformity; but uniformity was a bugbear, and even this Bill would not attain it; for, unless the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) were adopted, there would be no more uniformity than before. He quite agreed with the objection which had been raised against the appeal to petty sessions; and, so far as his experience went, there was more information and practical knowledge among members of the assessment committee than among these who sat at petty sessions. If the right hon. Gentleman infused a little representative element into the county appeal court under this Bill, a great many of the objections that he had raised would give way; but as the Bill stood, the bases of the valuation were most unsatisfactory. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read). The Bill ought, in fact, to be called a Rent Bill, and not a Valuation Bill, for it would increase not only taxation, but rent. Next to having his rent raised, there was nothing a farmer disliked so much as a re-assessment of his occupation; and it was not surprising, therefore, that the Bill was not acceptable to the general body of the tenant-farmers
    1634
    throughout the county. He regretted the course the Government had taken, and if his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk divided the House, he should vote against the Bill.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he would support the Bill. He thought it most desirable first of all to proceed with the Valuation Bill. That was evidently a proper course; for, without a proper Valuation Bill, how could they have a proper basis for the adjustment of county affairs. He thought the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last was mistaken in his estimate of the effect of the Bill when he said it would increase the rents. The object was to equalize, and so to reduce rates. He thought it wiser, having a practical measure before them, to pass the Valuation Bill, and make it the basis of future action.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Bill for the present Session, and re-introduce it with the larger measure for county government next Session. The Bill was based on the supposition that the County Government Bill had already passed. Most important duties were cast upon this mythical County Board, which was not to be established till next Session, and might possibly never be established at all.
    MR. SOLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Notice Paper would show that he had proposed Amendments dealing with these portions of the Bill.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he was dealing with the Bill as it stood, and he had a perfect right to do so. The provisions to which he referred were the vital portions of the Bill, and it was the duty of the Government, before asking the House to go into Committee on the Bill, to have thoroughly settled in their own minds what to do with regard to it. The proposed appeal to petty sessions he must characterize as an absurdity. It was said it would act in favour of the poor man; but he was of opinion that it would operate the other way. The right to appeal was given to the parish authorities as well as to the ratepayer, and a poor man succeeding in his appeal to the petty sessions would be appealed against to the quarter sessions. A man never knew what liability for costs he might incur, nor where it might end. It was further objectionable from the

    1635
    fact that it would be an appeal from a strong to a weak body. Formerly an appeal to the petty sessions was not unreasonable, as it was simply an appeal from the overseer to two or more magistrates. It was therefore an appeal from an inferior to a superior; an appeal from one person to several persons. Now, all this was reversed. The assessment committee was a stronger tribunal than could be found at petty sessions, yet it was to continue the intermediate appeal as if no change had taken place. The machinery of the Bill was so complicated that he trusted the Government would withdraw it. What he would suggest to them was—to leave the assessment committee just as it stood, and to have a County Board such as the House might agree to. There was great difficulty in deciding what the County Board should be; but, until that point was determined, it was useless to pass a Valuation Bill. An appeal, if given, should be from the assessment committee to the County Board. Assuming that no County Board Bill should pass, he did not know of a better court of appeal than the quarter sessions, and an appeal to the High Court on points of law. The question before the House was not a Party question, but one of such importance that it ought to be fairly decided upon its merits before the present Bill was further proceeded with.
    SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, that as he had been alluded to in this debate, and had always taken a lively interest in all matters connected with local government reform, he wished to reply to a few observations that had been made. No one had been a stronger advocate of representative County Boards than himself, nor had anyone more deeply regretted the withdrawal of the County Government Bill, which was introduced for that purpose. No one rejoiced more than he did when the principle of the Bill was adopted last Session; but the objects of the Government had been opposed somewhat unexpectedly by both sides of the House. Besides, the time of the House had been much taken up by the Eastern Question, and there had been obstruction of an unusual kind on the Estimates; but the Government fully intended to reproduce the Bill in the course of another Session, when he hoped it might be more fortunate. No one could blame the Government;
    1636
    they had done their best to redeem the pledge given to the House last Session; they had not only introduced a County Boards Bill, but intended it to be the first step in the ladder towards the completion of local government reform. He sympathized with the view that it was neither a Party nor a political question, for unless both Parties could agree in the principles of county government, it would be a long time before improvements were made; but he saw no necessary connection between the Valuation Bill and the County Government Bill, for the former was per se necessary, and not subsidiary, to the latter, and its passing would not be inconsistent with the introduction of a County Government Bill another Session. He would remind all his old taxation Friends that they had agitated for a measure of this sort long before they ever thought of County Boards, and for the very best of reasons—namely, that an equitable basis of rating must be the foundation of all local government reform. This Bill, therefore, might be regarded as the keystone and corner-stone of any improvement. That the present system of rating was faulty and needed reform was the evident opinion of everybody, or else how came it that they had had already six Valuation Bills? One was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), one by his lamented Friend Mr. Hunt, a third by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and three by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth). That looked as if the Government were anxious to do something. The subject of the Bill was of great importance and universal interest, and affected everyone. The principles of these Bills had all been discussed, he might say, ad nauseum. They had been thoroughly ventilated, and, therefore, there was no excuse for saying there had been no sufficient discussion of the principles of this Bill. What were they? First, to secure uniformity of assessment among various local bodies contributing to local purposes; and, secondly, to provide one basis for rates and Imperial taxes, to centralize the machinery of assessment by appointing one authority instead of three for the valuation property; and, if those objects were achieved, this Bill would effect a great reform. No doubt, the former Bills were very different from

    1637
    the one before the House. In them the surveyor of taxes had had far too much power. That power would have been arbitrary and obnoxious. He was absolute, his decision was final, and any conclusion he came to could hardly be disturbed; but the present Bill all but eliminated his authority, or, at least, vastly modified it, and if the House were to adopt actual bonâ fide rent as the basis of valuation, they need not fear the introduction of the surveyor of taxes. The right hon. Gentleman the other night admitted that rent was the best criterion of value, and that he would not object to rent being taken as the general basis. ["Oh!"] Yes, general; because there must always be exceptions in a country like this. Supposing, for instance, a portion of the rent of a property was covered by a fine or other consideration, nobody would say that the rent, taken without reference to the fine or consideration, was a fair basis. Rent had been truly said to be in the great majorty of cases, though there must always be some exceptions, the best criterion of value; and he believed it to be the fairest measure and basis of value, as rent was a fact, while valuation was a matter of opinion. It had been said that the Bill allowed too many appeals, and that its machinery was too complex and cumbrous. That, in his opinion, was a question for the Committee to decide. He would venture to suggest, with reference to appeals, that no alteration should be made in the present Bill—that the work should be done by the old machinery. This would be very feasible; it would be an additional security for the introduction of a County Boards Bill early next Session. If altered, it might possibly tend to postpone that measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatch bull-Hugessen) had criticized the Bill, and had said that whatever the faults of the late Government were, in dealing with local government reform, the measure they brought forward proposed relief with one hand and reform with the other. He (Sir Massey Lopes) quite recognized the great ability and earnestness which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) displayed with reference to this question; but, without making invidious comparisons between one Government and another with reference to this question, he must remind
    1638
    the House that the relief proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the transference of the house-tax to the local authorities, would only have relieved householders in the towns. The cardinal distinction between the policy advocated by the two Governments was briefly this. The late Government advocated reform prior to relief; such a policy would have indefinitely postponed any relief. The present Government, though equally recognizing the necessity of improving local government, had been of opinion that the two objects might advance simultaneously pari passu. The present Government had acted on the deliberate decision which the House, by an overwhelming majority, had come to in 1872, and had given material relief to the ratepayers. The Government, might, he thought, take credit for having religiously carried out everything to which they then pledged themselves. All must admit that the reform of local government, whoever might undertake it, was a most difficult problem, and that the President of the Local Government Board had shown great ability and great earnestness in what he had attempted in regard to it. They had had six different Valuation Bills, and when that was the case, it was pretty evident they could not expect to rouse much enthusiasm on that subject. Moreover, the question was encumbered with a great mass of details, and everybody was a critic upon it, and held his own particular views. Again, the subject was not only not a very attractive one, but it suggested the not very pleasant operation of putting one's hand into both pockets—into the one pocket for rates, and into the other for taxes. He asked, therefore, whether it would not be wise for the House to consider whether half a loaf in that case was not better than no bread, more especially when they had a promise of the big loaf in the shape of the County Boards Bill next Session? The present, measure would be a good foundation for the reform of local government, and the proper time for criticizing its details would be when it was in Committee. The reconstruction of local administration must be a gradual process, and it would be hopeless to attempt by any one Bill, or any one scheme, to deal comprehensively and exhaustively with that most difficult and complicated task,

    1639
    It could only be accomplished by a series of well-considered measures, and one of these well-considered measures was the Valuation Bill then before them. He believed that Bill would tend very much to simplify and to facilitate the reform of their system of local government, and on that ground he trusted that it would be passed by the House.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKconfessed that he was at a loss to know where they were in that discussion. He had seen many Valuation Bills brought into that House and found fault with by everybody, the result being that they never got any one of them passed, although such a measure was urgently required. It was humiliating to think that 655 Gentlemen sitting in that House could not agree upon a fair and just system of assessment. That was the more to be regretted, as the subject of valuation was not a Party question; and it ought, therefore, to be dealt with in a practical and business-like spirit. The present system of assessment was most unjust; and what was wanted was a fair basis of valuation under which all might be equally taxed. This was a subject of the greatest importance to the Metropolis. ["Oh, oh!"] He could tell these Members who said "oh!" that the Metropolis was as big as all Scotland, and paid more taxes than all Ireland. Some streets in the Metropolis now paid almost double the amount which others paid in proportion; and when objection was taken by some county Members to the interference of Government surveyors in those matters, he would remind them that commercial men were a good deal looked after in reference to taxation. In the Metropolis large premiums were very frequently paid to obtain the tenancy of desirable premises; and the rent in such cases, therefore, by no means represented the value. For his part, he thought it much better to have an independent man employed by the Government to say what was the fair value of a thing, and then to let people appeal, if they chose, from his decision, than to leave interested persons to assess themselves, and to be, as it were, judges in their own cause.
    MR. KNIGHTapproved of the principle of the Valuation Bill. It was most desirable that every hereditament in England and Wales should be valued for all purposes at the actual rent it was
    1640
    let for. He did not think the Bill he held in his hand was necessary for this purpose. The existing valuation for Schedule A of the income tax was all that was wanted. It was a Bill of 110 clauses, 26 schedules, to do that which might be as completely done in a Bill of one clause and two schedules. The one clause would enact that assessment committees should take the present valuation for Schedule A for their gross assessment, and all deductions should be made according to the provisions of Schedules 3 and 4 of this Bill. The manner of assessing for the income tax now was that the authorities in Somerset House sent a number of forms to the different surveyors of taxes, who distributed them among the assessors of the various parishes, according to the number of the hereditaments in them. The only practical variation in this Bill was that the surveyors of taxes were to send the form to the parish overseers, instead of the parish assessors—a distinction almost without a difference. The great change proposed in the Bill was that, instead of the simple mode of appeal now in force, a complicated system was proposed that it would take the country at least five years to understand; and which was, he (Mr. Knight) thought, costly, and no improvement. The present system of valuation for Schedule A of the income tax had worked well for 25 years, during the old French War up to 1815, and again from 1842 up to the present time—in all more than 60 years—without complaint. There had been much complaint of the mode of assessing for Schedule B and for Schedule D; but he (Mr. Knight) had never heard of a complaint against Schedule A. The mode of appeal was very simple. A body of Income Tax Commissioners, with a certain property qualification—much resembling the Commissioners of Supply in Scotland—was formed. The surveyor of taxes might surcharge anyone he thought to be assessed at too small a sum. Certain days were fixed for hearing appeals, at which the Commissioners and the surveyor of taxes attended. The surveyor was not the master, but the servant of the Commissioners. He had to show why he had made his surcharge, and the Commissioners were the judges. He (Mr. Knight) had, in the course of a long life, attended twice before the Commissioners on appeal. He had

    1641
    found himself in the presence of eight or ten or a dozen men—two or three of them being magistrates, the others being taken from among the most respectable of the upper middle class inhabitants of the district. On one occasion the Commissioners allowed that he (Mr. Knight) was right; and on the other they very soon convinced him that they were right, and that he was wrong. There was no expense or costs, and he had never heard that mode of appeal complained of in any way. Now the 109 useless clauses of this Bill—for he would not allow that more than one clause was wanted—had apparently been drawn up for the Local Government Board by someone who thought costs no great evil. Of all classes of legislation, nearly the worst, in his opinion, was that which aimed at making new crimes and misdemeanours by Act of Parliament, and then affixing punishments to them; and a very large number of the clauses were of this description. Fines and costs and other money payments appeared continually in the clauses of this Bill. The surveyor of taxes was named 42 times, and the Local Government Board came in 35 times with orders and decisions where nothing wanted to be ordered or decided if the present assessment of Schedule A were acted upon. If the Bill were to be gone on with, he hoped Government would allow a Select Committee to inquire whether any available reason could be shown for altering the present mode of assessing for Schedule A; and, if not, that they would authorize the use of that assessment, which was based on actual rental, as a gross assessment for all purposes. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk, which was now before the House, it was nearly identical with that which the same hon. Gentleman had moved to the Valuation Bill of last year. That Amendment—or rather Resolution—passed under peculiar circumstances. He (Mr. Knight) was one of these who had worked heartily for the reduction of local taxation, in conjunction with the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Norfolk—he (Mr. Knight) in the Worcestershire, and his hon. Friend in the Norfolk and Central Chambers. He would now say a few words on the County Board movement, and on the antecedents of the hon. Member
    1642
    for South Norfolk an that subject. It was commenced by the late Mr. Hume, who brought in Bills for County Financial Boards in 1836, 1849, and 1850. In the first Bill all the members were to be elected; in the second, to be one-third justices and two-thirds elected; in the third, to be half justices and half elected. In 1852 Mr. Milner-Gibson brought in a Bill for a Board with all the members elected. All those Bills died a natural death. In 1868 Mr. Wylde brought in a Bill for County Boards composed of half justices and half elected members. This was referred to a Select Committee, of which Colonel Wilson-Patten was Chairman, and upon which the hon. Member for South Norfolk sat. The very point they were now debating was brought forward four times in discussing the report of that Committee. The Report recommended that courts of quarter sessions should be formed into County Boards by the addition of elected members. Mr. Clare Read, now Member for South Norfolk, voted on at least three different occasions on that Committee, that "elected representatives should be associated with the magistrates in the expenditure of the rates," and against the proposal of Mr. Wylde for separate County Boards, composed partly of justices and partly of elected members. He voted against the formation of Boards almost similar to these the hon. Member now wished Parliament to adopt. In the ensuing Session a Bill carrying out the Report of the Committee was brought in by the right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatch bull-Hugessen). It was the subject of a long debate, and met the approval of every Member who spoke upon it on both sides of the House. Mr. Knatch bull-Hugessen, Colonel Wilson-Patten, Mr. Assheton Cross (now Home Secretary), the late Mr. Hunt, Mr. Bruce (now Lord Aberdare), and others spoke in favour of it. The Bill fell at the "massacre of the innocents," but its principle was a living one, and would, he (Mr. Knight) hoped, eventually become law. This Bill was brought in by a Liberal Cabinet, and on the back of it were the names of Mr. Knatch bull-Hugessen, Mr. Secretary Bruce, and Mr. Arthur Peel. Last year, when the hon. Member for South Norfolk brought forward a Resolution nearly similar to that which

    1643
    they were now discussing, some one of the Gentlemen who managed the Government Business in the House asked him, among other Members, his opinion with regard to that Resolution. Recollecting how the hon. Member had voted on Colonel Wilson-Patten's Committee, and recollecting how strenuously he had fought the battle of the farmers for the decrease of the rates and taxes which pressed on land, he (Mr. Knight) said that he should support the Resolution; and he believed that many other Conservative county Members made the same answer, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk had hitherto always taken the economical side in all questions of rating. The Resolution passed nem. con. He (Mr. Knight) did not hear the hon. Member's speech on that occasion, which he had read in Hansard this year, on being told that the County Bill of this Session was founded upon it, and that it was supposed, from their acquiesence in the Resolution of last year, that it had the concurrence of the county Members. It was not until he read that speech that he discovered that the hon. Member for South Norfolk had utterly deserted the principles of economy in county expenditure that he had formerly so strongly supported. If he (Mr. Knight) had heard that speech, he should certainly have voted against the Resolution. On reading that speech he found, to his surprise, that the hon. Member had changed his colours, and turned his coat, and that his speech of last year was the entire reverse of what might have been expected from his antecedents. He had, in 1869, in seconding or supporting the great Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) for the reduction of local taxation, deplored the increase of local rates, and asked for "further contribution from the Consolidated Fund." "The farm he occupied," he said, "paid 25 per cent more rates than it did a short time before, and if the poor rates went on increasing they would soon become intolerable; but if Government would take upon themselves the cost of the police, the Militia, the gaols, coroners, and weights and measures, there would be no need of County Financial Boards." He (Mr. Knight) was never more surprised than when he found that the hon. Member had gone over to the enemy, and that instead
    1644
    of advocating economy in the rates, he had proposed the very same Boards he had voted against on Colonel Wilson-Patten's Committee; and had done so, not with a view of economy, but with the full knowledge that the rates to be paid by the farmers and other ratepayers would be largely and indefinitely increased by the formation of such Boards. The hon. Member began his speech. last year by fulsome compliments to the magistrates for the admirable manner in which they had managed county affairs; and he then proposed to take all future management of these affairs away from them. A ratepayer's Board was to be formed, not to decrease, but to increase, the rates that pressed on the farmer. The new Boards were to take from the magistrates the supervision of lunatics, bridges, cattle disease, valuation, registration of voters, and the making and levying of county rates. "New duties," the hon. Member for South Norfolk said, "would be sure to crop up. Once get your county authority, and you will soon find plenty of work for it to do. I will mention one or two things." He then said that they ought to be a Main Highway Board; sanitary matters should be referred to them, they should appoint medical officers of health for the county, questions of engineering science and questions of sanitary science should be referred to them, they should appoint county surveyors to advise and supervise the work done under the County Board, they should consider questions as to the extension of the Poor Law from unions to counties, they should convert unnecessary workhouses into reformatories, idiot asylums, industrial schools, refuges for permanent sick and infirm, or into infirmaries; the new County Board was to take up large questions, such as arterial drainage and storage of water, to undertake the supervision of educational endowments; they were to be empowered to raise and spend, in addition to the county rates, a portion of the Imperial taxes, a portion of the assessed taxes, and, finally, a local income tax, for the relief of the poor. All the hon. Member's old ideas of economy had vanished. He did not pretend that all these new and unnecessary heads of expenditure—in addition to those which, he said, would be sure to crop up—could be undertaken without largely increasing county expenditure

    1645
    and county rates—indeed, this certain increase of expenditure was frequently referred to throughout his speech. The hon. Member finally allowed that the movement for County Boards was not popular with a large and highly respectable class of ratepayers, who did not like a scheme for raising the rates. If he should carry his point, he (Mr. Knight) warned him that he would find at least 95 per cent of his own constituents belonging to those who would strongly deprecate the increase of their local rates by 2s., 3s., or 4s. in the pound, which the provisions of this Bill would necessitate.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had long come to the conclusion that it was of little use to hope that any Irish Bill would be discussed when the present Government had a parallel English Bill before the House. He found that the most important questions that could affect Ireland were inextricably mixed up by the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read)—Valuation and County Boards. The Government last year brought in a Bill which would have raised the valuation of Ireland 50 to 60 per cent. This would have been looked upon as an inducement to raise rents, and therefore he gave the measure his hearty opposition. If this Bill passed for England, he was afraid that a modified Bill would be passed for Ireland. With regard to County Boards, they had been told that the English Bill had been abandoned; and, notwithstanding what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said, that practically meant the abandonment of the Irish Bill. It was a most important question for Ireland whether the Valuation Bill or the County Boards Bill passed first. He did not think this would be a good Bill for England, and he was certain it would be a bad Bill for Ireland. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.
    MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did not see what this Bill had to do with the subject of county government, except with reference to the question how far the present court of quarter sessions was a sufficient court of appeal. The object of this Bill was simply to bring about a uniformity of assessment in the gross; but the hon. Member for South Norfolk objected to any new system of assessment
    1646
    unless there were first established a county board to hear appeals. During the whole time he had sat in Parliament, a period extending over some 14 years, Select Committees had been appointed year by year to consider this question; and they had all, in more or less modified forms, recommended that steps should be taken to simplify assessments and to reduce the expense of collecting the rates. That principle was embodied in the present Bill; and, therefore, he supported it as a step in the direction of legislation, which he thought would prove highly advantageous. There were a number of points in detail contained in the Bill which could not be easily disposed of in a Committee of the Whole House; and he, therefore, hoped that the principle of the Bill having been affirmed, it would after being committed pro formâ, be referred to a Select Committee.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAwas also of opinion that it would be advisable to refer the Bill, which was full of intricate details, to a Select Committee. It proposed to repeal no fewer than 28 Acts of Parliament in whole or in part, and evidence ought to be taken by a Select Committee as to why these Acts ought to be repealed. Without such evidence, the House would be acting wholly in the dark in passing this Bill.
    MR. STORERrecommended the hon. Member for South Norfolk not to press his Amendment to a division, as the country would not be satisfied to have the advantages of a Valuation Bill taken away by a side-wind. There were many changes in this Bill which would be hailed with satisfaction by the country at large. The Bill would tend very much to curtail the powers of the surveyors of taxes, which were not always exercised in a just manner. He should like to see eliminated from it the appeal to petty sessions, as most of the magistrates before whom the appeal would come would have been ex-officio members of the assessment committee. He hoped, too, that the appeal to quarter sessions, of which he fully approved for the present, would in time be exchanged for appeal to the County Board which they were promised. Rent fluctuated very much from various causes, and the Bill probably furnished the best machinery for securing uniformity of valuation.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 107: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
    MR. J. G. HUBBARD: You, Sir, and the House, I trust, will exonerate me from the charge which my right hon. Friend brought against me on Friday last. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend, in the course of his remarks, used these words. He said, speaking of the Resolution which I was about to move, that—
    "He thought it unfair that a measure, which had for its object the uniform valuation of the country, should be hampered with a proposal relating to the incidence of the income tax with which primâ facie it had nothing to do."
    Now, Sir, I am not in the habit of doing anything unfair, and I think that, if I read the title of the Bill and one of its clauses, I shall convince the House that there is nothing unfair in my proposition. In the 9th section, the object of the Bill is declared to be the settlement of the valuation list; and, subsequently, in the 31st section, it is stated that—
    "For the purpose of every rate made during the year, for the purpose of every tax—namely, the house tax or the income tax—and for the purpose of determining the qualification of jurors, the valuation list shall be conclusive evidence."
    And it is further declared, by a part of the same section, that "the said house tax and income tax shall be charged upon the gross value." Now, if I have, in making this Motion, connected the question of the house tax and the income tax with the Valuation Bill, I find my justification in the very terms of the Bill itself; and I think, therefore, that the House will exonerate me from the charge of having done anything unfair in constructing a Resolution such as that which I am about to place before it. But I forgive my right hon. Friend, because I am satisfied he is with me in the matter which I have at heart myself. Indeed, I am satisfied that if he followed out his own instincts, he would accept the proposition which I am now about to make to the House; and I believe that, as I agree with my right hon. Friend heartily in 99 points out of every 100 in the Bill which I hold in my hand, so he cannot greatly differ from me in regard to the one point, when that point is in direct contradiction to the other 99. Looking
    1648
    at the construction of the Bill, I may say that the charge brought against it of being unpopular is, in my estimation, no libel upon the Bill itself. Why is this Bill unpopular? Because it is meant to remedy abuses. All laws are meant to remedy and to restrain abuses; and the Valuation Bill is intended to prevent abuses which have for a long time existed in the assessment of the property of the country. It was not yesterday that measures relating to this subject were first laid upon the Table of the House. Fifteen years ago I had the honour of acting on a Committee on a Valuation Bill, the scheme of which was very nearly the same as that which is now before us; and in the subsequent measures which were submitted from time to time, I find that we were progressing towards an arrangement which, if it be honestly and fairly carried out now, will, I venture to say, effect an enormous improvement in the general assessment of the country for the purposes of taxation. There is, however, one very important consideration which ought to be kept in mind. It is, that the principle which is enunciated in this Bill should be consistently carried out; and here it is that I am, unfortunately, bound to differ most materially from my right hon. Friend. Excellent as the Bill is in every other respect, there is just one passage in it which is execrable, because it is at variance with all those principles which ought to command the respect and allegiance of this House. I refer to the 31st clause; and, if hon. Members will have the kindness to turn to it, they will see the point which I wish to bring under their notice. By that clause the Bill proposes to stereotype what must be considered as an administrative abuse, and, in doing so, it acts independently of the law of Scotland, and in direct contradiction with the law of Ireland. Moreover, it puts itself in conflict with the principles which, in the Home Department, regulate the action of the Secretary of State with regard to the qualification for office. Lastly, it puts itself in conflict with the whole substance of the Bill which I hold in my hand. This is, I think, an impeachment which, if it be proved, does establish either that that clause ought to be removed, or that the Bill ought not to pass. Anxious as I have been to see this Bill pass, I hold that this one

    1649
    attempted enactment is so mischievous in principle and practice, that I would rather the Bill should be postponed than see it passed with this 31st clause unamended. May I be allowed to call the attention of the House very briefly to its wording? Its object is to determine that the valuation list shall be conclusive for certain purposes. Those purposes are—the determination of the amount of the assessment for rates—of the amount of the assessment for Queen's taxes—and the determination of the qualification for office. When you come to observe how these three purposes are carried out, you find that every rate which is to be levied upon the valuation list constructed under this Bill shall be made in respect of the "rateable," that is, the net, value. Again, the clause provides that the qualification of jurors, or of any other office, shall be determined by the "rateable" value. But, then, we come to a provision that the house tax and the income tax—the Queen's taxes—are, under this clause, to be levied upon the "gross." Now, I want to know why that word "gross" comes in there, in conflict and contrast with the word "rateable," which is used in reference to the other taxes? I am quite aware that there is a precedent to be found in the Bill relating to the valuation of property in the Metropolis; but I venture to draw attention to the circumstance that the Metropolis Valuation Bill was passed in the year 1869, when it was considered exceedingly probable that the income tax would vanish very shortly altogether, and when it was also felt that as the Metropolis was only a portion of the whole country, it would be hardly possible to introduce a provision for the levying of the Queen's taxes in the Metropolis different from that which was in force throughout the rest of the country. Upon these considerations, the Metropolis Valuation Bill of 1869 allowed the Queen's taxes to be levied on the gross rental. But we have now arrived at a very different state of things. The Bill before us now is not a temporary measure. It is not a Bill applicable to a portion only of the country; but it will extend to the whole of England and Wales, and it is meant to be a permanent measure, which for future years and ages is to regulate the levying of the Imperial taxation of this
    1650
    country. Consequently, the responsibility of the Government in reference to this Bill is wholly different from that which existed with regard to the Metropolis Valuation Bill of 1869; and this House, if it desires to affirm the sound principle of assessment deliberately adopted for local taxation, will not hesitate to apply it also to Imperial taxation. I have already said that the 31st clause of the Bill as it stands conflicts with the law in Ireland. That law is laid down in the Valuation (Ireland) Act of 1852, and the principle on which it is based is very clearly expounded in the Bill brought in, but not passed, by the Government last year, and of which the 4th clause provided that the valuation list, accepted as the measure of value for all purposes of assessment, whether local or Imperial, shall be the net annual rent or value—"all rates, taxes, and costs of repairs being paid by the tenants." Obviously, under this system, the income tax is charged under Schedule A only upon the rent, which accrues to the landlord; and I, therefore, appeal to hon. Irish Gentlemen in this House, who are always most chivalrous, to help us in our efforts to get rid of this oppressive inequality. I will venture upon an illustration of my argument. Turning to the Department of Customs, I ask—What is the practice there? Instructions are given to the officers to levy customs duties. What upon? Not upon the whole package, cask, or bag. They ascertain the contents of the package, and charge duty upon the net or real quantity of the article taxed. Let us act on the same principle in regard to the taxes on houses, and charge only the portion of the rent which constitutes the net article taxable. Then, with regard to the Home Department; in the very Bill we have before us, it is provided that if a question arises as to the value for the qualification for office, or for the grant of a licence, it is to be determined by reference to the rateable value in the list. Not upon the "gross," bear that in mind, but upon the "rateable." We have, then, this remarkable fact, that while the Board of Customs regard only the net quantities for duty, while the Home Department regard only the net value for its own guidance, and while the Local Government Board constitutes the net or rateable value as the measure

    1651
    for all rating purposes, the Inland Revenue Department would distinguish itself by continuing to levy the income tax and the house duty upon the "gross" value. Now, Sir, no other argument ought to be required in support of my contention than this one which I have advanced. If that principle is right for local taxation, how can it be wrong for Imperial taxation? If this principle is just, if it is scientific for local purposes, it cannot be unjust and unscientific for Imperial purposes. Sir, I hold it to be most unfair and unjust to take the gross value for Imperial purposes, and I think I have shown that there is a glaring and intolerable anomaly between the general principles which pervade this Act, and the exceptional and vicious provision foisted into the 31st section. I have exposed the anomaly, and I will now endeavour to point out the extent to which it operates. In the schedule of the Bill now before the House, we find that deductions have been provided for in the following degrees for various descriptions of property:—For land, 5 per cent; for farms, 10 per cent; for houses, 16⅔ per cent; for cottages, 25 per cent; for works of various kinds, 33⅓ per cent; the consequence being that, while local rates are levied on different properties in these several ratios, 90 per cent on farms, 83⅓ per cent on houses, 75 per cent on cottages, and 66⅔ per cent on perishable works, 100 per cent is taken as the measure of the charge on all by the Queen's tax collector. Where is the justice, equality, or uniformity of such a system as that? I have said that this mode of dealing with taxation is equivalent to using false weights and measures, and the Government have no right to deal with the Queen's subjects with false measures, a practice neither better nor worse than the issuing of false coin. I hope the House will bear this in mind—that, for every 20 s. raised under the authority of the Local Government Board, upon the different kinds of property which I have mentioned, at a given ratio, the Inland Revenue Office would—under the system of charging on the gross value—raise, at the same ratio, 22 s. upon farms, 27 s. upon cottages, and 30 s. upon perishable works. I think the Government ought to explain and justify, if it be possible, this contradictory Policy, or have the courage to admit
    1652
    its defects, so that a remedy may be applied. Before I pass to the remedy, let me illustrate the intensity of the grievance. I have said that land would, under this proposed system, pay 10 per cent more than it ought, and that 10 per cent is just equal to a ½d. in a 5d. tax—that is to say, an income tax of 5d. in the pound, levied on the gross value, is practically a tax of 5½d. on the net rent or actual profits of the land. That is the measure of the injury done to land. Landowners, as a class, would be paying 10 per cent more than they ought if their properties were free from burthens; but this is far from being the case. The land of England is heavily burthened. If it is burthened to the extent of half its rent, the tax on the outgoings would add one quarter to the nominal imposts, and the charge on the landlord's share of the rent would be 5d., when the tax was nominally 4d. But, assume the not unfrequent occurrence of an estate of £2,000 gross, and £1,800 rateable value, on which the mortgage interest absorbs £1,600. In that event, the owner, taxed upon £2,000, and, recouping himself to the extent of £1,600, remains liable for the balance of tax upon £400, though he receives only £200. The tax upon his residue of rent is double that which is charged upon the interest paid to the mortgagee. That is a tolerably clear exposition of the way in which this nefarious principle acts. It defrauds the owner of an encumbered property more cruelly than the owner of unencumbered estates. The unencumbered owner is injured only in proportion and in common with everyone else, but the embarrassed owner is surtaxed in proportion to his inability to pay the tax. Well, Sir, there is one simple remedy for all these evils. Erase the word "gross," insert "rateable," and levy Imperial taxes on the same principle as local rates. To that proposition what are the objections? It has been said, if the proposed relief were granted to real property, the grievance of these taxed under Schedules D and E would be aggravated. Sir, I am satisfied that traders and professional men would feel no jealousy or envy at seeing justice done to any class in the community, even if they were excluded from sharing in the remission of the taxation that I ask for. But, Sir, such would not be the consequence of

    1653
    my success. The remission I ask for applies mainly to houses. The house tax is 9d. in the pound, and the income tax 5d. in the pound, and to levy them both on the rateable instead of on the gross value would effect a relief sensible to and shared in by the whole community. Every householder would be benefited sooner or later by the adjustment of taxation through a measure intended to be permanent. Therefore, Sir, I am satisfied that no ignorant or ungenerous feeling of jealousy would be manifested, and no one would take exception to the relief which the Government are asked to give. In asking for this remission, I am influenced by no arrière pensée, nor have I any intention to use success in this reform as a lever for any other attack on the Exchequer. Industrial incomes have their wrongs, but they are quite independent of this proposal, which is made with the view of establishing what I believe to be a right and just principle of taxation with regard to the very important interest of which I am speaking. But now, Sir, let me tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his comfort another fact which is not unimportant. It is really very much during the same period in which this movement for the reduction of local taxation has been going on that the officials engaged in collecting taxation have been vigorously at work screwing up the assessments on houses and land; and, to such an extent has that taken place, that, within the last 10 years, the amount of value to the inhabited house duty has been increased from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. It may be said—"Oh, the population has increased." But to what extent has the population increased? The population has increased at the rate of 1 per cent per annum, or 10 per cent in 10 years; so that, while the increase of the assessment of the tax is 50 per cent, 40 represents the official distension of the assessment—the successful assessment. I say, then, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—"The amount which you will raise in 1878 by the rateable value will be equal to what you received five years earlier upon the gross." Surely that consideration should dispose my right hon. Friend to a cheerful acceptance of my demand? I do not desire any re-adjustment of taxation that could create new wrongs; but it is inevitable that, in a re-adjustment
    1654
    which removes inequalities, some additional weight must fall on these who have been previously favoured. This is always the case, and there is no reason why it should not be the case in all fiscal reforms. The President of the Local Government Board said, if the Government accepted my proposition, it would deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the assessment upon £10,000,000. Whether the amount rescued from assessment be £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 I care not, for I contend that that amount represents the extent of the area over which fiscal robbery has been carried out. The money raised as taxes over that area is money to which you have no right whatever. It is levied on principles which outrage the first elements of political economy, and are utterly abhorrent to the principles laid down by Adam Smith, that people are to be taxed according to their ability. It is a tax levied on capital while professing to be levied on profits. It is perfectly true that if we do justice to the taxpayer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will forego a portion of his receipts. But that is no argument against my proposal. The man who uses false weights is not allowed to excuse himself by pleading that his gains will be diminished if he is restricted to the use of the legal standards. If a tradesman has for some years charged me more than he ought and I claim restitution, the law will not uphold him in refusing upon the plea that if he compensates me he will be the poorer. That, however, is the Chancellor's argument; but I must say that is an argument which does not weigh with me at all. This country ought to raise its Revenue only by fair and legitimate means, and what it cannot raise honestly it should not spend, but it should reduce its expenditure; or, if the same amount of Revenue be indispensable, increase the ratio of the tax and levy it equally. Well, Sir, I have now only one other point to refer to, and that is with regard to the inhabited house duty and the point of exemption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that if the house tax is disturbed it would disarrange the exemption of £20 a-year or under. Not at all. The limit of exemption may remain just as it is—namely, £20 gross, or £15 net. There it was, and there it remains. It can occasion no

    1655
    possible inconvenience to the Government that my Amendment should be accepted, and for this reason—this Bill does not come into effect until two years hence. Within those two years there is plenty of time to make any subsidiary arrangements that may be required to maintain a Revenue adequate to the Public Expenditure. In the meantime, I have the satisfaction of believing that in urging this measure upon the Government I am urging upon them the acceptance of a Resolution which will save this House from the extreme discredit of passing a law which is at variance with science, truth, and justice. If it is accepted in the way in which I propose it, it will require the alteration of one word only in the Bill. It conflicts with nothing else, and if it is adopted the country will have the satisfaction of believing that when they pay the Queen's taxes they are not more hardly treated, or more unequally treated, than when paying a poor rate, a borough rate, or a highway rate. I began by saying that I trusted the House would exonerate me from, having, in the Motion I have made, introduced considerations unfair to the Government, because it is connected with the matter which they have in hand. I think I have shown that the question of which I have treated is intimately connected with this matter, and that it will not conflict with anything essential to the Bill. I have had no alternative but to bring the matter before the House as a corrective to the unprecedented provision which the Government has thought proper to introduce in the 31st clause. I am afraid, Sir, I cannot put the Motion to a vote as a division has already been taken; but, if so, I must defer until the House is in Committee to taking a vote upon the proposal which I offer, and which will give effect to the principle I have laid down; and I trust the House will concur in that principle.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the House had decided by a majority to go into Committee on this Bill, and it was not in his right hon. Friend's power to move an Amendment on the Motion now before the House. His right hon. Friend told them that when they were in Committee he would move an Amendment on a certain clause in the Bill; and, no doubt, when they arrived at that clause, his right hon. Friend would move his
    1656
    Amendment and support it by the arguments which he had used to-night. The House would then be able to pronounce on the proposition; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think that at present they were in a position to discuss the matter with advantage. He knew that no arguments which he could use would have the smallest effect on the mind of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend had presented the House with a line of argument which he had on several previous occasions placed before it, and which he, no doubt, held with great diligence; but the House must not be led away by the exceedingly strong language which he used about what he called "the injustice," "the robbery," and the other sins of the Finance Minister in this matter. His right hon. Friend put the matter in a very pleasant way, when he said that if his proposal were adopted, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only be a little poorer. "But," said his right hon. Friend, "I do not care for that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a robber, and the sooner he is made to disgorge his ill-gotten gains the better." He would point out to his right hon. Friend that the poor Chancellor of the Exchequer did not individually profit by these gains which he was supposed to make; but that it was the taxpayer of the country who had to provide certain sums which must be made up in some form or other; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were unable to raise the same Revenue that he was in the habit of raising by the income tax or the house tax, it would be necessary to find some other means of raising the amount required. He would, in that case, be obliged to come down to the House and say—"As he was obliged to make an alteration in the manner in which the income tax and the house tax were assessed, he was £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 short, and he must propose some other tax to make up that amount." That tax would fall either on the same persons or upon other persons, and then they came to a matter which involved questions of some nicety and delicacy, and it did not do to get rid of them by saying simply—"The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a robber." They must consider what the effect of the alteration of their system of taxation would be. This, however, was not the proper stage at which

    1657
    to enter upon these discussions—first, because the point before them was not this matter of how to raise taxes, but the question was, that they go into Committee on this Bill; and, second, because they must have this discussion at a future period. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the House would not allow itself to be drawn into a long discussion at that stage of the Bill.
    SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the present system was to be defended only as a rough approximation to justice in the assessment of income tax as regarded permanent and temporary incomes, and he hoped it would be retained until a more comprehensive measure was introduced. He would much rather see a more complete distinction between the two kinds of incomes, but till that was done it was well that there should be a difference between the most permanent kind of incomes—namely, those from real property and other incomes, the former being practically charged at a higher rate, being assessed in full receipts. While the income tax was 5d. on other incomes it was probably really almost 6d. on incomes from rent, and that, he thought, so far fair. He trusted that if the right hon. Member for the City of London moved his Amendment, it would not be carried.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (ORFORD) BILL— [BILL 189.]
    (Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. Assheton Cross.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEobserved, that the scheme which was sought to be sanctioned by the Bill was promoted by the unreformed Corporation of Orford. The land intended to be inclosed was Corporate land in the strict sense of the term, held in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants; and
    1658
    he thought it a serious question whether the Mayor and Corporation should be allowed to enter into the arrangement proposed, although he admitted that Sir Richard Wallace had acted in this matter in the most generous manner. It would be in the recollection of the House that on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), a Commission had been issued to inquire into subjects relating to the unreformed Corporations; and though he believed there was nothing to say against the present scheme, he hoped he would receive an assurance that the passing of the Bill would not be made a precedent, and that the promotion of future schemes would be delayed till the Commission had reported.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that as President of the Commission to which the noble Lord had referred, as well as Chairman of the Committee, he had been placed in a somewhat difficult position. In his former capacity he had received information with reference to Orford, which might possibly affect the decision of the Committee; and yet, as the evidence taken before Committees and Commissions was considered confidential till the Reports were made, he could not well make use of it. He thought it his duty, however, to elicit the information required by putting questions to the witnesses from Orford who appeared before the Committee. It would appear, from the evidence now in the hands of hon. Members, that though the Corporation of Orford, like many other unreformed Corporations, consisted partly of nonresidents, who could hardly be said fairly to represent the opinions of the inhabitants, yet that these took no part in promoting the scheme, and their names were not given among those of assenting parties; therefore, he thought there was no objection on that score. Sir Richard Wallace had acted liberally; he had given more land for public purposes than he was obliged to do, and readily fell in with certain suggestions made by the Committee. Whatever might be the fate of the Corporation of Orford, any body or authority which might take their place would take it subject to the conditions imposed by this Bill. Therefore, as the scheme was itself unobjectionable, as the noble Lord himself admitted, he hoped it would be allowed to pass without alteration.
    MR. PARNELLobjected to affording an unreformed Corporation facilities for inclosing common land—a serious question, seeing how little of it now remained in the country. In order that they might hear the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) on the subject, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped that the Motion would not be persisted in, as the question of inclosure was really not involved. He believed that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) would have been satisfied with the explanations given by his right hon. Friend had he been present. His objections did not refer to the inclosure, but to the question raised by his noble Friend as to whether an unreformed Corporation should be permitted to make an agreement for an exchange of land. For his own part, he was satisfied that the exchange was a good one, and that Sir Richard Wallace had behaved generously to the public in the matter.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee.

  THE IRISH ESTIMATES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to make a complaint, but he considered the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated his (Mr. Parnell's) Friends and himself very badly with regard to the Irish Estimates. At the commencement of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman intimated his intention of taking the Estimates as continuously as possible until
    1660
    he got through them, doing, if possible, without Votes on account; and, with regard to those for English and Imperial purposes, he had certainly kept his word. He had endeavoured, with the utmost persistence, night after night, to obtain money for those purposes; and, while not finding fault with him for that, he (Mr. Parnell) must say the Irish Estimates had been unfairly kept back. Before Whitsuntide, the Chancellor of the Exchequer postponed the Queen's Colleges Votes until that day—Monday—and the House had now been informed that those Votes had been further postponed until the mythological time arrived for the introduction of an Intermediate Education Bill in the House of Lords. Although not favoured with his reasons for this step, he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer had good and valid ones for it, and that he would not have adopted a course, which appeared like a breach of promise to the Irish Members, if he had not a good reason in his own mind for so acting. He (Mr. Parnell) did not so much find fault with the postponement of the Queen's Colleges Votes as he did with the postponement of the Estimates for general purposes in Ireland. In times past, it had always been a matter of complaint with the Irish Members that the Irish Estimates were not taken until so late in the Session as to make it almost impossible to allow of any discussion on them. He and many others had hoped that this Session they would have been brought forward at such a period that it would have been practical to have discussed them fully and fairly, and as they had never yet been discussed. The Irish Members desired on such Estimates to have an opportunity of bringing forward many important questions of principle and detail, and to try and remedy several grievances of which they complained. But now, it seemed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having begun under such good auspices, having got the English and Imperial Estimates before the House, was going to throw the Irish Estimates over to the end of the Session. He was quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not willingly or knowingly do the Irish Members an injury in that respect; but, as days went by, and they got near the end of July, it became increasingly hard to discuss, with any

    1661
    effect or any satisfaction, Estimates, or to remedy grievances. Irish Estimates had never been fairly discussed since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, and it was a matter of great disappointment to him, just as it appeared likely that they would have the full opportunity which they had never yet had of discussing them, that they should again be postponed. That was not the first time they had been postponed during the present Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone here, there, and everywhere; he had gone backward and forward in order to avoid the Irish Estimates. He (Mr. Parnell) did not lay any particular stress upon the postponement of the Queen's Colleges Votes; he alluded to the other Irish Estimates, concerning which there were many important questions to bring before the House; and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Irish Estimates, apart from these relating to the Queen's Colleges, to come forward sooner than he now intended. He did not wish to criticize at all severely the conduct of the Government in the management of Business. He knew they managed their matters with the best intentions; and although good intentions were invariably successful, he must say this Session their intentions regarding the Estimates did not deserve to be successful. Look at their conduct that night, for instance——
    MR. SPEAKER: I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Question before the House is, that this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into Committee of Supply, and he must confine himself to that Motion. The general conduct of the Government in the management of Business is not before the House.
    MR. PARNELLdid not quite understand when he could discuss the conduct of the Government in fixing Wednesday next for a particular class of Estimates.
    MR. SPEAKER: By the Standing Orders of the House it must be so fixed.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish to do anything which was out of Order; but he wanted to thoroughly understand his position in reference to these Estimates. That night Supply was the fourth Order, and the evening had been spent on the three previous Orders. Consequently,
    1662
    they had not got into Supply at such a reasonable time as they had hoped; and the Government, in, the exercise of their discretion—and, he admitted, a very proper exercise of their discretion—had not attempted to get into Supply at such a late hour. But with reference to the question of the time at which they proposed to take Supply, he thought he was entitled to criticize their conduct on the matter of the Irish Estimates. The Army Estimates, which had been down for that night, were to be fixed for the next day, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what necessity there was for putting the Army Estimates before the Irish Estimates, which were of a much more pressing character? He knew the fixing of any class of Estimates for Tuesday would be more or less a matter of form; but, at the same time, he urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward the Irish Estimates, and not follow the precedent of keeping them back to a time when they could not be properly discussed or decided upon. There were questions of the greatest importance involved in these Estimates, and he desired to abolish the custom of treating them as matters of form only. He had ventured, perhaps, at too great length, to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House to the matter. He knew the difficulty of discussing Estimates towards the end of July, as, in Sessions which were past, he had felt a sort of weariness when that period arrived. As it seemed likely that the same course would be pursued this Session, he urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of at once bringing on the Irish Estimates, instead of taking the remaining five or six Votes of the Army Estimates, which were not of a pressing character. He wished to explain that in what he had said he did not mean to criticize the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in postponing the Queen's College Estimates.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to remind the hon. Member that he has repeated the same argument over and over again, and that he is thus trying very severely the forbearance of the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had no wish to do that; but it was almost impossible for him to say anything without trying the forbearance of the House. He would

    1663
    move that Supply be taken on Tuesday, instead of on Wednesday.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a Motion which cannot be put. It is contrary to the Standing Orders of the House that Supplies should be proposed, unless recommended by Ministers of the Crown.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when the hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government having repeatedly postponed the Irish Estimates, he forgot that the practice had been, when the Irish Votes were reached, that the Irish Members objected to proceed with them. The Government would be most anxious to go on as soon as they could with the Irish Votes, but it would be inconvenient to take them before the Army Estimates. At the moment, he thought it best to conclude an irregular discussion by explaining that when the Order of the Day for Supply was reached at too late an hour on Monday, it was a Standing Order to postpone it to Wednesday.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he could not too strongly impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of giving time for a full discussion of the Irish Estimates. There were many questions relating to them to be considered, and he believed a full discussion on one occasion would obviate a repetition of the arguments at any future time. Irish Members only objected to proceed with Votes when the hour was too late for full and fair discussion.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, all must feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to be courteous, and was courteous; but he very seldom gave the Irish Members any real satisfaction. To place himself in Order, he would move the adjournment of the House. The Irish Members felt that the course which the Government adopted towards them provoked them to a certain extent to assume a retaliatory attitude. ["Oh, oh!"] He meant exactly what he said. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would enter into the feelings of Irish Members, who desired to deal carefully and fully with the Estimates relating to their own country, and would give them the opportunity of so doing, it would save a great deal of the spirit of hostility which often arose. This year the Irish Estimates were to be put off just as in previous years, and they were not to have an opportunity of
    1664
    fairly discussing matters of the highest possible moment to the Irish people. It unfortunately happened that Ireland was a distinct country, and hon. Gentlemen, by their treatment, tended to make it more distinct every day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was addressed by way of appeal, whether it was attempted to press matters on his attention by a course of conduct which tried the forbearance of his Party, or whatever was done, answered with courteous words, and nothing else. He confessed that he considered the courtesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer an aggravation of the injury, for the bland manner of the right hon. Gentleman only deprived them of the poor luxury of picking a quarrel. He protested against the way in which the Irish Members had been treated, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward the Irish Estimates at such a time as would enable Irish Members to discuss them fully.
    MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan for the adjournment of the House. In doing so, he was bound to make a few remarks on the observations which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had addressed to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). From his (Mr. Biggar's) experience of the House, he believed it would be impossible for anyone to speak without repetitions. He had known cases in which eminent Members of the House and practised speakers had repeated themselves in exactly the same words. The first case which occurred to him was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), who was First Lord of the Admiralty in the late Administration. In speaking last Session, the right hon. Gentleman had, on one occasion, as pointed out to him (Mr. Biggar), by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork, used the same expression four times in one speech. He (Mr. Biggar) remembered on another occasion noticing the utterances of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for England, and he found that the hon. and learned Gentleman repeated himself at least 10 times in a speech of 15 minutes. He also remembered that on one occasion the

    1665
    late Attorney General for Ireland repeated himself 20 times in a 10 minutes' speech. In saying this, he did not mean to infer that he had forgotten the position in which a speaker was placed by the action of these who preceded him; but he wished to show that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath was not guilty of a thing which did not fall to the share of other hon. Members in the House. Having said so much, he would proceed to give shortly his reasons for seconding the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
    MR. DALRYMPLE MR. DALRYMPLE rose to Order. He wished to ask, whether it was competent for any hon. Member, at that stage, to move the adjournment of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The original Question was, that on Wednesday this House resolve itself into Committee of Supply. No doubt it is competent for any hon. Member to move the adjournment of the House on the debate upon that Question.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he supported the Motion for adjournment, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not replied to the questions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath. Irish Members believed that a great many things relating to these Estimates required to be discussed and re-modelled; and in the interests not of the Irish Members but of the public service he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give every possible opportunity for that discussion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan would not persevere in his Motion for the adjournment of the House. While agreeing as to the importance of the Irish Estimates, he regretted that hon. Members should have wasted many minutes in the discussion. The Motion for adjournment had better be withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLthought he might be allowed to enter somewhat freely into the matter, because he had been called to Order for repeating himself. He admitted that if he had repeated himself he was in a position which rendered him much more likely so to commit
    1666
    himself than was occupied by many hon. Members. Of course, he was more likely to fall into the error of repetition than the older Members of the House, and who were more experienced and more practised speakers. But he tried to repeat himself as little as possible. It was a thing he as much objected to do as he regretted to hear. He wished to point out to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered the question he had put to him—namely, as to whether he intended to postpone all the Irish Estimates until the Intermediate Education Bill was introduced into the House of Lords? That really meant—Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to make the whole of the Irish Estimates wait upon the Queen's Colleges Estimates? He thought he had drawn a strong distinction between the Queen's Colleges and other Estimates; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to notice that one part of his inquiry at all, although, as the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had properly said, he had dwelt upon it and repeated it several times. Therefore, he thought that part of his inquiry might have pressed itself more upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer than it had done; and he might have told the House what he intended to do with regard to the other Irish Estimates. He could not help seeing, after what had dropped from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that these Queen's Colleges Estimates might be further postponed. He hoped the Estimates would not be left until a time when they would be obliged to take everything for granted, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the House when he would take them?
    MR. NEWDEGATEprotested against the time of the House being wasted in these unseemly discussions, and pointed out that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), by the course they were taking, were arrogating to themselves the right to regulate the Public Business of the House. The Estimates, being a part of the Business of the House, were, both by ancient custom and the Standing Orders, committed to Her Majesty's Ministers for regulation. The hon. Member for Meath had proposed to violate another Rule of the House by proposing that the Estimates

    1667
    should be taken on Tuesday, a day unusual for such a purpose, and upon which the Estimates could not be taken, without a suspension of the Standing Orders. He merely wished to call attention to what had happened during the last half-hour, which had been deliberately wasted by hon. Members opposite, because it tended to strengthen his impression that it was absolutely necessary that the House should frame for itself some Rules to prevent what he must consider a gross abuse of its Privileges.
    MR. DILLWYN MR. DILLWYN rose because, he said, he was desirous that they should conform to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, and to the Rules of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had referred to an attempt to violate the Rules of the House by taking the Estimates that day—Tuesday—instead of on Wednesday. He should like to know, whether there was any Rule to prevent Supply being taken on Tuesday; and whether it was out of Order to move the adjournment of the House on the Motion for going into Supply on Wednesday?
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, his hon. Friend had misunderstood him. He did not say it was irregular to move, the adjournment of the House; but that the manner in which the time of the House had been wasted for half-an-hour was an abuse.
    MR. DILLWYNdid not refer to the Motion for adjournment; but he understood the ruling was that Supply was to be taken by Standing Order only on Wednesday. He fancied he must have been mistaken with regard to that; and he wanted to know whether there was any Rule which would prevent the hon. Member for Meath, or anybody else, from moving an Amendment that Supply be taken on Tuesday, instead of Wednesday? He was quite aware that the Standing Order provided that Supply should be taken on Wednesday; but he was not aware that such Standing Order or Rule would prevent Supply being taken before Wednesday. He merely wished for information, because he was always desirous of obeying the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair.
    MAJOR NOLANremarked, that that was the sixth time the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)
    1668
    had urged the House to take stringent measures against hon. Members from Ireland, so that in this respect his conduct had been perfectly consistent. The object of the hon. Member was to incite the House to take strong measures; but he (Major Nolan) hoped the House would not be actuated by any such feeling of hostility towards any section of hon. Members. He could fancy that the conduct of the hon. Member would be quite consistent if he were sitting in the French Convention of 1793, where if a man was in a minority he ran a chance of getting his head cut off.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had made two points. The first was, that it was out of Order, and a breach of the Rules, to set up Supply for Tuesday night; and the next, that it was contrary to the traditions of the House, and an interference with the functions of the Government, to attempt to suggest anything with regard to dealing with the Estimates. He begged to protest most strongly against such a doctrine. Surely, if any hon. Member considered that any arrangement made by the Government for taking the Estimates concerning any particular branch of the public service was such as to preclude a proper discussion upon them, he had the Constitutional right to stand up and ask for some other arrangement to be made, in order that a full and proper discussion might take place. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had made an indirect appeal to the House to take strong measures against the hon. Member for Meath, in order to repress what was, undoubtedly, their Constitutional right. He had to say, in answer to that suggestion, that any strong measures which were taken against the four or five Irish Members who had insisted upon opportunities for discussing these Estimates would bring to the front not five but 50 Irish Members who would insist on their rights.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had characterized an attempt to elicit from the Government an intimation as to when they would bring on certain Irish Estimates as an abuse, and had endeavoured to incite the House to use strong measures to repress the right which was now enjoyed of free speech in that House. It was a fair question,

    1669
    whether the hon. Member was himself in Order in making such a suggestion, seeing that he was one of the Members of the Select Committee which was then sitting to consider whether any amendment in the Rules for regulating the mode of procedure in that House should be adopted or not. He (Mr. Gray) should not follow the hon. Member's example, and attempt to prejudice the House as to what changes in the Rules they should adopt; but he thought that if the House were in a position to consider this matter dispassionately, it would be much more important to discuss the conduct of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in attempting to prejudice the House against certain hon. Members, he being a Member of the Select Committee now having the Business of the House under their consideration.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to observe, with reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that the Committee of Supply can only be fixed by a Minister of the Crown; and that, according to the Standing Order, the Committee of Supply must be fixed for Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. I apprehend, however, that it might be open to any hon. Member to move, as an Amendment, that some other day should be substituted, when the Government has given Notice of their intention to take Supply on a particular day. The Question is, that this House do now adjourn.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till Wednesday.

    SUPPLY—REPORT.
    Supply [6th June],—Further Proceeding on Report [7th June] resumed.
    (23.) "That a sum, not exceeding £580,045, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Expense of the Post Office Packet Service."
    (24.) "That a sum, not exceeding £743,372, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
    Twenty-third Resolution read a second time,
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £580,045, be granted for the Post Office Packet Service."
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that there was included in the Vote a sum of £260 for conveying the mails betwixt Dunvegan and Lochmaddy, and he regretted to state that the postal service altogether in the Outer Hebrides was most ineffective. The Postmaster General must be aware that the counties of Inverness and Ross, and the town of Inverness, assembled in public meetings, had passed resolutions condemnatory of the service, and remonstrances from other quarters had often been made, as yet without effect. The passage was generally stormy, no sailing packet could make it regularly, and nothing short of a steam service to Lochmaddy would suffice. It was the case that letters were sometimes received in Inverness from America within a shorter period than from parts of the Long Island. There were two banks in the district, which was a populous one, and at certain periods of the year a large business connected with the fisheries was carried on. The answer hitherto given by the Post Office was, that the revenue being so small, no further accommodation could be given. This view of the Post Office, that it was a source of revenue, was only a modern one; and, while he should be glad to see a surplus, it ought to be after the requirements of the public were fully satisfied. The people in the district in question paid taxes like others of the Queen's subjects; and he thought their case, so remote, and in many respects hard, was one peculiarly calling for the consideration of Government. Here he might rest, having stated the grievance, leaving it for the postal authorities to remedy it. But he would suggest that, as the Highland Railway and its connections carried the Northern Scottish mails, and had lately contracted for the mails to the Orkney Isles, performing all the services to the satisfaction of the Post Office, the Postmaster General should put himself in communication with the Railway Company, so as to have steam service betwixt Strome Ferry and Lochmaddy. To put himself in Order, he would now move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £260.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£580,845," in order to insert "£579,085."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    Question proposed, "That £580,045 stand part of the Resolution."
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was not aware that the hon. Member was going to bring forward this subject, or he would have refreshed his memory upon it. But he was quite aware of the importance of the subject; and he ventured to point out to the hon. Member that if he omitted from the Vote the small sum he proposed, there would be no postal service at all with these Islands—a result that the hon. Member would be the first to deprecate. He would be glad to confer with him, and see if some arrangement could be made to meet his views.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Resolution agreed to.

    CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OF- FENCES) BILL.— [BILL 178.]
    (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Asshcton Cross.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDtrusted his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would not persist in pressing forward the second reading of the Bill at that period of the night. Although he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) was in favour of the measure, yet it contemplated making such great changes in the law, that he thought they ought not to give it a second reading without an opportunity of having its principle fully discussed.
    MR. HERSCHELLhoped his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would not oppose the second reading, by agreeing to which they would be committing themselves to nothing. They were all agreed as to the principle of the Bill, which was merely a consolidation and simplification of the law. The alterations proposed were so very important, and would lead to so much discussion, that he thought the several points could be better considered in Committee on the clauses than by a
    1672
    general discussion on the second reading.
    MR. BIGGARalso hoped the second reading would not be opposed, believing that in the case of a Bill of such magnitude and importance it would be impossible to discuss the details before they were in Committee. The Bill proposed to do away with a great many acknowledged abuses, and there should be no obstacle thrown in the way of making progress with it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he sincerely hoped that the Bill would be passed that Session, and he did not see why there should be any difficulty in the accomplishment of that object. As the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) had said, the main object of the Bill was to consolidate and simplify the law; and no doubt, in addition to that object, it proposed certain alterations and great amendments in the law, which would have to be discussed. It would not be reasonable to suppose that alterations of the importance of those introduced by the Government in this measure could be allowed to pass into law without full and adequate discussion; but there would be abundant opportunities of discussing these seriatim when the Bill came before the Committee. He, therefore, earnestly hoped that his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would not oppose the second reading of this Bill.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the hon. and learned Attorney General whether, if he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) consented to withdraw his opposition now, the hon. and learned Gentleman would give them an opportunity of discussing the Bill on going into Committee? It seemed to him that there was great inconvenience in having a measure of that sort go into Committee without an opportunity being afforded of discussing some of the important principles which it contained. If that opportunity was to be afforded, he should be perfectly prepared to withdraw his opposition at the present moment.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not give any such assurance. It was not at all convenient to the House that such an undertaking should be given in matters of this kind. It would be much better to take the sense of the

    1673
    House on the second reading; because the almost universal opinion of the House was in favour of the principles of this Bill.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Anglesea, that an opportunity should be afforded of discussing the Bill on going into Committee, was a very reasonable one; and he hoped the Government would put down the Bill as the first Order of the Day on going into Committee, so that an opportunity might be given to Members of expressing their opinions on the Code as a whole. Subject to this, he had no objection to now reading the Bill a second time.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had, in conjunction with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, taken some trouble in this matter, and he hoped the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) would be followed. There could be no advantage in discussing the Bill on general principles; but if they were going to discuss it at all let them discuss it now, and not on going into Committee.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 143.]
    (Mr. Edward Stanhope, Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Attorney General.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Moved, "That the Committee upon the Bill be fixed for Friday afternoon next, at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think that a Morning Sitting should be taken on Friday without more Notice than this. Surely the House ought to have some due, timely, and formal intimation of the intention of the Government in regard to the matter. It was an unusual thing to have Morning Sittings on Fridays at the present period of the year; and, under these circumstances, he must oppose the Motion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the Motion would be agreed to. A period of the Session had now been reached when it had been usual,
    1674
    for many years, that Morning Sittings should commence. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: But not on Fridays.] He believed that what he had just stated held good both in regard to Tuesdays and Fridays; and he had no doubt it would be for the general convenience of the great majority of the House that there should, for the remainder of the Session, be Morning Sittings on these days. Of course, he was aware that such Sittings entailed upon the Government a corresponding obligation to do the best they could in order to keep a House in the evenings; and that they were most anxious to do. He hoped hon. Members would feel that it was really for the general advantage that they should get on with Business as well and as rapidly as they could; and the Morning Sittings constituted a favourable opportunity for proceeding with Bills which were already in Committee.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that to the best of his recollection, it was early in the Session to take two days a-week for Morning Sittings. They were now only in the middle of June, and a considerable time must yet elapse before their labours were brought to a close. Never, within his recollection, had it been proposed to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays at so early a period. But there was another consideration which ought not to be left out of sight in connection with such Sittings; and that was, that they precluded from attendance in the House, to a greater or less extent, of hon. Members who were engaged on Select Committees. That was an element which did not appear to him to have been sufficiently considered in suggesting the proposed arrangement.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would name Thursday for the Bill instead of Friday; and, meantime, he would look into the records of the House as to Morning Sittings.
    MR. BIGGARobserved, that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had an important Motion on the Paper for Friday with reference to the miners of the country, and he hoped an opportunity would be afforded to the hon. Gentleman of bringing that Motion forward.
    Motion amended, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
    (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)

    [BILLS 44–215.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did not know who had charge of the measure that evening; but if the Bill was to be put down evening after evening, and morning after morning, it was the duty of someone either to move that the Order for its Consideration should be discharged, or that it should be fixed for some day when hon. Members might know that it would be definitely disposed of. The Bill had been put down night after night before Easter, and night after night before the Whitsuntide holidays, and now it seemed likely that it would be put down night after night again. He moved, as an Amendment, that Consideration of the Bill be definitely fixed for Monday, July 1st.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member that, according to the usual course followed in the House, the Member in charge of a Bill named the time for its Consideration as amended. To move that the Order for that Consideration should be discharged, in the absence of an hon. Member in charge of a Bill, might cause the greatest inconvenience; and was a proceeding which was never taken without due Notice.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should be the last person in the House to do anything irregular; but he begged to give Notice, that when anyone who appeared to have charge of the Bill stated to the Clerk at the Table that he desired it to be considered on such and such a day, he would move that the Order be discharged.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

  COLLECTION OF RATES (DUBLIN) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill 'to amend the Law relating to the Collection of Rates in the city of Dublin; and to the office of the Collector General of Rates; and for other purposes.'"
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, that before the Question was put, it would be convenient if the House received some statement on the subject of the Bill. He hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was unable to make a statement in the House, they would hear that the Report of the Commission, and the evidence relating to the subject, would be laid on the Table immediately.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the matter was in a very anomalous condition. About a week ago he addressed a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman when the Report would be placed on the Table, when it would be in the hands of hon. Members; and, whether a copy of it had been supplied to an individual Member before it had been supplied to Members generally? and the reply which he received from the Chief Secretary was to the effect that his own copy had been shown to one hon. Member of the House, and that the delay which had taken place in connection with the Report had been occasioned by the printers in Dublin. From his (Mr. Gray's) knowledge of the printing office in that city, he should be inclined to think that the Chief Secretary had been under a mistake in thinking the delay arose from that cause. But if it was intended to delay the production of the Report for a long period, so far as the House generally was concerned, he still thought that a copy of it might be placed on the Table of the House, in order that Members might have an opportunity of perusing it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the Report and the Evidence would be laid upon the Table in a few days. The Chief Secretary was, he believed, quite accurate, at he time he spoke, as to the cause of the delay in printing the Report. The Minutes of the Evidence were not then printed, and he himself had only read the Report which had been given to the Chief Secretary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to amend the Law relating to the Collection of Rates in the city of Dublin; and to the office of the Collector General of Rates; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES LOWTHER and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 220.]

  PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERnominated the Select Committee on Parliamentary Reporting as follows:—
    Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Mr. WALTER, Lord FRANCIS HERVEY, Mr. DUNBAR, Mr. HALL, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Sir HENRY WOLFF, Mr. BARCLAY, and Mr. MILLS:— Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had reason to know that there were not a few hon. Members who were dissatisfied with the constitution of the proposed Committee. There appeared to be some hon. Gentlemen on the Committee who were without any special knowledge of the facts connected with the present system of reporting in the House; but there were also others who while acquainted with, and capable of giving information upon, the subject, had been picked from one class only. If the London Press was to be represented in any way upon the Committee, it was equally desirable that the country Press should be represented. There were several hon. Gentlemen in the House, connected with country journals, whom it would be of advantage to have upon the Committee. As to the first two names—those of the right hon. Member for Westminster and the right hon. Member for Bradford—he could not conceive that there would be any objection on the part of any hon. Member of the House; but on the third name—that of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton)—he thought it desirable to raise the whole question of the constitution of the Committee, which he did not think was, as it had been proposed, fairly representative of the desire and feeling of the House in so delicate and important a matter as that of Parliamentary reporting.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, his feeling was that no hon. Gentleman who was connected with reporting in the Gallery ought to be upon the Committee. The proceedings of the Committee, and its ultimate decision, would be much less likely to be called in question,
    1678
    if it were composed of hon. Gentlemen who were entirely independent on this particular matter.
    MAJOR NOLANmust say that, so far as this Committee went, he thought the Irish Members had been extremely fairly treated. Two Irish Representatives had been proposed to have seats upon it—the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who had first drawn attention to the whole question, and the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Dunbar), who had been formerly in the Reporters' Gallery, but who was now totally unconnected with the Press in any shape or form. There were other two hon. Members of the Irish Party who had had considerable experience in connection with the Irish Press; but one did not wish to serve, and the second waived his claims in favour of the two hon. Gentlemen whom he had mentioned.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAwas not aware that any complaint had been made as to the Irish Members having been unfairly treated in the constitution of the Committee. He hoped that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who possessed special knowledge on the subject, would be placed upon the Committee.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had suggested to him to have his name added to the Committee; but he had declined, because he was connected with the Press, and desired, therefore, not to be upon a Committee, when it might be supposed that he was actuated by personal interest or predilection one way or another. He was surprised, however, to see amongst the list of these who were to constitute the proposed Committee the names of two hon. Gentlemen, both of whom were connected with the London Press. One complaint which had often been made on this subject was that the reports of the proceedings of the House were managed altogether by London journals, to the exclusion of Provincial newspapers. That being so, the constitution of the Committee was evidently faulty. Gentlemen who might be interested in a continuance of the present monopoly, or in changes which might be supposed to result to their own advantage, directly or indirectly, should not be upon the Committee at all. If they were to be

    1679
    put on, then there should also be Representatives of the Provincial Press.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREdesired to point out to hon. Members that at present the proposed Committee consisted of only 13 names; and that it would be quite possible to add four names to these 13, without exceeding the limits and dimensions of a Committee on a matter of this importance. Of such additional names, he hoped that that of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) would be one.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, 13 names had been taken to begin with, in the expectation that others would be added. At the same time, the constitution of a Committee of this description was a matter of some difficulty. On the one hand, it was desirable to have a sufficient number of hon. Gentlemen upon it who had practical knowledge on the subject, and who would put questions which would bring out important information; but, on the other hand, it was also desirable that a considerable proportion of the Committee should consist of hon. Gentlemen who had not altogether that technical knowledge and experience, but who could bring common sense and sound judgment to bear on the matters they were called upon to consider. He thought it would be desirable that there should be placed upon the Committee some hon. Gentlemen who would be able to represent the London Press and also the Provincial Press—not for the sake of getting their views upon questions on which the interests of the one or the other might seem to come into collision, but for the purpose of extracting solid and substantial information. Of course, the position of those who were beyond reach of the London morning papers was different from that of men in Scotland or in the North of England; and it was especially important that the interests of the former class should be attended to. He hoped that the Committee, as proposed, would be agreed to; but he would be perfectly prepared, at a later date, to add four other names.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that after what had just been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not offer any opposition to the Committee as originally proposed. He hoped, however, that the names which were to be added to it would include
    1680
    those of some two out of the hon. Members for Tipperary, Glasgow, and Newcastle.
    Motion agreed to.
    And, on June 20, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. COWEN, and Major ARBUTHNOT added.

    PUBLIC HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT (INTER- MENTS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MARTEN, Bill to amend "The Public Health Act, 1875," as to Interments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MARTEN, Mr. GREENE, and Mr. COLE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Truro Chapter* (112); Corrib (Galway) River* (113); Statute Law Revision* (114); Inclosure Provisional Order (Llanfair Water-dine) * (115); Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny Union, &c.) * (116); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) (Cork) * (117); Local Government Provisional Orders (Belper Union, &c.) * (118); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bournemouth, &c.) * (119); Local Government Provisional Orders (Darenth Valley) * (120); Local Government Provisional Orders (Dawlish, &c.) * (121); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (122); Dental Practitioners * (123); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, Amendment* (124); Parliamentary and Municipal Registration (Consolidated) * (125).
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * (109); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (110); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Portsmouth) * (108).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) * (101); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lochgelly) * (102).
Third Reading—General Police and Improvement Provisional Order (Paisley) * (91); Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, &c.) * (95), and passed.
Withdrawn—Truro Bishopric * (103).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) [41 Vict. c. 21]; Exchequer Bonds (No. 2) [41 Vict. c. 22]; Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) [41 Vict. c. 20]; Acknowledgment of Deeds by Married Women (Ireland) [41 Vict. c. 23]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [41 Vict. c. lvi]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Droitwich, &c.) [41 Vict. c. lvii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Mickleover) [41 Vict. c. lviii].

TRURO BISHOPRIC BILL [H.L.]—(No. 103.)
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then—

TRURO CHAPTER BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to make provision for the foundation of a Dean and Chapter for the Bishopric of Truro, and for the transfer to the Cathedral Church of Truro of one of the Canonries in the Cathedral Church of Exeter; and for other purposes connected there with—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of EXETER; read 1a. (No. 112.)
THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CON- GRESS—ALLEGED AGREEMENT BE- TWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of putting to my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, on an important subject; and, in the absence of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury), I feel that I can only do so by the indulgence of the House itself. I wish to ask the noble Duke, If he can state to the House whether the Memorandum which appeared last week in a London evening paper, and which purported to be an agreement between the Government of Her Majesty and the Government of Russia, is or is not substantially correct; and, if it should appear that that is really the case, I would also ask my noble Friend if he is in a position to state whether any further information will be given to the House with regard to that paragraph of the Memorandum which applies to the Protectorate of Asia Minor?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, in answer to the Question which has just been addressed to me by the noble Earl opposite, I have to state that the Document to which he has alluded was evidently furnished to the journal in which it was published by some person who had access to Papers that were confidential. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, the publication of that document was totally unauthorized, and, therefore, surreptitious; and, as an explanation of
  1570
  the policy of the Government, it is incomplete, and, consequently, inaccurate. At the proper and earliest opportunity, Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest information to Parliament on this subject; but, in the meantime, they must appeal to Parliament, in the public interest, to justify them in declining to answer particular Questions on the matter.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think I need scarcely assure your Lordships that, in putting the Question to the noble Duke, I had no wish whatever to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, especially at a time like the present. But, if my noble Friend will permit me, I should like to ask him yet another Question—namely, whether the full information which he has just promised will be laid before the House, is likely to be given to us during the course of the negotiations which are now in progress, or when these negotiations come to a termination?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I am not prepared at this moment to answer the Question which my noble Friend has just addressed to me.
  EARL GREY: Do I understand the noble Duke to say that, though the Papers to which the attention of your Lordships has been called were surreptitiously furnished and incomplete, he does not deny that, so far as they go, they are an accurate account of certain transactions which have taken place—or, at least, that they contain the substance of a document which was drawn up and signed at an interview between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Russian Ambassador in London?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: In answer to the noble Earl, I have simply to state that I made no such admission.
  LORD HOUGHTON: It appears to me that this question is one of such vast and vital importance, that it would be alike gratifying to the Members of your Lordships' House and desirable in itself, if some more satisfaclory explanation could be given on this subject than that which we have just heard. The noble Duke opposite, in his reply to the Question of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), has left the case pretty much where it originally stood; and I rise

  1571
  merely to suggest to him that this question is not one between the present Government of England and the Parliament of this country, but one between the Government of England and the whole of Europe. There can be no doubt that the effect produced upon Europe by the publication of the document to which reference has been made has been portentous. In France, especially, the change of public opinion which has taken place in consequence of its appearance has been most notable and most painful, in every way, to the dignity of this country. My Lords, it would not be my desire—and I am certain it would not be the desire of any Member of this House—to throw the slightest embarrassment in the way of Her Majesty's Government upon this matter; but, whatever our opinions may be upon the general question, I think we must all feel that it is a great misfortune that the document which has been alluded to should have appeared at the present time. Even if the conditions mentioned in it are not true—even if the surrender which, according to it, we would require to make, is one to which the people of England would consent—there can be no doubt that it would have been far better for all parties if the document had appeared as the issue and outcome of a general Congress, rather than as the result of a preliminary investigation. My Lords, as the matter now stands before this country and the world, England did not enter the Congress of Berlin with free hands. It stands before Europe, that England went into that International Assembly with a contract which, in the main, abandoned some of the most important points which I, and other Members of your Lordships' House, considered it to be the duty of the Government of this country to maintain; and I am sure that if Her Majesty's Government can give such an explanation of the document as may serve to place England in a more dignified position than that which she at present occupies before Europe, that explanation will be thankfully received by the House generally.
  EARL GREY: The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council has stated that I was wrong in understanding him to have admitted that the document recently published was accurate so far as it went; but I really think that your
  1572
  Lordships have a right to expect a little more from the noble Duke than we have yet heard. It appears to me that we are entitled to know whether that alleged agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia is true and correct or not, so far as it goes. I cannot perceive any object to be gained by making a mystery of a document which has all the appearance of an official and authentic Paper. The noble Duke has said that he does not admit it to be authentic; but, at the same time, he has not said that it is not authentic. The noble Duke might go a little further, I think, and distinctly state to the House whether that Memorandum is or is not what it professes to be.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: The noble Earl who has just spoken must really allow me to be the best judge of how far I ought to go in this matter. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton), no doubt, entered into various topics which were not alluded to by the noble Earl who introduced the subject; but I think the noble Lord was irregular in the course which he thus adopted. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) asked me a Question as to the authenticity of this particular document. He was good enough to give me Notice in the morning of his intention of putting such a Question, and since then I have had time thoroughly to consider and to weigh the answer which I should give to him. I have given him that answer. I have stated that Her Majesty's Government do not consider it expedient, in the public interest, to enter further into the subject at the present time.

  MONUMENTS (METROPOLIS) (No. 2) BILL—(No. 100.)
  (The Viscount Midleton.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, there was one clause in the Bill which raised a question of great importance. He referred to the 4th clause, which ran—"The Board"—that was the Metropolitan Board of Works—
  "may from time to time accept as a gift or be quest any monument, or any moneys for the

  1573
  purchase of any monument, and erect or permit the erection of any monument upon the said embankment or lands."
  —the Thames Embankment and the land vested in the Board—
  "and the Board may preserve and maintain every such monument, and shall have the control and management thereof for the benefit of the public."
  This clause suggested the question, who were to be the proper judges as to what monuments ought to be put up? And, as the matter was one which deserved careful consideration, he put it to the noble Viscount who had charge of the Bill whether he thought it would be advisable to proceed with the measure on the first day of their Lordships' re-assembling after the Whitsuntide Recess?
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, that in order to meet the wish of his noble Friend, he would postpone going into Committee on the Bill until Friday.
  Committee put off to Friday next.

  CORRIB (GALWAY) RIVER BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the appointment of Trustees to maintain certain works executed near the River Corrib in the county of Galway; and for other purposes—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 113.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 114.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.