Sitting of 22 May 1885

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First. Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)٭ [196]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)٭ [197]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 9)٭ [198].
Second Reading—Telegraph Acts Amendment [121]; Criminal Law Amendment [159], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1)٭ [131].

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CAVAN UNION—MR. JAMES HARTLY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that Mr. James Hartly, J.P. is an ex-officio guardian for Cavan Union, and also a contractor with the guardians; whether Mr. Hartly has signed an undertaking to act as guardian; and, whether it is not illegal for him to be a member of the Board and also a contractor; and, if so, will he take means to have the Law enforced?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that Mr. Hartly is qualified

  1141
  as an ex-officio guardian, but it is not known that he ever acted, or signed an undertaking to act, as a Guardian. He holds some contracts from the Guardians, but has not yet supplied any goods; and there has consequently not yet been any infringement of the law, so far as the Local Government Board are aware.

  DEFACEMENT OF FRENCH COIN.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the defacement of French copper coins in circulation in this Country by having the advertisement of "Pears' Soap" stamped upon them, and to the inconvenience and loss thus inflicted upon a large number of working people through the coins thus stamped being refused in many cases as payment, and notably so on the Tramway lines in South London; and, whether he will adopt means to stop the practice and to punish the guilty parties?
  MR. HIBBERT: I quite agree with the hon. Member that the practice referred to is a most reprehensible one. I fear, however, the Government are powerless in the matter, as there is nothing illegal in defacing any coins, except those of the Realm. French coins are not legal tender in this country; and, therefore, no one is bound to accept them, whether defaced or not. The remedy is in the hands of the public, who can, if they choose, refuse to receive French coins. I trust that those who have adopted this practice will discontinue it.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—BALLYMOTE NATIONAL SCHOOL, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in September last, Mr. Doyle, principal teacher of the Ballymote (county Sligo) National School, having been selected, with the approval of the Commissioners of National Education, to attend a course of lectures at South Kensington, the manager of the school, the Very Rev. Canon M'Dermot, applied to the Commissioners for leave to appoint a substitute during the absence of. Mr. Doyle; but they refused, and suggested that Mr. Doyle should resign, and a new principal be appointed by
  1142
  the manager; whether, accordingly, Mr. Doyle resigned, and the manager appointed Mr. Cunningham principal on the 2Cth October; whether, after a period of less than three months, namely, on the 9th January last, Mr. Cunningham resigned, and the Commissioners paid him his salary for the time he had served as principal; whether, thereupon, the manager, having no option but to close the school till Mr. Doyle's return from London or appoint a new principal ad interim, appointed Mr. Bernard Cogan, monitor of the school, to be principal during the interval; whether, on the return of Mr. Doyle to the school on the 16th February, Mr. Cogan vacated the principalship, Mr. Doyle was re-appointed to that post, and Mr. Cogan was appointed assistant teacher; whether, about two months after the return of Mr. Doyle, and subsequent to their allowance of Mr. Cunningham as principal from 26th October to 9th January, the Commissioners refused to recognize Mr. Cogan as principal from the 9th January to the 16th February, not upon any question of character or general qualification (as specified in Rule 110), but upon the plea that Mr. Cogan having been in January a paid monitor, serving for a fixed course, his appointment as principal was a breach of service, and salary would not be allowed; how the Commissioners reconcile this view with their allowance of the appointment of Mr. Cogan to be assistant teacher on the Kith February, his "fixed course" still being unexpired; whether the Commissioners insist that Mr. Cogan was locum tenens, though there was no other principal while he held the post, and whether they endeavour so to apply the three months' notice Rule (111) as to prevent a manager from appointing a teacher for a less time than three months, even with the assent of the teacher, and to meet an educational emergency, and after the Commissioners had themselves recognized and paid salary, in the case of the same school, to a principal whose term had not reached throe months; whether one effect of the course adopted by the Commissioners will be to nullify the annual results examination in this school, and cut away a main part of the income of the teachers, by excluding from the account of the attendances of

  1143
  pupils during the year all the attendances made during the period of five weeks in which Mr. Cogan was principal; and, whether the case will he reviewed as to its effect on the next annual results examination in the school, and in its bearing upon the right of managers to appoint a teacher, with his assent, for a limited period, in circumstances of urgency?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts as regards Mr. Doyle are substantially as stated. The cases of the other two teachers, Messrs. Cunningham and Cogan, differ in this material respect—that in the one an agreement was made between the manager and the teacher, which was in accordance with the Commissioners' Rules, and which there is legal power to enforce if it has been broken; while in the other the agreement entered into, or appointment made, was totally at variance with those Rules. The points have been very clearly explained by the Commissioners to the manager of the school, and I see no cause for any review of the case.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—BANAGHER ROYAL SCHOOL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is intended to withdraw the grants made to the Royal School at Banagher for education in that district; and, if so, whether the purpose of education in that district will be regarded in the use of the school buildings and the future application of the grants?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of any present intention to withdraw the provision for this school, but the case is undoubtedly one of those which would be dealt with under the Bill now before the House, should it become law; and in any scheme which might be formulated with respect to it, the educational requirements of the locality would, of course, be a primary consideration.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—DR. NEWELL, SENIOR SECRETARY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that in a paper called Ireland's Gazette, of 30th January 1884, a letter, written on the 28th of the same
  1144
  month by Mr. J. G. V. Porter, was published, in which it was stated that Dr. Newell, Senior Secretary to the Board of National Education, had "abetted improper action on the part of his Board, and that if an inquiry were held he would be compelled to resign;" whether the said Dr. Newell did authorise Mr. Matthew Kenny, of 42, Mountjoy Square, Dublin, to issue a writ in reference to the letter in question; whether any such writ was served upon Mr. Porter or on his solicitor; whether all further action was abandoned by Dr. Newell; and, if so, on what grounds; and, whether the alleged charge was in any form submitted to the consideration of the Commissioners or of their Sub-Committee?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The action in this matter was abandoned by Dr. Newell on Mr. Porter making an ample apology and withdrawal in the paper in which the libellous statements originally appeared, and paying the costs incurred.

  POST OFFICE-CHARGES AGAINST POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Postmaster General, Whether postmasters or the superintendents of postal or telegraph departments in the larger offices are allowed the right of withholding from their subordinates official papers which are not marked "confidential" by the secretary, and which affect the characters and reputations of those subordinates; whether this system is pursued in order to conceal from those affected by these papers the nature of the representations made to the secretary or the surveyor, as the case may be, in cases of petty irregularities, and in consequence of which punishment in the way of fines and cautions are inflicted; whether these fines and cautions militate against these officers when the question of their promotion comes to be considered; whether the system has his approval; whether he is aware that clerks and other subordinates are frequently required to sign official papers without knowing anything of the nature of the representations upon which the secretary or surveyor decides to subject them to punishment; and, whether, if illustrative cases are brought under his notice, he is prepared to state how he will deal with them?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No charge is ever entertained against a Post Office servant until he has had full opportunity of answering it; but, of course, in forwarding the answer the superior officer, whether a postmaster or superintendent, is required to express his own opinion on the case, and to state the general character of the officer whose conduct is impugned; and the report in which these particulars are given, though not marked confidential, is of a confidential nature. The same practice prevails, I believe, in other Public Departments, and I see no reason to alter it.

  BOARD OF TRADE—HARBOUR APPOINTMENTS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. KENNYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there are any situations, under the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade in Dublin, filled by persons who have been in the Royal Navy, and who have received there from a commutation allowance or pension; if so, how many; why they left the Navy; what their ages are; what rank they held in the Navy and what rank they hold now; on what qualifications and by what authority they were re-appointed to the public service; and will they receive any commutation allowance or pension on giving up their present appointments?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINnot being in his place, the following M.S.S. reply was read to the House for him:—
  "There are two appointments under the Marine Department (not Harbour Department) of the Board of Trade in Dublin filled by persons who have been in the Royal Navy. One holds his appointment direct from the Board of Trade, and is in receipt of retired pay; the other is appointed by the Local Marine Board for duties connected with the mercantile marine, and has commuted his retired pay. In the first-named case the officer retired in 1873 at his own request, being then a Staff commander. He is at present 61 years of age, and holds the appointment of principal officer at Dublin. He was specially appointed in 1875 by the then President of the Board of Trade as one of the inspectors to detain unseaworthy ships. He will be entitled to pension, subject to the regulations applicable to naval officers holding civil appointments. In the second case the officer was in 1877 placed on the retired list as physically unfit for service, he being at that time a navigating lieutenant. He is now 41 years of age, and has since 1878 held the appointment of superintendent of the mercantile marine office at Dublin, examiner for certificates of masters and mates, and secretary to the Local Marine
  1146
  Board. He was appointed by the Local Marine Board in 1878 after advertisement, and his appointment was recognized by the Board of Trade after he had passed a satisfactory technical examination. He is regarded as entitled to pension."

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE—INDIAN CANDIDATES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS (for Mr. R. N. FOWLER, Lord Mayor)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State has received a communication from the Council of University College, applying for his sanction to their announcement, in the Circular which is on the point of being issued by the Civil Service Commissioners to candidates selected for the Civil Service of India, that residence at the College is permitted in the houses of persons approved by the Council, on the same terms as have been sanctioned at other places of education; and, whether it is the intention to refuse such sanction?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Secretary of State has received a communication from the Council of University College asking that selected Indian candidates passing their two years' probation at that College may be allowed to reside either in the University Hall, or with one of the Professors, or with a person approved by the Council. That application is now under consideration.

  CRIMES (IRELAND)—RETURN OF STATISTICS, JANUARY 1 TO APRIL 30, 1885.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will furnish a Return, similar to that presented for 1880, showing all crimes against public life, firing into dwelling houses, administering unlawful oaths, demands for money, threatening letters or other intimidation, incendiary fires, robbery of arms, which have been reported by the Royal Irish Constabulary between the 1st day of January 1885, and the 30th day of April, inclusive, distinguishing, as far as possible, Agrarian Crimes, and showing (1) number and names of persons convicted, (2) number and names of persons made amenable, but not convicted, (3) number of cases in which no person was made amenable?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no objection to the production

  1147
  of the Return, if the hon. Member will move for it.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—BANFFSHIRE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the statement reported to have been addressed to the 4th (Portsoy) Battery, Banffshire Artillery Volunteers, to the effect that Lieutenant Findlay was to be promoted to the rank of Captain; whether it is true, as reported, that in consequence of that announcement, fifty-seven men belonging to the battery had resigned; and, if so, whether, before promoting Lieutenant Findlay to the command of the battery, he will institute inquiries as to the cause of his unpopularity with the men?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The facts are as stated in the Question; but at present no promotion to the command of the battery has been submitted to the War Office. I should prefer not to express any opinion until all the circumstances are before me.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—CHOLERA VACCINATION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the experimental test of the efficacy of the system of protective vaccination against cholera, at present being carried on by Dr. Ferran at Alcira, an insular town of the province of Valencia; whether he has been made aware that, of the 16,000 inhabitants of Alcira, Dr. Ferran asserts that between the 1st and 18th of the present month 5,432 have been inoculated according to his method, and that among them the number attacked with cholera has been 7, or 1 in every 776 persons, and the number of deaths nil; while, among the uninoculated remainder, the number of attacks has been 64, or 1 in every 163 persons, and the number of deaths 30, or 1 in every 352 persons; whether he is aware that Dr. Ferran is desirous that an English Commission should be appointed to verify the results he claims; and, whether, in view of the re-appearance of cholera in the South of France, and the special importance of questions relating to that disease to Great Britain as possessor of India, he will consider the
  1148
  propriety of nominating a small Commission to visit Alcira, and Report?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I am aware that Dr. Ferran is testing the efficacy of the system known as "protective vaccination against cholera;" and I have seen a telegram from him containing the statement of facts mentioned in the Question, and asking that an English Commission may be sent out. We are considering whether we can comply with this request; but the telegram was only placed in our hands yesterday. I will, however, at once bring the proposal under the notice of the Secretary of State for India, as India is even more directly interested than England in means for the prevention of cholera.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (YORKSHIRE).
  COLONEL GUNTERasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If his attention has been called to the alleged outbreak of foot and mouth disease at Settle, in Yorkshire, on the farm of Messrs. Dugdale, as stated in The Yorkshire Post of Thursday, and if the report is true; and, if so, if this is the only known case at present existing in the United Kingdom?
  MR. TREVELYAN: An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was reported on Wednesday at Settle, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in a herd of 10 cattle, of which one only was attacked. This was at a farm belonging to Messrs. Lord. Yesterday a further outbreak on adjoining premises, belonging to Mr. Dugdale, was reported in a herd of 189 cattle, of which two are affected. The Department have telegraphed to one of the travelling Inspectors to visit the place and see that all precautions are taken. These are the only cases in which foot-and-mouth disease is reported to exist.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—EUROPEAN PRISONERS OF THE MAHDI.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will telegraph to General Buller authorizing him to send a Native Emissary to the Mahdi to offer a ransom for M. Cuzzé, General Gordon's Agent at

  1149
  Berber, Lupton Bey, and other European prisoners of the Mahdi?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to a question I addressed to Lord Wolseley on the subject of White prisoners said to be surviving at Khartoum, he forwarded, on the 2nd of May, a Report from Sir Charles Wilson, in which the following passage occurred:—
  "Our messengers have been told they would receive large present if they brought back letter from any surviving European; they have brought none, and have never mentioned any European women except the Sisters. No means of communication with view to ransom."
  Under these circumstances, I doubt if anything more can be done at present; but I will address a further question to Lord Wolseley on the subject.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but this is a question of great urgency, because the Forces are about to retire from Dongola; and we have information that not only is M. Cuzzi, General Gordon's agent at Berber, a prisoner, but several ladies, the families of Turkish officers and other Europeans resident in Khartoum, have been placed in a state of slavery by the capture of that place. I would, therefore, beg the noble Lord to telegraph to Lord Wolseley to communicate directly with General Buller, authorizing him to send a Native messenger to the Mahdi with a distinct offer of ransom. Surely that could be done at once.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have already stated that Lord Wolseley's attention was called to the subject at the beginning of the month, and that he then stated that, having consulted Sir Charles Wilson in reference to it, the latter replied that no means of communication with the Mahdi then existed. I cannot pretend to say that I know better than Sir Charles Wilson; but I will make further inquiry of that officer in reference to the matter.

  EGYPT—SUPPRESSION OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN."
  MR. GIBSON (for Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps were taken by the Government, before the sending of the Despatch of the 1st of April by Lord Granville to Sir Evelyn Baring, to ascertain what steps could be legally undertaken to suppress The Bosphore Egyptien?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government accepted the assurances of the Egyptian Government that they were entitled to suppress The Bosphore Egyptien, and that, if any illegality were committed, the case could be tried before the International Tribunals. No question arose as to the legality of the suppression, but only as to the procedure adopted. Her Majesty's Government were not informed that the French Consul opposed the measure, or that what amounted, at least technically, to the use of force would be made against him.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSIAN ATTACK AT PENJDEH—PROCLAMATION OF THE AMEER.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has Her Majesty's Government received confirmation of the statement in The Times of May 19th, that the Ameer had issued a proclamation complimenting his troops on their gallantry at Penjdeh, and laying stress on the value of the British alliance; and, whether he will lay a Copy of the Ameer's Proclamation upon the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply on this subject which I gave yesterday, when I stated that Her Majesty's Government had received no information respecting the contents of this Proclamation. The question of its publication must be deferred until the receipt of the text; but I do not anticipate that there will be any objection.
  MR. GIBSON: The reason I put down the Question again was to ascertain whether the noble Lord had written out to ask for the terms of the Proclamation. Will the noble Lord undertake that his department will telegraph out for the terms of the Proclamation and lay it upon the Table when the House re-assembles on the 4th of June?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I imagine that any such direction would more properly come from the India Office; but, be that as it may, I have no doubt whatever that no special instructions are necessary. An important Proclamation of this kind will naturally be sent home in the ordinary course.
  MR. GIBSON: I will renew the Question on the 4th of June.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—ORGANIZATION OF A LOCAL FORCE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the great sacrifice of life and treasure incurred in the Soudan, and the decline of the movement in favour of the Mahdi, Her Majesty's Ministers will organise an Asiatic or African force under British officers in order to restore order and put down slavery in the Soudan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. We are not aware of any rational plan by which the Force described in the Question could be organized.

  THE EGYPTIAN LOAN—THE JOINT GUARANTEE.
  MR. M'COANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any steps have been taken by any of the other Powers joining in the guarantee of the Egyptian Loan to obtain the sanction of their Legislatures; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, and what steps will be taken, pending the issue of the loan, to find funds for meeting the administrative and other expenses of Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE,who was most indistinctly heard, was understood to say: The information in possession of the Foreign Office is as follows:—The French Government have brought in a Bill authorizing the Convention—practically for the ratification of the Convention—I am not sure if ratification is technically correct—but, at any rate, to give full effect to the Convention. This Bill has been favourably reported upon by the Committee of the Chambers to which it was referred; and we presume that it will proceed in the usual course. The Italian Government have also introduced a Bill into the Chamber of Deputies to authorize the ratification of the Convention. No steps have yet been taken by the Governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary to obtain the sanction of their Parliaments to the Convention. I understand that there is a Dissolution either taking place or about to take place immediately in Austria, and I have heard—but I cannot say positively—that the German Parliament does not meet for some time. We are under the impression that in these circumstances no ratification by these Parliaments will take place until the close of
  1152
  the Summer. I ought to mention that, with respect to the causes of delay, I am not sure that we should be justified, without much fuller knowledge of the forms and the usual methods of procedure, in stating that there is any undue delay in the ratification of the Convention in the case of France and Italy. With regard to the other Powers, I have stated all we know. As to the steps that will be taken pending the issue of the loan for meeting the administrative and other expenses of Egypt, I have not seen, and I do not think that the Government have received, any statement of the present condition of the Egyptian Treasury with regard to cash which would enable us to pass any judgment on the suggestions which have been made upon the subject. My impression is that the time of the year, on which, of course, a great deal depends, is one of comparative ease to the Egyptian Government; but I must not be understood to say that no difficulty will arise.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in reference to a statement which had appeared in The Times of that morning, that Messrs. Rothschild had notified with regard to the Unified Debt that the 5 per cent on the coupons would not be deducted, asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government could state whether the Government of Egypt, acting under the advice of Her Majesty's Government, had accepted the necessity of considering that the decree of the Khedive sanctioned by the Convention would not come into force until the Powers had agreed to the loan of £9,000,000?
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked, whether there was any reason to suppose that the German and Austrian Governments had any objection to the Convention, or whether the delay in the ratification of it arose simply from the Parliamentary system of the two countries?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Convention, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, was concluded with the full assent of the authorized Representatives, the Plenipotentiaries of Germany and Austria, and no communication has reached us from either of these Governments, nor has anything occurred that would justify us in assuming that there is any objection or difficulty. As far as we are able to judge upon the facts before us—although I am not officially informed on the point—the delay is simply an in-

  1153
  cident connected with the arrangements of the year for the transaction of Parliamentary Business in these countries.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could now indicate any time at which the Alexandria indemnities were likely to be paid?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid, Sir, that would depend on the time of the raising of the loan, and I am not in a position to indicate a time when that loan could be raised, because that matter is at this moment under legal investigation. I believe that a conclusion will be arrived at, so far as we are able to do it, in a very short time. What that conclusion may be it is impossible for me to say. Of course, it is a matter of law under the terms of the Convention.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that, as the Austrian Parliament did not meet until October, he wished to know what was to be done with the coupons which fell due before that time. Would the deductions be made from them also as had been done with those of the past half-year?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot undertake to say. All I can say is that we shall adopt the best course in our power to provide for the case in anticipation.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked whether he was to understand that the legal question referred to related to the reductions to be made on the coupons or to the fact that the loan could not be issued without the consent of the Legislatures of Germany and other Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I really cannot undertake, in answer to a Question, to state the nature of a reference on a point of law. I must leave that to the production of the case after we are in possession of the opinions which we may receive upon the best authority.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether, if the 5 per cent deduction on the coupons had already been made on the 1st of May, it would, if illegal, be repaid?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he could not give any precise answer to the Question. Communications were passing upon the subject, and, until they were concluded, he did not think that it would be prudent to make any further statement in reference to it.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether the notice which appeared in that morning's papers by the Messrs. Rothschild that there was to be no deduction from the coupons was issued with the authority of the Egyptian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We cannot say. If my hon. Friend will really consider he will see that this is a question which it is impossible for us to settle without communication with anybody else. Sorry as I am to do so, I must impress upon him the importance of exercising patience, and the necessity of cultivating that virtue.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the other Powers of Europe had been consulted before the issue of the Khedivial Decree imposing a tax of 5 per cent on the coupons; whether their consent had been asked; and, if not, whether, since that Decree was issued, they had unanimously repudiated it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think that it would be advisable to make any statement on this matter without Notice. The hon. Member will see that his Question involves an exceedingly delicate subject. Of course, just as the House is going to rise, I am unwilling to ask for Notice; but, at the same time, I really hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse my declining to answer his Question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Shaw Lefeavre, Mr. Hibbert.)

  [BILL 121.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE,who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
  "That, in order that sixpenny telegrams may become a reality and a great boon to large classes of the community now debarred from telegraphic communication by the heavy minimum charge of two shillings for a telegram and reply, it is absolutely necessary that, if any charge is made for addresses, it should be a fixed one, and not varying with the number of words, figures, or letters, and such charge should not exceed threepence,"
  said, that many suggestions had been

  1155
  made in various quarters as to the best system for cheapening telegraphic communication, and estimates had been made of the loss which would be sustained by the Post Office if one or other method were adopted. Whatever might be the merits of the different propositions? which had been made, it was clear that the Bill before the House would not materially reduce the price of telegrams. In fact, it might suitably be called "a Bill to abbolish 1s. telegrams of 20 words and free addresses, and for establishing a new tariff by means of which 6d. telegrams would become impossible except to the favoured few." The Postmaster General had said that it was not fair to give people who chose to send long addresses an advantage over those who were more concise. That, however, was not a fair argument, as people had no control over the names of the streets in which they lived; and in large towns, and London particularly, addresses were necessarily longer than in the country. He had found, from a pretty extensive examination, that names and addresses on the average amounted to 12 words in each telegram. Thus, instead of telegraphing, as now, 20 words for 1s., it would only be possible to telegraph 12. In London great particularity of address was frequently required, as the same names of streets and squares were frequently repeated, and even in the same postal district. For example, "Gloucester Place, W.," was not sufficient, and it was necessary to add "Hyde Park" or "Portman Square," as the case might be, and thus in either case two words were added. The more humble the individual the longer the address, whilst for Barings, Rothschilds, and Goschens, "London" was sufficient address. Then there was some difficulty in deciding what was to be considered as one word. "Bedroom" was, he believed, reckoned as one, while "Sitting-room" was counted as two words. Under the Bill this difficulty would be greatly increased, and much waste of time and labour thereby involved. Why could not the Government show the same courage and enterprize which were manifested when the 1d. post was introduced? No doubt, officials always dreaded change. When the 1d. post was proposed, Lord Lichfield, then Postmaster General, declared the scheme impracticable; and a 4d. post was in-
  1156
  troduced, and proved a failure. Experience abundantly proved that, whenever methods of communication were made cheaper and more accessible, the increase of business done far more than compensated in the long run any loss which was at first incurred. The estimates of loss, also, were for the most part wholly inaccurate and misleading. There was no distinction observed between capital expenditure and revenue account, and it was clear that new wires and increased plant should be classed under the former and not under the latter head. Then no account was taken of the use of the telegraphs for official purposes generally. There were wires between all the Government Offices, and all the police stations in the country and in London, for which no royalty was paid. The 1d. post had been a marvellous success. The universal Is. telegram had also more than answered expectations. The Railway Companies, when first established, had no third-class carriages; and now, by the universal adoption of third-class trains, had so largely increased their revenues that the revenue from third-class passengers largely exceeded that from the first and second class combined. And there was no doubt that like results would follow a reduction in the cost of telegrams. In one respect, indeed, the acquisition of the telegraphs by the Government had increased the cost of telegrams, for previously there were 6d. telegrams. The increase of telegraphic business had been amazing. In 1871 the number of telegrams in the Provinces was 5,300,000, and in London, 2,900,000; in Scotland, about 1,000,000; and in Ireland, 606,000. But in 1883–4 the Provinces sent 15,000,000; London, 12,700,000; Scotland, 3,300,000; and Ireland, 2,000,000; making a total of 32,000,000, as against the 9,000,000 of 1871. The number was still increasing at the rate of about 2½ per cent per year. What he wished was that the addresses of sender and receiver should be charged a fixed sum of 3d., that five words should be another 3d., that five words more should be 3d. more, making 9d., and that the charge of 1s. for 20 words should remain as at present. In the hope that the Government would further consider the matter during the short Recess, he would refrain from moving his Amendment at present.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that the discussion of the question appeared to be proceeding on a wrong hypothesis. The Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), which he (Mr. Puleston) seconded, was discussed and carried two years ago, with the idea that we were to have 6d. telegrams just as we now had 1s. telegrams. The late Postmaster General told him, in conversation, that after the passing of the Resolution, the permanent officials of the Post Office and of the Treasury impressed him with their belief that the adoption of 6d. telegrams, pure and simple, would involve a loss. But the convenience of not having to count the words of an address was a very great one. If the present 1٭. telegrams were given up, the loss would be far greater than that which would follow the adoption of free addresses in cheaper telegrams. If the sender were given a pecuniary interest in the curtailment of the address, the insufficiency of addresses would occasion much greater trouble and cost to the Post Office than it would lose from free addresses. The public would be exposed to the risks of miscarriage. But they ought not to consider too minutely the loss or gain in one branch of the business of a great Department like the Post Office. He did not wish to oppose the Bill; but he hoped that the Postmaster General would see his way to considerably modify the present proposals. For some time past he had taken a note of the number of words in the address of every telegram that he had received or sent out, and he had been unable to arrive at the average given by the right hon. Gentleman. The experience of other people had been the same as his upon this matter. He felt sure that by passing the Bill in its present shape they would be depriving themselves of the 1s. telegram of 20 words. It necessarily followed that the telegraph under the new arrangement, as at present proposed, would be used less rather than more, and his contention was that the loss from that circumstance would be far greater than any loss that might be incurred by giving free addresses. He believed that the result of having a 6d. telegram with free addresses would, in the end, be far more profitable to the Post Office Department than anything like the system which was now proposed
  1158
  to be introduced by the Bill. If the measure passed in its present form, it would diminish rather than increase the business of the Telegraph Department, and instead of conferring a boon upon the public would absolutely prevent the development of the telegraph system.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, his Resolution, two years ago, was in favour of the reduction of the minimum charge, and not in favour of any hard-and-fast line of 6d. or any other sum for telegrams. That was an important feature to bear in mind. As the Member at whose instance the Motion with regard to reduction of telegraph tariff was passed, he might naturally be supposed to be as much interested in securing a boon for the public as any Member of the House. When the Resolution had been proposed, it was but fair to say that Mr. Faweett had already explained his scheme of a ½d. a-word telegram, with a minimum charge of 6d., and had expressed his readiness to carry it into operation if the Treasury would give its assent. In moving his Resolution, he (Dr. Cameron) did not pretend to dictate as to what the Post Office should do, and framed the Resolution in the most general terms. After that Resolution was carried, communications went on between the Treasury and the Post Office, various proposals passed, and three main schemes were broached. The one was a ½d. a-word telegram, with a minimum charge of 6d., which was virtually that embodied in the present Bill. That, Mr. Faweett estimated, would involve a loss upon the telegraph revenues of £160,000 or £170,000, which could not be recouped before 12 months had passed. The second scheme was that of free address to the receiver and a reduced number of words, he thought, in the body of the telegram. That was calculated to involve a much more considerable loss, and required a longer time in order that the loss should be made good. The third scheme proposed was that both the addresses of the sender and receiver should be sent free, a limited number of words in the body of the telegram, and a minimum charge of 6d. in all cases; and that, of course, was calculated to involve upon the Treasury a still greater loss, and would require a much longer time to make good that loss. Now, he never concealed his belief that the figures on

  1159
  which these estimates were founded were rather gloomy. He was always of opinion that they were rather the figures of an official—a red-tape official—rather than that of an enterprizing man of business. Mr. Fawcett himself acknowledged that the estimate he quoted—especially that quoted on the occasion of the first debate—was that relating to the J2. a-word system pure and simple; and in his speech Mr. Fawcett admitted that the calculation had been designedly made in order that the interest of the Treasury should be protected. Mr. Fawcett, who was a great political economist, saw nothing adverse to business principles in writing off a large amount of the capital which had been wasted owing to the extravagance which had been unearthed in connection with the new telegraph system. On that and on other grounds the House were entitled to infer that the accounts as kept by the Treasury showed a less favourable state of revenue than they would have shown if they had been kept in accordance with strict business principles. Mr. Fawcett had proposed to write off a large portion of the capital account, and that would at once have the effect of showing a large percentage of profit on the capital. Then there was the mode of distributing the expense between the Postal and the Telegraph Departments. The custom was to charge a very large fraction, almost one-half, as against the Telegraph Department. He thought further that if alterations were made in other matters they should have a revenue apparently very much more satisfactory to show in connection with the postal telegraph system. That was the view of many hon. Members who had voted in support of his Motion in 1883. But they must remember that the Treasury must be guided by official estimates, and these estimates were made by postal officials with a Postmaster (Mr. Fawcett) at their head, who was most eager for improvements, and who even was considered rather extravagant in that direction. After Mr. Fawcett had heard of the recommendations and the arguments of the Committee which had been appointed to consider the subject, neither the Committee nor Mr. Fawcett had ever claimed that the Postal Telegraph Department should be conducted at a loss to the public, or that the country should
  1160
  be taxed in order that the senders of telegrams should have the benefit. The Department had already expended £500,000 in increasing the accommodation in the main system of telegraph wires. Now, after such large preparations and after a number of young telegraphists had been trained in order to undertake the additional work, it appeared to him that it would be a great pity if the proposal for a reduction of the price of telegrams were to fall through. It was not to be forgotten that this reform had been forced upon the Government by the House. The Government had shown themselves willing to fulfil their pledge as far as Mr. Fawcett had pledged them; but as he (Dr. Cameron) understood them, they were not prepared to go beyond that pledge. He understood that they were quite willing to consider amendments on matters of detail; but if the House determined to force on them free addresses, the Government would abandon the project altogether rather than face the loss which they believed would be incurred by such a change in their operations; and that the Treasury at least would not be unwilling to abandon the business which had been thus forced upon them, he thought, was shown by the fact that last year, after having spent large sums in increasing the telegraph plant on the main lines, they were only too willing to postpone its coming into operation for another nine months, even at the expense of the waste of the interest on the money which they had spent in increasing the plant. Therefore, it was fair for the House to infer that the Treasury were not over eager to incur anything beyond what they were strictly pledged to, and that if the House did not accept that the Treasury would not be very unwilling to be relieved of the whole thing. Now, the question the House had to consider was whether the subject proposed by the Postmaster General would really be a boon to the public or whether it would be so little of a boon that they had better reject it altogether. On that subject he entirely differed from the views that had been expressed by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had told them that he had taken careful note during several weeks lately of all the telegrams which he had seen, and that the inference he drew was that he

  1161
  would be a loser rather than a gainer under the system proposed by the Postmaster General. And he had also told them that some of his friends had done the same, and with the same result as the conclusion arrived at. And, therefore, judging by his own experience in this respect and that of his friends, his hon. Friend had told the House that he was inclined to question the averages quoted by the Postmaster General. Now, he (Dr. Cameron) should say that, for his own part, he felt more inclined to place reliance on the averages derived by the Postmaster General from the millions of telegrams to which he had access for the purpose of forming an opinion on this point than upon the conclusion drawn by his hon. Friend from the few weeks' experience of himself and his friends as quoted by him. Therefore, he (Dr. Cameron) wished to state that he was of opinion that the boon to the public would be real and substantial. They should consider the matter in the light of general averages, and not in the light of anomalies; nor should they ask themselves how the doing away with one or other anomaly among the many which at present disfigured the system would affect the Department, but bow on the whole it would affect the public. At the present moment it appeared that the average number of words sent in every message was 28, and the average cost of the message was 1s. 1d. Those 28 words consisted of 11 words of address and 17 in the body of the message. But in town addresses there must be numbers in the streets, and all numbers under 10 were counted as a single word; but if the address either of the sender or the receiver of the message contained two or more figures in the number, the result would be that if they counted under the new system the number as a single word, whether of one or two figures, the number of words in the address would be nine, so that they would thus find that nine words in the address and 17 in the message would be the present average, and these 26 words were transmitted at an average rate of 1s. 1d. They had thus 26 words for 1s. 1d., or ½d. a-word. What was proposed was ½d. a-word, and the sole difference, so far as the public was concerned, which they would thus inflict upon the public was that they would inflict an average charge
  1162
  of 1s., while they got the minimum charge reduced to 6d. At present everyone acknowledged that there were a great number of superfluous words put into addresses of telegrams. That was the case to a large extent not only in the address of the sender, but also in that of the receiver of the message; and I that that was so was shown in the experience of all countries—in the United States, in France, Belgium, Germany, &c. There were also a great number of superfluous words introduced into the body of the messages themselves. For his own part, he made it a matter of principle to cram into a message every word he possibly could; and it was not an uncommon thing for some people to fill up their telegrams with some such, patriotic sentiments as "Britannia rules the waves," or "Britons never will be slaves," &c, in order to secure their getting their full money's worth. Now, it appeared to him that the Post Office was amply justified in saying that under the proposed system the price of telegrams would be reduced from Is. to 8d., with a curtailment of redundancies; and, at any rate, if it should be contended that those sending 20-word messages would be losers, the senders of messages of other numbers of words would be found to be gainers. Under the system now proposed by the Postmaster General he believed that on the average the public would have a great and substantial gain as compared with the existing arrangements. In no other country but this did the system of free addresses prevail; and even in this country the old Telegraph Companies restricted the number of words in addresses. The Cable Companies also charged by the word and for every word in the address. Much had been said in connection with that subject, and of the poor man's case. Well, he should say with regard to the poor man that it was fair that in discussing that argument that they must remember that the telegraph was not a necessity of life, and therefore there was no reason why the community at large should be taxed that the poor man might receive his telegrams at cost price. But, as a matter of fact, the poor man made very little use of the telegraph. The Postmaster General had told them that out of 20,000 telegrams which were examined, only 150 or 160 were found to have been sent by the working

  1163
  classes; and of that number there were only about a score which could not have been easily sent at the proposed 6d. rate. The messages of the working classes were generally very short, being sent to tell relations about a sickness or a death, and they rarely filled up 20 words in their telegrams. Much criticism had been published on the proposed system, and imaginary cases had been put forward to show that the addresses of poor people were necessarily so lengthy that that class would not profit by the new scale if the addresses were charged for; but an analysis of such cases proved that those persons could really obtain the advantage of the 6d. rate, or might send a number of extra words, and still pay considerably less for their telegrams than was now charged under the Is. rate. Whether the extra word raised the price of the telegram to 7d., 8d., 9d., 10 d., or 10 d., the sender would gain by the reduction of the 1s. scale. The Post Office, under the proposed scheme, made an important concession. It was obliged with every message to send certain service words, such as the name of the office at which the message was handed in, the number of words which the message contained, and the hour at which it was handed in, &c, and the amount of this work was the same whether the message was long or short. To his mind a uniform word rate of ½d. per word, without distinction between the address and the body of the message, was much preferable to and far more elastic than any proposal to give an unlimited number of words for the address at the expense of curtailing the words of the body of the message. As to the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), he should say that it appeared to him to have come with a very bad grace from him, because when the noble Lord was Postmaster General they had a Committee appointed to inquire into the postal telegraph system, of which Committee he (Dr. Cameron) was a Member, and acted as the advocate of the public as against the Post Office and the Treasury. The Post Office Department recommended that the charge upon telegrams should be increased in order to increase the postal revenue, and that for that purpose every telegram handed in between 8 at night and 8 in the morning should be charged 6d. extra, and that every telegram handed in on a Sunday should
  1164
  be charged 6d. extra, and that every one handed in at a railway station should be charged 3d. extra. He had to contend with very strong opposition on the part of the Post Office Department in resisting these charges. His object was to secure cheapness of telegraph service compatible with the improvement and efficiency of the service for the public. The only assistance the Committee received from officials of the Department was from Colonel (then Major) Webber, C.E., and the Postmaster of Glasgow (Mr. R. Hobson), and so little disposed were the Department to place any information at the disposal of the Committee, or otherwise assist them in any way in their investigation, that they wrote to Mr. Hobson reprimanding him for having given information to the Committee. The Committee, however, in reply, passed a Resolution stating that the letter written by the Secretary of the Department to Mr. R. Hobson was calculated to impede the investigation of the Committee. That Resolution was carried by 10 to 2 in the Committee. The result of the Committee's investigation was already known to the House, and he had been able to get them to adopt unanimously the principle that the true method of making the telegraph system at once cheap and remunerative was not by curtailing the facilities offered to the public or by increasing the charges, but by increasing the facililites and, at the proper time, diminishing the charges. This was really a question for independent Members, such as had supported, his Motion on a former occasion, and enabled him to carry it even in the teeth of the two Front Benches. For those reasons he should support the scheme as being a very substantial and the most substantial boon they were likely to get at present. When it went into Committee he should endeavour to secure some improvements—and he thought those facilities which it offered might be improved without in the smallest degree departing from the principle, and at a merely nominal expense. The Postmaster General proposed, for example, that after the minimum was reached an extra 1d. should be charged for each extra word or two words. But that was not the plan proposed by his Predecessor, the late Mr. Fawcett. He proposed the plan of a uniform ½d. per word, and a ½d. was not an unknown coin

  1165
  in connection with this matter. On the question of figures, why, he asked, not adopt the system followed in international messages and count groups of five figures and less than five figures as a single word? To adopt such a course would prove of great convenience in many cases, and would also be in the direction of assimilating the Inland and the International Departments of the Postal Telegraph Service. Another very important improvement he wished to suggest was that in large towns the Post Office should codify the streets. It would be an easy matter in the Metropolis, for instance, to have a code signal for every street. The practice was already followed in regard to telegraph stations, the names of which wore never spelt out fully in the course of telegraphing by the Department. The system being found a convenient and practicable one in regard to telegraph stations, he maintained that it would be equally easy to apply the system to the nomenclature of streets. It would be possible to take every street, court, lane, crescent, or terrace in the Metropolis, and by the permutations of three or four letters or figures reduce the names to a code; and there was not the smallest reason why that code should not be published in The Postal Guide, so that a person who wished to send a message to a particular address would only have to refer to the code, and write down a few letters, thus enabling the address to be got over the wire as one word. Another improvement he begged to suggest was the cheap registration of addresses. At present anyone could register his address for telegraph purposes for 21 s. a-year; but there was no valid reason why a man should not be able to register his address for 2s. 6d. or 5s. per annum. By sending that with the name of the town, three words would suffice for the necessities of the address, leaving the other nine words for the body of that message. Thus, by a system of increments of a ½d. per word instead of a 1d., by the codification of streets in large towns, by a cheap system of registration of addresses, without any departure from the general lines of the Bill, at a merely nominal expense, with an increased security against any miscarriage of telegrams, with the advantage of assimilating the Inland and International branches of our Postal Telegraph System, he believed that a great boon would be
  1166
  afforded to the telegraphing public by the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and that, too, on a principle compatible with the sound economic rule of payment for work done. It would not be appreciably inferior to the fancy modification suggested of the present system, the adoption of which he believed the Postmaster General was convinced would be fatal to the proposed scheme.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, he thought that the rejection of free addresses on the part of the Postmaster General took away all the good that would otherwise arise from the reduction of the Is. telegram. The codification of addresses, taking into account the millions of messages sent, was too much to undertake successfully. This was not a question as to the convenience and profit of the State; it was a question of the immense convenience to the general public, financially as well as commercially. Viewed from a domestic point of view, the services which the telegraph rendered to the people at large were very important, and any impediment placed in the way of telegraphing ought not to be tolerated for a moment by the Postmaster General. He understood that when the Resolution on this subject was carried in that House, the intention was to introduce the 6d. message pure and simple. Further, when the Telegraph Companies were first started the entire charge for the message was 6d. The increased charge to 1s. arose in consequence of a storm which destroyed considerable lengths of the wires; but it was always promised that when the Companies were recouped then the 6d. charge was to be restored; but pending that time the Government went into treaty for the purchase of the telegraphs and took them over upon the 1s. charge—hence its continuance. But now the Government insisted that the addresses should be paid for, and this resolve, he maintained, was wrong. The Government should accept in its entirety the Resolution which was passed two years ago, allow free addresses, and reduce the charge to 6d. for 10 words. By doing so they would save an incalculable amount of work to the Post Office officials, would prevent many blunders from being committed, and would confer a great and desirable boon on the public.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought the country was very much indebted to the Postmaster General for his scheme, though he admitted the commercial community had been somewhat slow in expressing their appreciation of its value. This remark, however, did not apply to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; and he desired to bring under the notice of the Postmaster General two suggestions of that body—first, that five consecutive figures should be counted as one word; and secondly, that it should be optional for the sender to include his name and address in the message.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this discussion was probably only a rehearsal of the debate that would arise on the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners); and he, therefore, hoped hon. Gentlemen would excuse him if he did not now reply to all the points that had been raised. He did not understand the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton) to be opposed to the principle of the Bill, but only to propose an alternative plan. When in Committee he should be happy to consider fully any Amendments that might be brought forward, provided they did not involve a greater burden on the Telegraph Department than the plan laid down in the Bill. It had been urged that the Post Office and the Telegraph Department should be considered as one, and that the profits of the one might very fairly be applied to cover the loss on the other—that any loss in the Telegraphic Department ought to be recouped by the profits from letters. That was a proposition which could not and never for a moment had been entertained by that House. Since the purchase of the telegraphs it had been well understood that the Telegraph Department should be treated by itself, and that, as far as possible, it should be made self-supporting; and it had always been considered that the tariff should be such as would allow the operations to be carried on at a profit such as to pay a reasonable rate of interest on the purchase money paid for the acquirement of the telegraphs. He thought that a sound principle, and was not prepared to depart from it. It would not be right or fair that the general public should be taxed in order that a small part of the community should be able to send
  1168
  their telegrams at a price less than the cost price. He, therefore, could not accept any proposition that would involve a heavy loss. It must be remembered that the Telegraph Service was not now in so flourishing a condition as it was two years ago. Owing to the increase of remuneration paid to employés, and also to the competition with the telephone, there had been a great reduction in the profits of the Telegraph Service. Taking the most favourable view of the account the profits had fallen from £450,000 to at the outside £250,000 a-year, and out of this £250,000 there remained to be paid the interest on the £11,000,000 which was paid for the purchase of the telegraphs, and this reduced the interest to a very low rate. The plan that he now proposed had been carefully worked out by experts in the Post Office, and it was calculated that, allowing for an increase of 30 per cent in the number of messages sent, there would during the first year be a reduction of the Telegraph Department profits by about £180,000, and this would reduce the profits to £70,000 a-year, which was a very small margin of profit on a business of such magnitude, and some further reductions probably would have to be made. The reduction of the price of telegrams from Is. to 6d. really involved a much larger financial risk than most persons supposed. There were certain expenses connected with telegrams which were incurred whatever the length of the telegram—such as the receipt of the telegram over the counter and its delivery within the radius. It had been estimated that the average necessary cost for these purposes of each telegram, irrespective of its length, was 2½d., and that left the sum available for the cost of telegraphing out of the amount charged now and to be charged under this Bill at 9½d. and 3½d. respectively; and, therefore, the proposed reduction was really about one-third. Every telegram was accompanied by certain official words, eight in number, necessary for the purposes of information to the Department. The average length of addresses had been found to be 11 words, and therefore the average length of an ordinary message under present circumstances was 39 words—the message 20 words, the address 11, and the official words eight. The Bill proposed to

  1169
  reduce the number of words to 20—namely, 12 words in the message and address, and the eight official words; the length of the message, therefore, would be reduced from39 words to20 words, or one-half, while the price was being reduced from 9½d. to 3½d. It was accordingly necessary that there should be some economy of work. It was well known that there was an enormous waste of words in the sending of telegrams, and an amount of useless labour was thus thrown on the Department. A large number of telegrams had been carefully examined, and it was found that the number of superfluous words amounted to about 25 or 30 per cent; and a large proportion of the superfluous words occurred, it was found, in the addresses. These, on an average, now consisted of 11 words, and it was the opinion of competent persons that the address, as a rule, need not occupy more than five words. A saving of six words could thus be effected in each telegram, which, multiplied by 32,000,000, which they had calculated would be the number of telegrams under the new system, resulted suited in this—that the amount saved by the non-transmission of 192,000,000 of useless words would be at least £200,000 a-year. He quite admitted that free addresses had some convenience; but, on the other hand, they were a very expensive luxury, as they cost the Service £200,000 a-year. He had observed in the newspapers various alternative suggestions to his proposal. They all resulted in loss to the Department. The hon. Member for the City of London who last spoke proposed that a free address and 10 words should be given for 6d. He had had the cost of that calculated. It showed that, assuming an increase in the number of telegrams sent in consequence of the reduced tariff to the extent of 30 per cent, the loss to the Service would be £560,000 per year. This was not the worst part of the case, for a tariff of that kind would enormously stimulate business, and would greatly increase the working expenses. They believed that it would be impossible to send free addresses and 10 words for 6d. without in a short time, by reason of the enormous increase of business, incurring a much greater loss than £560,000 a-year to the Department.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman calculated
  1170
  the loss to the Department by rule of three?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the figures he had quoted were from calculations made by the officials of the Department. The loss from the hon. Member's suggestion would be so great, therefore, that a tariff of that kind was altogether out of the question. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Puleston), that there should be a free address and six words for 6d., it had been calculated, would cause aloss of £110,000 a-year more than the proposal submitted. The tariff proposed by the hon. Member for the City of London who spoke first, that a free address and five words should be allowed for 6d., would result, as far as he could make out, although it was somewhat difficult to state the actual cost, in a loss of £ 100,000 a-year more than his proposal. He thought, therefore, that the House would be of opinion with him that these various suggestions were all out of the question without inflicting heavy loss upon the Department, and therefore upon the Public Revenue. The tariff which was proposed under their Bill was a word rate of a 1d. for two words or ½d. a-word, with a minimum of 12 words for ½d. It was calculated that five words would on the average be used for the address, and seven would remain for the message. That was the opinion formed from a careful examination of the existing telegrams by officials of the Department. They could not but think that there was a good deal of misunderstanding upon the subject of addresses. The belief had been expressed by the officials that the sender's address would in future average only one word. In support of that view they had before them the experience of foreign telegrams and also telegrams to France and Germany. It was found that foreign telegrams sent to this country in a large majority of cases contained no address at all of the sender. The message itself, no doubt, would show clearly to the receiver from whom it came. A large proportion of the foreign telegrams had only one word to indicate the sender. It was believed that in future, if the proposal of the Bill were adopted, senders would in a very large proportion of cases indicate themselves by one word, and in very few cases would it be necessary to use more than one word. If

  1171
  it were necessary for the sender of the telegram to give a full description of his address, that was information that ought to be contained in the text of the message and ought to be paid for. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had quoted the unanimous Resolution of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce approving the Bill, and he had asked that in future the suggestion of the Chamber should be adopted—namely, that five numbers should be counted as one word, and that it should not be necessary to insert the sender's name in the address. He was in a position to answer both those questions in the affirmative, and they would in future be the rule. As regarded the name of the town from which the message was sent, it was not necessary to put it in the address, because it was always sent for official purposes, and there was no necessity that the sender should put it in as one of the words of the message. Neither was it obligatory on the sender to give his own name in the address, and in a large proportion of cases it would not be necessary for him to do so. While he believed that on an average one word would indicate the sender, a careful examination of telegrams led to the belief that the receiver would be indicated on an average by four words. A large proportion of the foreign telegrams sent into this country contained only three, and in some cases four, words of address. No great hardship would result if an extra word or two had to be inserted in an address, as the rate would be two words for 1d. The objections which had been raised to this proposal rested mainly on two points. In the first place, it was said that the abolition of free addresses would lead to uncertainty and to extra labour on the Department; and secondly, it was said that it would be a hardship on certain classes of persons. As to the first point, the officials in the Department did not think that any extra difficulty would be thrown on them, judging by the large experience they had had of foreign telegrams, and also by the fact that, although the addresses in those telegrams were shortened, little confusion or trouble had resulted. There was also the experience of foreign countries to guide them, where a word-rate prevailed. In Germany there was no free address, and it was found that
  1172
  addresses averaged only four words; again in France a word-rate only existed and no difficulty was found with respect to the address. The other objection, that this proposal would press hardly on certain classes of people in this country, was one into which he wont at some length in introducing the Bill. With some difficulty he had obtained a number of telegrams sent by working people, and although it appeared that their addresses averaged somewhat longer than those of other telegrams, it was found that the messages as a rule were very short and simple, and that about 60 per cent would admit of curtailments of the addresses, and could be sent for 6d. without any trouble or difficulty being occasioned. It had been pointed out that the proposed tariff did not compare favourably with the present tariff at the rate of 1s. By the present tariff 20 words wore allowed for 1s., with a free address, whereas under this proposal 24 words would be allowed for 1s., with no free address. But the higher they went in the tariff the more favourable it appeared; and, moreover, it should be recollected that between 6d. and 1s. there were several grades. It was assumed that there would be only the 6d. and Is. rate, and nothing between; but that was not the case, and any number of words between 12 and 24 would be inserted in the message at 1d. for two words. They believed that a very large proportion of the messages sent—about 30 or 40 per cent—would be at the 6d. rate. But they also thought that a very large proportion would be sent the cost of which would be between 6d. and 1s. They thought that under the proposed tariff not more than one telegram out of 10 would be sent at the Is. rate. Before resuming his seat he wished to say that to his knowledge no important commercial body had petitioned against the Bill, while, on the other hand, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester and Glasgow and of other large towns, had spoken of the tariff proposed as one very favourable to the working classes. He trusted that the House would not reject the boon that he was able to offer to the country. He should be perfectly ready to consider in Committee any alternative tariff that might be suggested which would not impose a greater burden on the

  1173
  finances of the Department; but he should not be able to agree to any tariff which would have that effect, for such a tariff could not be established without infringing on the principles that the Telegraphic Service should be independent of the Postal Service, and that it should be conducted so as to return some profit on the amount invested by the State.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, there were certain public commercial operations which passed from the hands of individuals to the State, because in the course of time it had been found that such operations could be carried on with greater advantage to the country if placed in the hands of the Government of the day. Such an undertaking was the great enterprize now carried on by the Post Office in connection with the electric telegraph. When the State originally undertook the management of the Telegraph Service it made what was apparently an exceedingly bad bargain. The receipts of the Service, however, improved to such an extent that two years ago the surplus revenue amounted to 3 per cent on the £10,000,000 which had been invested. That, to his mind, was a most weighty fact. As to the Resolution which was the origin of the proposed change in the price of telegrams, and which he regarded as undesirable and ill-timed, it was the duty of the House to take care that in carrying it out there should be no great sacrifice of the finances of the State. Bearing that in mind, he saw nothing in the Bill to prevent him from giving his absolute adhesion to the plan of the Postmaster General. With regard to the system of free addresses, he feared that was a part of the scheme which would be abused, although he was quite aware that at the present time, under existing regulations, the telegraph, as a means of communication, was abused, especially by anxious mothers and enthusiastic lovers, who telegraphed to each other two or three times a-day. There would, however, in his opinion, be no hardship caused by the limitations which it was proposed to place on addresses. The system would discourage surplusage in diction and would foster the art of concise writing, which was a very valuable acquirement.
  MR. RUSTONsaid, he hold that the Government in the Bill which had been
  1174
  introduced had loyally adhered to the spirit of the Resolutions passed in a former Session. As to the principles enunciated that day by the Postmaster General, they were perfectly sound. An instance of the way in which the custom of free addresses might be abused had recently come under his notice. A telegram was sent to him in which the addresses occupied 20 words, and eight of the words in the sender's address ought certainly to have been placed in the body of the message. He strongly approved the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford that four or five figures should be included in the body of the message as one word. This change, if agreed to, would be an immense boon.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that the proposal of the Postmaster General was clogged with such restrictions as not to give in reality the 6d. telegram which it professed to give. It was better for the Government to say they had made a great mistake in promising to allow 6d. telegrams than try to keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope. All sorts of dangerous telegrams might be sent under the scheme without any means of identifying the sender.
  MR. BIGGARexpressed the opinion that the result of abolishing free addresses would be to press hardly upon small dealers and generally upon the working people of the country.
  MR. TOMLINSONremarked, that it was his firm belief, founded upon observation not so much in London as in the Provinces, that the telephone would come in time more and more in competition with the telegraph. At all events, so far as commercial telegrams were concerned, there could be no doubt that the telegraph would give place to the telephone, and possibly the large increase which was expected in the telegraph business might not result.
  MR. DEASYsaid, that he desired to make a few observations on this Bill as representing a constituency which, in his opinion, would be largely benefited by its provisions. He believed the Bill would be a great advantage to districts like the South of Ireland, which wore a considerable distance from the great centres of industry and consumption. It took a very long time for letters to reach the South of Ireland, and in consequence many of the business people there had frequently to have recourse to

  1175
  the use of the telegraph, and in this way telegrams formed a very large item in their annual expenditure. This item of expenditure would, in his opinion, be very materially reduced by the action of the Bill now before the House. It would be of especial advantage to persons engaged in the butter trade and in the other large businesses carried on in the South of Ireland. At present these people were able easily to confine their messages to a dozen words or so, and the only hardship it would inflict would be on those persons who tried to get value for their money by using up all the 20 words, and who made the addresses as long as possible. If these people still desired to send long messages, let them do so at their own expense, but let not business people be expected to pay dearly for short messages for the benefit of such people. Considering that the measure would be a great advantage to his constituents, and would lead to the development of the industry and trade of Ireland, he trusted that the Government would press forward the Bill and pass it into law before the end of the present Session.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 4th June.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Henry Foucler.)

  [BILL 159.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he believed that both inside and outside the House this Bill was looked upon with great interest and with a great desire to see the measure passed into law. He had received numbers of communications from all parts of the country and from all classes of society upon this subject. The necessity for legislation of this character had, he was sorry to say, in recent years become more and more apparent. He believed the evil of juvenile prostitution had been upon the increase. All the evidence which had come before him pointed in that direction, and everyone would agree that nothing could be more injurious to the foundations of society than that. It was unnecessary for him
  1176
  to go at any length into the merits of the Bill. A Committee of the House of Lords sat a few years ago and made an exhaustive inquiry into this subject, and since then more than one Bill had been introduced into Parliament and passed several ^stages, though, unhappily, without becoming law. He hoped that the period that remained of the existence of the present Parliament would not be allowed to go by without this Bill being passed.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was very glad that the attempt to count out the House upon this Bill had not succeeded. In his opinion, it would not have enhanced the reputation of that House in the country if a quorum had not been present for the purpose of endeavouring to pass this measure into law. The Bill was founded upon a recommendation of a Committee of the House of Lords which had sat to consider the question, and the measure now came down to that House after having received mature consideration in the other House of Parliament. There might be differences of opinion upon the subject of the provisions of the Bill, but upon its object and meaning he thought there could be no division of opinion. The object of the Bill was to prevent the traffic in young girls who were exported for the purpose of prostitution abroad. The Bill also sought to prevent the prostitution of children of tender years. Was there anybody who denied the existence and the growing character of that evil? He confidently laid it down that the principle of the Bill, and consequently the second reading, demanded the unanimous support of the House. He did not want at this stage to invite a minute discussion upon the clauses of the Bill. The proper stage for that was in Committee upon the Bill. He was afraid they had the indirect opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to the Bill.
  MR. WARTON,rising to Order, asked whether it was right for any hon. Member to charge another hon. Member with adopting indirect methods of opposition? His methods were perfectly direct and open.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not mean anything offensive to the hon. and learned Member; but if the hon. and learned Member complained of the charge of indirect methods of opposing the Bill, it really was an assumption of virtue which he had hardly thought the hon. and learned Member would have had the courage to profess. The age for the protection of girls was now 13. Everybody felt that that age was a great deal too low, and ought to be raised; but there had been a good deal of dispute as to the age to which it ought to be raised. Some people had thought 15 too low, and some, he believed, had thought 16 too high. All he desired to say was that he considered himself, as having the conduct of the Bill, by no means bound to the age of 15. If the House should be of opinion that the age should be 16, he considered that would be a decision on the part of the House that he should be entirely bound to respect. Another clause was directed against the keepers of improper houses. Similar provisions in that respect had been in force in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the clauses of this Bill dealing with that part of the subject were the same as those which had already been successfully accomplished in legislation of that character. He did not, however, wish to raise any discussion which properly belonged to the stage of Committee, and he hoped the House would approve of the general objects of the measure by agreeing to the second reading.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, a Bill of this character was one which so nearly touched the whole social life of the country that it must create a great deal of interest, and he trusted that the time would never come when the House would refuse to stand up in the interests of morality and give its adhesion and support to a measure which had that great object in view. He hoped, moreover, that they would not shrink from discussing its provisions on account of the nature of the Bill. He distinctly was in favour of the second reading, and would support it, for he quite recognized that the Bill contained most valuable clauses. The clause for the protection of children was one which must commend itself to the careful and sympathetic attention of every Member of the House; and the clause for the protection
  1178
  of young girls who were allured to the Continent was one which must commend itself to their best and most earnest consideration. But the 9th clause was a clause which, he feared, might possibly lead to the shipwreck of the Bill. The administration of the clause would be placed in the hands of the police, for whom he had a great respect; but no one would pretend they had any judicial training necessary for the discharge of the difficult and delicate duties which would be thrown on them in consequence of the passing of the clause. Under its provisions any man's life might be made a burden to him. While giving his support to the second reading of the Bill, he desired to reserve to the full his right to criticize these clauses in Committee. He heartily approved of most of the provisions of the Bill, and hoped they would pass into law this Session.
  MR. JAMES STUARTremarked that, although he intended to support the second reading, he should in Committee submit certain Amendments with the object of equalizing the treatment of men and women. With regard to Clause 9, for example, he was unable to see why men should not be punished on precisely the same grounds as women. As the Bill stood at present, it was merely a little sop thrown to a large and an increasing popular sentiment. He did not believe the Bill was worth much; there were too many qualifying provisions in it. There was much inequality in it, and the provisions relating to the police ought not to be accepted. He desired to bar police evidence alone, as he was of opinion that there was a great deal of connivance by the police in the wrong-doing of the well-to-do; but, on the whole, he thought it was a good thing to vote for the second reading, because it was a tiny step in the right direction.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend who last spoke as to the inefficiency of the measure, at least in the points indicated. He thought, however, there were one or two points in regard to which the Bill might be made stronger with a very satisfactory result. Under Clause 6 any householder might be punished for misdemeanour who admitted these malpractices to take place on his premises in the case of girls under 15. He thought it might be desirable to extend the age to 16, or even

  1179
  to 17. He believed much would be done for the emancipation of some of those unfortunate women if, in the event of their leaving the houses with clothes claimed by the proprietor of the establishment, they should not be liable to be proceeded against for theft. As they were going to raise the age of the female they should also raise the age of the male. Such acts were of too frequent occurrence between young persons of equal age at that period when the curiosity of the female was more precocious than that of the male, who became at the utmost not more than her accomplice. In his opinion, the Bill was of the greatest possible moment to the country, and the Home Secretary might rely on the cordial co-operation of both Parties in the House in carrying an efficient and, at the same time, a moderate measure.
  MR. WILLISprotested against the Bill on the ground that many of its clauses would tend to multiply criminals while they would not promote morality. He would do all in his power to pass those parts of the Bill which protected young women from being entrapped to enter brothels and suppressed brothels; but many of the provisions of this Bill went far beyond each of these points. According to one of the provisions of this Bill a man might be sentenced to two years' imprisonment for bringing any woman, no matter what her age or how immoral her habits, to a brothel, although she knew well the character of the house and the object for which she was brought. As regarded the limitation of age, the question was a most difficult one, as some girls were at 12 years of age far more precocious than others at 14 and 15. In regard to matters between men and women they could never get at the truth; and there were juries, and even Judges, who sometimes seemed to lose their good sense whenever they had a case before them where women made charges of immorality against men. He objected to multiply criminals out of the passions of mankind. Nearly the whole of the proposals of the Bill were in a wrong direction, and he refused to be a party to legislation of such a character.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDthought the Bill of such importance that he should without hesitation support the second reading of it. He believed, as did the
  1180
  hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis), in the power of morality; but he also believed—a belief in which that hon. and learned Member did not seem to share—in the power of the law to restrain immorality, and that was the object and would be the effect of this measure if it became law. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member in his general attack on the provisions of the Bill; and as regarded the special case referred to by him—the Lupus Street ease—he (Sir Henry Holland) thought that it did not come within the Bill. He did not observe whether the age of the woman had been given. [Mr. WILLIS: Yes, 31 years."] Then the case did not come within Sub-section 4 of Clause 3, as she was not under 21 years, and, moreover, she knew the character of the house, and was a party to the intent. [Mr. WILLIS: Look at Clause 2.] No; it did not come within Clause 2, as there was clearly no intent to make her the "inmate of a brothel." But, anyhow, a difficulty of that kind could be dealt with in Committee. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. James Stuart) that this Bill was but a "little sop," nor did he fear the taint of police hanging about the Bill, to which that hon. Member seemed to object. He thought the Bill was a distinct step in the right direction, though, no doubt, some of the details would have to be carefully considered in Committee. But he could not understand how a second reading could be refused by the House if the main principles of the Bill were correct. It could hardly be denied that some legislation was needed, and Bills, very similar to the one now under consideration, had twice passed the House of Lords. This present Bill was a modification in some respects of the former Bills, and wisely so, as it was undesirable to go beyond public opinion. The Police Clauses had been modified, and a magistrate would not be able to issue a warrant upon the statement of the police only; but sworn information was required by a parent, guardian, relation, or friend of the girl. Again, the age of consent had been reduced—rightly or wrongly—from 16 to 15. He would not now discuss the details of the Bill; but he felt bound to state that, as at present advised, he entirely agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for the Uni-

  1181
  versity of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) in his condemnation of part of the 9th clause. The proviso that a conviction should not take place on the evidence of one witness only, really afforded no adequate protection against trumped-up charges. Nothing would be easier in these cases than to get the evidence of some woman, or even of a policeman, to corroborate the charge; and the unhappy man who was charged would cither have to pay blackmail if he feared to have the case made public, or he would have to appear in Court; and even though he were acquitted, the fact of such a charge having been made might seriously damage him if he wore a professional man. He (Sir Henry Holland) was disposed to think that the whole of this 9th clause might be omitted, and the matter left to police regulations for keeping order in the streets. He would conclude by repeating his belief that the Bill was one of great importance, and he should, therefore, support the second reading.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)protested against the aspersions which had been cast upon the police, upon whose evidence he believed implicit reliance might be placed.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he would not detain the House more than a very few minutes, because he believed on this occasion the best support he could give to the measure was not to delay the debate; but he wished to record his sincere support of the second reading, and he trusted the Government would make a point of pushing it through Parliament, especially the essential part, which he believed to be the age of protection, and that ought to be raised, as hinted by the Home Secretary. From what had been said he hoped the Home Secretary might receive quite as much, if not more, support from that side of the House than even from the Ministerial side. Of course, there were clauses that must be very carefully considered, as his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had said, and the hon. and learned Member for Colchester; and, in supporting the second reading, he would say at once that he could not support all the clauses in their present form. But this was a measure in which the working classes were deeply interested; it was their children and their daughters who were
  1182
  chiefly affected, and he would say that, especially in the larger towns, they would deeply feel and deeply resent any trifling with the more important provisions of this Bill. Let hon. Members representing populous places reckon with their constituencies before they ventured to act so as to shelve and shunt this measure. The working classes were getting exceedingly impatient at the manner in which all these social questions, greatly affecting their interest and comfort—he might almost say their existence—were put on one side for Party questions, which seemed to them of comparatively small importance, and he would venture respectfully to warn hon. Members how they trifled now with this Bill. Let them also read the Report and evidence of the House of Lords, on which it was founded, before they came there to oppose such a measure. It was melancholy reading enough; but no Member ought to venture to oppose this measure until he had taken the trouble to acquaint himself with evidence that showed the necessity for it.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that while he sympathized with the object of the Bill, he thought it bristled with matters which would require radical amendment in Committee.
  MR. CA.VENDISH BENTINCKprotested against the measure being brought on that afternoon, when there was a scant attendance, and when the Law Officers of the Government were absent. He did not know what the principle of the Bill was. It had many principles, and you could not select the principal principle.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 39 and 129 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Thursday the 4th day of June.—[The Chairman of Ways and. Means.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Special Drainage District of Brackley, the District of Bromsgrove, the Boroughs of Darlington and Stafford, the Local Government Districts of Ulverston, Warminster, and West Ham, and the Borough of Wigan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 6) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government Districts of Barking Town, Brentford, and Ealing (two), the Hartlepool Joint Hospital, The Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage District, the Local Government District of Oldbury, the Rural Sanitary District of the Penzance Union, the Borough of Swansea, and the Local Government District of Swinton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 197.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAV) (NO. 9) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Orders of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," relating to the Parishes of Abbotsley, Astwood, Castle Church, Emberton, Eynesbury, Gayhurst, Hardmead, Lathbury, Lavendon, North Crawley, Raven-stone, and Saint Mary and Saint Chad, Stafford; to the Hamlet of Warrington; and to the Township of Hopton and Coton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 198.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock till Thursday 4th June.