Sitting of 7 May 1886

MINUTES.
— PRIVATE BILLS (by Order) — Withdrawn—Charterhouse.
Second Reading—Shanklin and Chale Railway (Extension to Freshwater).*
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS — Ordered — First Reading-Gas and Water (No. 3)a [206]; Water* [207].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CHARTERHOUSE BILL.— [Lords.] (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I need scarcely say that under

    497
    ordinary circumstances I should not have thought it necessary to address the House in moving the second reading of this Bill. But a good deal of misunderstanding seems to prevail in regard to the measure which misunderstanding is not confined to hon. Members only, but extends to statements which have appeared in the public Press, and which are absolutely without foundation and of a misleading character. I think it right that hon. Members should understand the exact position of the Bill, what it is that it contemplates, and why it, has been introduced. I may remind the House that the Bill has already passed the House of Lords, and that, in addition, it has been approved by the Charity Commissioners, and has received the sanction of the Attorney General, without which it could not be proceeded with. It is a Bill to enable the Governors of the Charterhouse to carry out efficiently, and in the way which was originally contemplated, the wishes and intentions of the Founder. I would like to show who the Governors of the Charterhouse are. If hon. Members will refer to a statement which has been printed in support of the second reading of the Bill they will find that the Governors of the Charterhouse, acting under the Charter and Acts relating to the Foundation, are:—The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Earl of Selborne, Viscount Cranbrook, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Rochester, Lord Coleridge, Lord Clinton, Lord Rollo, the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., John Gilbert Talbot, Esq., M.P., and Canon Elwyn, Master. The Charterhouse existed in its present condition since 1611, and this is a Bill to enable the Governors of the Charterhouse to dispose of part of their London property without, to any appreciable extent, injuring, or in any way impairing, the ancient building. As a Carthusian myself, I will tell the House that I would not have taken any part in support of the Bill if there had been any intention to injure the old building, which is really one of the ornaments of London. The necessity for the measure arises in this way. Owing to the scheme whereby the funds of the hospital were divided into two parts in the year 1872, or thereabouts, the available income of the Charterhouse Hospi-
    498
    tal at the present time has been reduced to about £10,000 a-year. The income has been falling off for several years in consequence of the depression in the property of the Charity in Cambridgeshire, and other counties; and I am sorry to say there is no doubt whatever that so far from there being any prospect of improvement, matters are looking much worse, leases are falling in, and there is the greatest difficulty in inducing persons to take up the land even at greatly reduced rents. Owing to this fact the Governors of the Charterhouse find themselves unable to carry on the hospital upon its present basis without incurring an annual pecuniary loss. The lowest estimate which can be formed of the necessary expenditure in order to maintain even the reduced number of pensioners is about £12,800 a-year. The original number of pensioners was 80; but it has been obliged already to be reduced to 55, and the Governors have now to consider how best to carry on the affairs of the hospital. Having considered the matter most anxiously after the expenditure of a considerable amount of time, and having taken the most competent advice, they have come to the conclusion that if the Charity is to afford anything like the benefit which it was intended by its founder that it should afford, some change must be made. At the end, or, rather, at the beginning of last year, and all through the year, it became necessary for the Governors of the Charterhouse to consider what course should be adopted; and after very grave consideration, after consulting the most competent persons, after taking the advice of the Charity Commissioners, and submitting their scheme to the Attorney General, this Bill has been brought in. The Bill, as the House will probably know, is a Bill to enable a certain portion of the Charterhouse property to be sold or let for purposes of building. Probably the House will be aware that a considerable portion of the original property, which at one time formed the playground of the school, was sold 15 or 18 years ago to the Merchant Taylors' Company, and has been utilized for the Merchant Taylors' School. The remaining portion of the property consists of about six acres. Of that two acres forming Charterhouse Square will not be touched or interfered with at all. Of the remaining four acres I believe that

    499
    about half an acre is to be devoted to public gardens, and about three-quarters of an acre to a new street, making altogether one and a-quarter acres, and leaving about three acres to be dealt with, which are covered at present either by old buildings or by new. I desire to deal at once with the opposition to the Bill. That opposition, to a great extent, proceeds from motives with which I entirely sympathize—namely, the desire to maintain and preserve the ancient buildings of the Charterhouse. I should like the House to understand what these ancient buildings consist of, and I hope that some hon. Members may have visited the place and have had an opportunity of seeing the buildings as they now stand. The ancient buildings consist of a master's lodge, a very fine hall and chapel, and a court which forms what is called Washhouse Court. It is proposed to leave nearly the whole of these old buildings untouched. The Bill proposes that a street should be taken through the ground floor of Wash-house Court at both ends. I have plans here which will enable hon. Members better to understand the nature of the scheme. The whole of Washhouse Court will be left intact, except the ground floor on the north and south, leaving the east and west sides and the rest of Washhouse Court intact. The upper part of the building will not be interfered with at all. I should have been most thankful, if it had been possible, for the scheme to be promoted without touching any part of Wash-house Court; but of the four walls of that Court which now exist, three of them have been to a considerable extent altered and modernized, and, in fact, there is not one of the four walls which is in the exact condition in which it stood originally. If hon. Members who have taken a prominent part in securing the preservation of old buildings will take the pains to understand this design, they will see that the promoters of the Bill, in their main motives, have been actuated by a desire to preserve the Charterhouse as much as possible. The objections which have been taken to the Bill I will not at all attempt to deal with now; but I desire to say that, as far as the preservation of the old buildings is concerned, if the House thinks that it is not sufficiently provided
    500
    for, the promoters will be only too glad to consent to any clause to insure that no alteration should be made in what are really the old buildings of the Charterhouse—namely, the master's lodge, the hall and chapel, and the remainder of Washhouse Court. I hope, however, that the House will be satisfied with the manner in which the Governing Body have dealt with the case, and it must be borne in mind that with regard to the rest of the property a considerable proportion is proposed to be given up for open spaces. If anyone will go to the Charterhouse and see the buildings as they exist there, I think he would be satisfied that no public injury is contemplated by the scheme, and he would also be able to recognize the fact that at the present moment the public have no access to these buildings at all. He would, therefore, probably come to the conclusion, if he viewed the matter fairly, that that which is proposed to be done by the Governors under the necessities of the case is only to secure the utilization of that part of the property for the purpose of carrying out the intentions of the Founder of the Charity without interfering with the preservation of the ancient buildings. I am not aware that there is anything in the Bill to which I need call the attention of the House, at any rate in the present stage. Of course, I shall have the opportunity of hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), who is opposing the Bill, wishes to say against it, and I shall have the right of replying. I hope the House will clearly understand that it is only stern necessity which induces the Governors of the Charterhouse to bring forward this measure. They will, if the Bill passes, be able to maintain 200 pensioners, instead of 55, as at present. The present condition of things is such that the large cost of maintaining the property swallows up all the income; and the Governors find themselves unable to keep up the Charity and distribute its benefits in the way in which the Founder originally intended. I trust that when the House fully understand the nature of the Bill, and have had placed before them the objections which have been made to it, they will be of opinion that the Bill is one which ought to be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
    MR. W. H. JAMES, in rising to move as an Amendment—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to abolish the Hospital founded by Thomas Sutton in the London Charterhouse, to mutilate a most interesting relic of Old London, and to cover with buildings a considerable area of open ground in the heart of the Metropolis, in order to reconstruct a Charity which, in its present form, carries out the intention of the Founder, and has not been shown to be unsuitable to the needs of the present day, or to have given rise to abuses,"
    said: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the speech he has just made, seems to suppose that the opposition to this Bill is somewhat unreasonable. But I beg to assure him that those with whom I am acting consider that this is a most unreasonable Bill. I do not think it would be well that I should, at any great length, detain the House with the antiquarian history of the Charterhouse. All I need say is that the Charity was founded by Mr. Thomas Sutton at the commencement of the 17th century, and that it affords a striking example of the princely munificence which was exercised at that period. In 1611 Mr. Thomas Sutton bought the Charterhouse from the Howard family for £13,000. At the end of the same year Mr. Thomas Sutton died; but in the meantime he had founded the hospital, and left by his will ample funds for its maintenance. For the additional buildings that were necessary he left a sum of £5,000. He added another sum of £1,000 to the treasury of the Hospital, and a further sum of £20,000 for the general purposes and objects of the Charity. A rather remarkable circumstance then occurred. No sooner was Mr. Thomas Sutton dead than strenuous efforts were made in different quarters, on the part of various persons, to become possessed of these Charities, A nephew of the name of Baxter entered into litigation after having vainly attempted to obtain forcible possession of the Charterhouse, and he attracted to his cause no loss a person than Sir Francis Bacon. Sir Francis Bacon wrote to the King a letter, in which he criticized the whole of Mr. Thomas Sutton's plan, and suggested other ways in which the funds left by the will of the Founder might have been
    502
    better expended. He described Howard House, which it was intended to utilize for the purposes of a hospital as fit for a Prince's establishment, and as suitable for Sutton's Charity as "giving an embroidered cloak to a poor beggar." In order to succeed in their suit, the Trustees of the Hospital thought it right to devote part of the sum of £20,000, which had been left by Mr. Thomas Sutton, to the building of a bridge over the Tweed at Berwick. No sooner was this sum paid into Court by the representatives of Mr. Thomas Sutton than judgment was given, successfully establishing their right to the Charity. Subsequent Acts of Parliament confirmed the Governors of the Charterhouse in their privileges. It is now proposed by the present Bill to destroy and lay open for building purposes part of the old burial ground, and a very striking portion of Washhouse Court. There is no doubt that a considerable portion of the building originally constituted the old Carthusian Monastery—one of the few institutions of the kind now existing in the country. It is of the utmost importance that the remains of that building should be preserved, as originally intended, as the home of the pensioners of this Charity; but the Bill which is now before the House proposes to devote for building purposes some four, five, or six acres which now belong to it. I cannot exactly state what the precise area is, because I find that there is a difference of opinion, even on the part of those who have made the most careful measurements; but that is a matter which, if the Bill should finally go before a Select Committee, could be inquired into there. The measure proposes virtually to destroy and lay open for building purposes part of the old burial ground, the inner quadrangle, and important and striking portions of old Howard House and Wash he use Court. It is not desirable that I should enter into particulars as to the exact merits of these particular buildings. No doubt a very considerable portion of the building was the home of the brethren of the Carthusian Monastery, and it was the most interesting part of the building. At the time of the disruption of the Monasteries by Henry VIII., Prior Houghton, who was at the head of this Monastery, was beheaded, and the Monastery was put down. Now, it seems to me that very few important

    503
    and available relies of the great Monasteries of the Mediæval period have been preserved; and, as has been just stated, the fewer we have of them the more precious they become. To my mind it is an act of Philistinism, of barbarism, and of Vandalism, which the House is asked to sanction, under the patronage of these great names of the Governors of the Charterhouse, by sweeping away an old monument of this character. I do not wish to enter into a controversy with regard to the objects of Mr. Thomas Sutton—the pious Founder of this Charity. Pious Founders have, over and over again, left money for all sorts of objects of an undesirable character. I do not wish to inquire into the question merely from antiquarian or æsthetic grounds; but I do not think it right to turn and twist the objects of a Charity at the will and desire of any number of persons, no matter how eminent, purely for commercial and mercenary purposes. I am sorry to hear that the Governors of this Charity are suffering, like scores of other individuals, from the depression of agriculture. But, if such be the case, it appears to me that, like other persons, they should exercise a wise and rigid economy, and should reduce the number of their pensioners, or the number of their scholars. I do not wish to attack or enter into any controversy with my hon. and learned Friend as to the arrangement of the funds of the Charterhouse by the Charity Commissioners. I have no doubt that in all the arrangements they have made for dealing with Charities of this character they have been desirous of acting upon the principles of justice and good sense. But the Governors of this Charity, whose distinguished names appear at the head of the statement which has been printed on behalf of the Bill, are gentlemen who are not able, on account of the multifarious duties they have to discharge in other respects, to devote their whole attention to that impartial consideration of the interests of the Charterhouse which that Institution requires. I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that the plan which has been submitted to the House has the approval of the architect of the Charterhouse himself—an old Carthusian. I presume that he referred to Mr. Herbert Carpenter; and I find that that gentleman has written a letter with respect to the
    504
    threatened demolition of the Charterhouse, in which he says—
    "We 'old Carthusians' had, till recently, been under the impression that our ancient buildings would be respected in any scheme of the Governors for re-arranging the Charity, ft seems, however, that if a Bill as now drawn (and printed in The Times) is passed, any or every part of the buildings, ancient as well as modern, can be swept away by the present Governors or by their successors. Some of us think very decidedly that the power sought for, if given at all, should be strictly limited, and I have drawn out a plan in order to show to those interested what we mean by the term 'Old Charterhouse,' we so much wish to be preserved."
    After entering into particulars, Mr. Carpenter says—
    "It is obvious that the projected street cannot be driven through the Charterhouse property without destroying more or less of the buildings—especially the ancient portions of them; and I must add, that at a meeting held to-day on this subject we were told, on good authority, that the street is to go from Clerkenwell Road to Charterhouse Square, with, of course, buildings on either side of it. A mere glance at the plan will show that all 'Washhouse Court' will be demolished, with part of Howard House. I think I may say that most of us will not be satisfied with the sparing of the chapel and hall, and but fragments of Howard House; and if success cannot be insured to the scheme without this destruction, the Bill ought, we think, to be rejected in Parliament; or, if carried, it should be in such an altered form as to secure to us all our ancient and historical buildings, still to be, we trust, used in some way in harmony with our Founder's intentions."
    This gentleman is now the honorary or consulting architect to the Governors, and I believe it is his plan, to a very considerable extent, which the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to carry out. I think it is a pity that an ancient building like this should be handed over to the tender mercies and fantastic views of any architect whatever. No doubt, there are many architects who are anxious to try their hands upon old buildings; but I hope that in this instance the House will agree with me that, as far as is now possible, the general character of what still remains of Mediæval London should be preserved. There are many things attributed to this Democratic Parliament; but I venture to say that it will not be found wanting in a proper spirit of respect and reverence for the old monuments of the country. Personally, I regard any project for the destruction of this old monument and record as an act of Vandalism. My

    505
    hon. and learned Friend says that the Bill does not propose to destroy these buildings; but suppose that you have a church standing in the centre of a churchyard, if you place buildings all over that churchyard surely you destroy the beauty of the church itself. It would be very much the same in this case. If you build over the whole of the land upon which the Charterhouse now stands you will destroy its architectural beauty. And it is quite likely that in doing so you may altogether upset the arrangements between the Governors of the Charterhouse and the Merchant Taylors' Company in reference to their schools, and that the Merchant Taylors' School may no longer be retained in London, so that that part of this property may also be swept away and devoted to purely mercenary objects. I do not know that there would be any use in my detaining the House as to the arrangements which may be made between funds devoted to the school and those for the maintenance of the pensioners. As I have already said, I oppose the Bill upon general grounds, and I hope that after he has listened to the debate my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw the measure in deference to the consensus of feeling which I feel certain will be expressed by the House. I certainly cannot consent to abstain from going to a division, because I cannot allow so objectionable a measure to pass unchallenged through a second reading. I do not think that it is desirable that it should be discussed before a Committee, because I know what the discussion of details and matters of this kind before a Select Committee means. We are nearly half-way through the Session, and Bills are frequently, under such circumstances, allowed to go before a Committee as a matter of chance in a haphazard way; and I am very much afraid that if this Bill is sent to a Committee, the general importance of the question, and the grounds of objection I have raised, will run the risk of being entirely lost sight of in mere technical matters. Under these circumstances, I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.
    MR. R. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to abolish the Hospital founded by Thomas Sutton in the London Charterhouse, to mutilate a most interesting relic of Old London, and to cover with buildings a considerable area of open ground in the heart of the Metropolis, in order to re-construct a Charity which, in its present form, carries out the intention of the Founder, and has not been shown to be unsuitable to the needs of the present day, or to have given rise to abuses,"—(Mr. Walter James,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. NORRIS: It was only this morning that I first saw the Charterhouse Bill, and heard of this attempt to authorize the sale, exchange, or lease of certain lands and buildings of the Governors of Sutton's Hospital in Charterhouse, one of the oldest and grandest Institutions of this City; and I very much regret that an hon. and learned Member, who has a seat on this side of the House, should have taken charge of the second reading of such a Bill. I should have thought that if one of the old Institutions of the Realm were to be attacked, we should look for defenders among hon. Gentlemen near me. Therefore, I feel bound personally to stand up and oppose the Motion which the hon. and learned Member has made. For 250 years, at least, the Charterhouse has fulfilled its duties to the City of London, as laid down and willed by the Founder; and if the House were to accept the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I believe they would, in verity, be putting the axe to the root of a very large and substantial tree. I have no doubt that the Governors of the Charterhouse are animated by a desire to carry out the intentions of the Founder — Thomas Sutton—but I take it that this scheme would, if adopted, end in the removal of the "Brethren," from the City of London, and would destroy the Charity of the Charterhouse, in which some 55 pensioners are enjoying the hospitality of this ancient Foundation. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House know the amount of good that will be done in the City, and in the East of London, by continuing the Charterhouse; and I hope

    507
    that they, together with hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, will support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James). I would remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House that the Charterhouse is an ancient monastic institution, and therefore I am sure they will sympathize in any effort that may be made to preserve it, and will not be prepared to destroy even the part of one of the most ancient foundations in London. Speaking for myself, I feel that for years past there has been too much interference with these old Foundations, with a view of assessing them simply at their money value. I believe that Institutions of this kind cannot be estimated at a money value, for it is a building which cannot be replaced when once destroyed. We might as well attempt to assess Westminster Abbey at a money value, and let the ground for building purposes. What would be said of a proposal to destroy Westminster Abbey, or to pull down the Houses of Parliament, on the ground that the sites on which they stand would be very suitable for private residences? I ask the House to consider the question with the utmost care. If the hon. Member for Gateshead had not submitted an Amendment, I should certainly have been prepared to move myself, to the effect that a Committee should be appointed to consider the whole question, although it is with very great regret that I find myself compelled to oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman who sits before me.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: Like other hon. Members, I regret very much that this discussion should have been considered necessary, and I also regret some of the language which has been used in the course of it, and especially in the speech to which we listened from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James). We have been told that we are sweeping a way the ancient buildings of the country; that we are guilty of Vandalism, barbarism, and Philistinism; and that in doing away with one of the ornaments of the country we are actuated by commercial and mercenary motives. This is really a question of conservation, and not of destruction. On this occasion, as one of the Governors of the Charterhouse, I feel bound to say that no hon.
    508
    Member who had spent half the time and anxious thought which I have upon this case would have come to a hostile conclusion upon the proposals contained in this Bill. The course which we have taken is one of absolute necessity, unless we are prepared to sacrifice the real and essential objects of Mr. Thomas Sutton, the Founder, and reduce the number of pensioners. If we cannot develop the London property of the Charterhouse to some extent the main objects of Mr. Thomas Sutton's Charity will be rendered completely nugatory. The Governors have gone into the archæological question with great care; we have consulted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) told the House, an eminent architect, who is an old Carthusian, and is the honorary architect of the Charterhouse, and that gentleman tells us that he will be able to preserve not only all the really ancient parts of the building, but even be able, he hopes, to give it an improved architectural appearance. The two chief parts of the building are Howard House and Washhouse Court. Howard House, which is an absolutely unique specimen of a nobleman's house of the 16th century, will be altogether preserved. Washhouse Court is all that remains of the old monastic building, and it is proposed to run a road through it. That road is now objected to. I am sorry that it is necessary to do this; but, unfortunately, we are obliged to approve of the plan submitted to us, because unless there is a road through it would be impossible to develop the property beyond. The hon. Member opposite has spoken of mercenary motives, and he was cheered by his hon. Friends below the Gangway. I am glad to see the sensitive spirit which is arising in that quarter; but I want to know where the mercenary motives are? Does the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) suppose that the Governors are going to put any money into their own pockets by promoting this scheme? [Mr. W. H. JAMES: No.] Then what does the hon. Member mean? Our only object is to carry out the objects of Mr. Thomas Sutton, the Founder, and to obtain a little more money for spending upon a larger number of old men and women, who are the pensioners of this Charity. The objects of the Charity are two in number—namely, the education of the

    509
    young, and the maintenance of the old. One of the strongest appeals in favour of the Charity is the beautiful and romantic picture of the old Charterhouse Hospital immortalized by Thackeray; and I believe that if the Newcomes had never been written there would not have been the present manifestation of feeling in regard to this Bill, and the large attendance which we have at this hour. We are trying to carry out the objects of Mr. Thomas Sutton, and what we say is that we desire to make provision for a larger number of Colonel Newcomes at the Charterhouse, and to give some of them out-pensions. What I would ask hon. Members to do, before they give an adverse vote on this occasion, is to consider the real bearings of the case. The Governors have tried their best to preserve all the architectural and historical features of the Charterhouse, and they have hardly sacrificed anything that can be called an open space. Indeed the hon. Member opposite practically gave up the argument as to open spaces. Nothing worth speaking of has been sacrificed; the burial ground, which will now be thrown open, has been actually closed for many years to the public; it is the sincere desire of the Governors to preserve all the archæological, historical, architectural, and antiquarian features of the Charterhouse; and we have done our best to insure not only that the number of pensioners who have been hitherto maintained upon Mr. Thomas Sutton's Foundation should be kept up, but that a considerable number of out-pensioners should be maintained in addition. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) has fairly and impartially explained the perfectly legitimate case we have for promoting this Bill; and I may add that, it is only the agricultural and general depression which has prevailed, and which has so largely affected our country estates, that has created the necessity for it. Looking at all the circumstances, I hope the House will place confidence in the motives by which the Governors are actuated, and will consent to read the Bill a second time.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTON: I wish to point out to the House why I do not think that the Governors of the Charterhouse have any
    510
    claim at all upon this House for confidence. I am speaking, I believe, perfectly within the facts when I say that 15 or 20 years ago five and a-half acres of land were sold by the Governors to the Merchant Taylors' Company without public competition for £90,000, which is worth to-day at least £250,000. If that is the way in which the Charterhouse funds and property have been managed, we ought to have many more detailed reasons to show why the scheme of the Governors is justified, and why it is necessary, than we have yet heard. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has reminded the House that it is the wish of the Governors to carry out the object of Mr. Thomas Sutton. Now, the object of Mr. Thomas Sutton, in his own words, was the education not of boys, but of poor boys. At the present moment the Charterhouse School is a large, and, doubtless, a very creditable school; but the boys who use that school are not poor boys. The son of a Royal Prince, I believe, attends the school at the present moment. To my mind it is a very great perversion of the Charity of Mr. Thomas Sutton that the money, which he left for the use of the poor, is, in fact, used for the children of the rich. What is the estimated sum, speaking roughly, that the school costs? I believe that the income of the Charterhouse is somewhere about £20,000. The school costs £10,000; but there are only 60 scholars upon the Foundation. If this is to be justified on principles of economy, then that economy should be in the direction of retrenchment—spending less upon the School. I think we have a right to ask this, and I say that those of us who sit below the Gangway have a right to oppose Bills of this kind, even when they come before us supported by great names and high authorities, because we believe that an important part of the Charity has been perverted. For these reasons I shall certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James).
    SIR EDMUND LECHMERE: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I am afraid there are very few hon. Members who are intimately acquainted with the architectural features of the Charterhouse. It

    511
    is not necessary to explain the history of that noble Foundation; but there are one or two points upon which I should like to elicit information, quite apart from historical or antiquarian questions. We ought to know whether the Governors have considered the question of providing suitable almshouses for the old people—the successors of Colonel Newcome—who are now inmates of the Hospital, in the event of their selling the very valuable site which the Bill will enable them to dispose of. It would be a sad thing that these old men should have to leave their comfortable quarters without any provision being made for them in the future. I do not think that the Governors are quite carrying out the wishes of the Founder, which was to establish residences for decayed merchants, and I am afraid that it will be a severe blow to the pensioners if they are compelled to leave the comfortable quarters they now occupy. I would suggest that the House, before consenting to the Bill, should give time in order that the Governors may satisfy the public that they have a scheme to provide for the establishment of almshouses at Godalming or elsewhere. As to the son of a Royal Prince being educated upon the Foundation, I believe that that is not altogether contrary to the design of the Founder, and that the School contains both collegians and oppidans.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTON: The hon. Baronet has somewhat misunderstood my argument. All that I said was that the School was intended for the sons of the poor, and not for the sons of the rich.
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNE: I trust that I maybe allowed to make a few remarks upon this question, which is one in which I have taken some interest, and I think that the few observations I propose to make may serve to allay the feeling which has been raised against the speech of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. W. H. James) in the use of the word "mercenary." That little word let slip by my hon. Friend has been made the ground of an attack upon him which it is perfectly clear to me to be by no means deserved. I am satisfied that he did not in the least mean to use the word in the sense in which it has been taken up. What he meant was simply that the sale
    512
    of the land was the object of the Bill, that these old buildings were going to be pulled down, and the property sold, with a view of realizing a larger income for the Charity. I may say, for my own part, and I believe for every hon. Member on this side of the House, that I do not think there is one among us who is prepared to say that the Governors have not done what they conceived to be for the best in the discharge of their duty. But what I wish to impress upon the House is this—that there is a great difference between the duty of the Governors of the Institution and the duty of the House. With regard to the larger question—namely, that of looking not merely at the Charity, but also at all that which sheds a halo round it from antiquity, I do not think that any man who has visited the Charterhouse, or is at all acquainted with it—and certainly no man who loves it, as many in this House do—can question that the destruction in any way of any portion of this old landmark of the City, involving as it does the destruction of one out of two or three of the remaining relics of the stately Palaces of the days of the Tudors, is greatly to be regretted. The work of destroying our ancient architecture has gone on until we have few relics left, with the exception of Westminster Abbey, Westminster Hall, and the Tower, with a few scattered fragments here and there. There are few more interesting, from an antiquarian and historical point of view, than the Charterhouse, which was built out of the funds collected by the piety and devotion of one of the great Religious Orders of olden times, in the most splendid period of English architecture. I do not mean to say that the architecture of the Charterhouse is splendid, but of its kind it is thoroughly genuine, and extremely interesting. The building originated in the devotion of a great Religious Institution. In the time of James I. a great Prince and Nobleman erected a magnificent mansion here, and subsequently Mr. Thomas Sutton, from the wealth which had accrued to him as one of the great London merchants, acquired the property. He devoted it to objects which I hope the Radical elements of the House of Commons of the present day will not repudiate. I trust that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will take quite an-

    513
    other view of their duty, and will be prepared to maintain a Charity which, when it was founded, was divided between hospitality to poor old men and the children of the poor who were to be instructed and maintained in the Charterhouse School. But, by a perversion which I am happy to say does not belong to our time, but to an age long past and gone—a perversion of the original purpose of the Charity—the funds of this great Institution have been devoted to the bringing up and education of a large number of children of the better class who can well afford their own education; and, on the other hand, the hospital funds have been devoted not to the support of poor old men, but to the maintenance of those who, by accident or other circumstances of life, have fallen from a high to a low estate. These decayed gentlemen now find a home around the old cells where the Carthusian monks passed their time in religious devotions. I believe that the feeling of the House, so far as it has been manifested in the course of the debate, is in favour of the rejection of this Bill; and I will venture to answer, in a few words, some of the points which have been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), in a speech characterized, I must admit, by that excellent temper and quiet reasoning which he always brings to bear upon anything he lays before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us of the increasing poverty of this great Institution, and of the reasons which induce the Governors to part with some of the Charterhouse property. We have been told that the Institution was £1,100 in debt last year; but when we look at what we can get of the accounts what is the result we find? Why, that the funds of this Institution are perpetually increasing. The income was £22,000 in 1862, and it is now £30,000 a-year. One-half of that money arises not from lands in various counties, some of it known well by me in my neighbourhood in Wiltshire, where the Charity possesses many acres which, in the past, have been by no means made the most of, and which even now might be, I believe, more economically managed; the remainder arises from property in London, which is daily increasing in value, and which there is not the smallest doubt will in the course of a
    514
    very few years be worth a great deal more than it is now. There is another matter to which I may direct the attention of the House. Out of this sum of £30,000, which is the annual income of this great Institution, £9,000 are spent in outgoings, not in rents going back to the tenants, but in mere expenditure between wind and water, which, as every country gentleman knows, makes a pretty large hole in his income. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that they would look upon an expenditure of 33 per cent out of their income, for such purposes, as a very large amount indeed. I think we have a right to ask that the best use should be made of the funds in the hands of this great Charity. I do not suppose there is a single Member of the Board of Governors who does not devote to the Charity all the time he can; but when we look over the list of names it is quite clear that that cannot amount to a great deal. No doubt, a few of them have devoted a great deal of their time to the affairs of the Charity. I am acquainted with an analogous Institution—the British Museum. In that case you have a very large Board of Trustees, consisting of conspicuous personages—great officers of State, and illustrious men. These illustrious men, when they are not occupied with more profitable duties, do occasionally condescend to go to the British Museum, and I believe it is generally acknowledged that there is no Institution in the Kingdom better managed. The gentlemen who have been selected in this case as Governors of the Charterhouse are men who are quite capable of managing and keeping alive a great Institution of this sort. Therefore, I have no wish to impugn their conduct; but the blame for any defective management rests upon the persons under them, who have been appointed to look after the affairs of the Charity. I cannot help thinking that the funds derived from this Charity might be better, and much more economically managed; and before this question is settled in the off-hand way proposed by the Bill, we have, at any rate, a right to be satisfied that the best use is being made of the funds and resources of the Institution, If the Bill be read a second time, I hope that its provisions will be thoroughly considered in Committee. I trust, however, that it will be sent back by this House, so as to afford

    515
    the Governors an opportunity of reconsidering it.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes; but before the House goes to a division there are one or two matters upon which I ought to say a word. In the first place, there has been a suggestion that the questions which have been raised here are questions for consideration by a Committee. Now, I understand that as the Bill does not touch any private interest no Petition has been presented against it, and, therefore, it would not go to a Committee at all, but would come before me personally; and, as I should consider that it was no part of my duty to examine the policy of the Bill, but simply to inquire into its financial arrangements, and see if they were satisfactory, it is necessary that the House should come to a determination on the question of policy on the second reading of the Bill. Upon that question of policy a division must now be taken; it cannot be taken in Committee, because the Bill will not be sent to a Committee. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have the greatest respect for the motives which have animated the Governors of the Charterhouse in this matter. They have found that their funds were not sufficient to keep up the objects of the Charity; and they have directed their attention to the best means of increasing those funds. They know that they possess very valuable property in the centre of London, and they see that by selling some of the land that surrounds the Charterhouse buildings while maintaining the buildings themselves they will be able to keep up the number of pensioners for whom Mr. Thomas Sutton originally intended to provide. [Sir RICHARD WEBSTER: They propose to double them."] Yes; if the pensioners are dispersed in the country, but not if they remain together as a family, as Sutton planned. I must point out, in the first place, that the present difficulty would not have arisen if the funds had been distributed as they were 20 years ago, before the separation of the School and Hospital took place. Up to that time there was an absolute allocation of funds either to one purpose or the other; but, as a matter of fact, no difficulty was experienced in apportioning the funds between the two purposes.
    516
    At that time two-thirds were given towards the maintenance of the poor brethren in the Hospital, and one-third to the School. The new scheme gave half to the Hospital and half to the School, and in consequence of that allocation the funds for the maintenance of the poor brethren have now fallen below the necessities of the case. If the Governors went back to the original plan, and two-thirds were again devoted to the Hospital it would not be necessary to bring in this Bill. Although I do not lay any great stress upon it, it does appear to me that we are dealing with a building of great historical interest, and with an Institution of great associations. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), said that there would not have been much interest taken in the question if it were not for the association of Colonel Newcome with the Charterhouse. Well, I think that is a matter which ought not altogether to be ignored. The people who come here from the other side of the Atlantic invariably try to find out the Charterhouse, and I think every hon. Member must feel that it would be painful if the associations which now surround the Charterhouse were broken up by this Bill. We are all agreed that if there is a necessity for this it is a detestable necessity. Everyone must feel that every stone ought to be turned before a scheme of this character should receive the approval of the House. I admit that it is rather hard on the Governors of the Charterhouse that they should be constrained to keep up an historical monument at the cost of a number of poor brethren who might otherwise be provided for. But I have not heard that any attempt has yet been made to come to what I think would be the ideal solution of the difficulty by the purchase of the ground which surrounds the Charterhouse, and the conversion of it into public gardens. If this were done these buildings might be retained either for their present, or for any other purpose, so that pilgrims to the Charterhouse might find their way there through public gardens rather than through grimy streets of which we have certainly quite enough at present in the neighbourhood of Clerkenwell. I believe that if this Bill were withdrawn we might be able in the course of a year or two to arrive at some happy solution

    517
    of the difficulty. I do not see that the House of Commons is forced to deal with the matter now, and, therefore, I shall vote against the second reading of the Bill.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am unwilling to trespass further upon the time of the House; but I must ask for its indulgence for a few moments while I deal with one or two matters which have been brought forward in the course of the discussion. I sympathize with every word which has been said by hon. Members opposite who desire to preserve the antiquity of old buildings; but it does seem to me as if, at the present moment, there is a disposition to snatch a division against the Bill without understanding the real facts of the case. ["No!"] Perhaps hon. Members will bear with me when I say that scarcely anyone who has spoken against the Bill has not assumed that the old buildings are going to be destroyed. That assumption is absolutely without foundation. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members may say "No," but they cannot have seen the Bill. I know the reality of what I assert. The chapel is not touched; the hall is not touched; the master's lodge is not touched; the master's court is not touched; and the only part of Wash-house Court which is touched is the ground floor. As I have said, there will be an archway at the other end of the road. My statement may be taken for what it is worth; but hon. Members will be quite sure that I am not stating what I do not believe to be true. Anybody, however, can see for himself by going down to the Charterhouse and investigating the matter. What I say is I that if this question is to be determined by the old buildings being properly respected, I should like the question to be fully and thoroughly investigated. The Governors are perfectly willing that it should be inquired into, and I believe that the Forms of the House admit of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. The Chairman of Committees told the House that as the Bill would be practically unopposed it would go before him as an unopposed Private Bill; but I apprehend that there would not be the slightest difficulty in referring it to a Select Committee. With regard to the old buildings, if they are going to be pulled down, or swept away, or dealt
    518
    with in the manner suggested by many hon. Members, I should not be here to support the measure. It is because I believe that there is a means of preserving, for the benefit of the public for ever, these old buildings that I am desirous of seeing this scheme carried through. One word more in regard to the observations of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Lymington), which I certainly think were scarcely called for. The noble Viscount has made an attack upon the Charterhouse itself. But if the Charterhouse is to be made the object of attack, it ought equally to be made on Eton, Winchester, and other public schools. It is not fair thus to reflect on a body of Governors who are attempting to do their duty in the interests of the Charity, and to carry out what was undoubtedly the intention of the Pounder—namely, to provide for the support of certain aged men, and under the powers of an Act of Parliament to devote the funds of the Institution to objects similar to those to which other Charities have been devoted. I believe that the antiquarian part of the case is not properly understood. As far back as 1872, it was recommended by the Charity Commissioners that the system of out-pensioners should be adopted. They also thought that the scheme should have gone further, and should have discontinued the Charterhouse as a place of residence for poor brothers. I am afraid that I cannot appeal to the recollection of the Prime Minister, although I have no doubt that he has taken as active a part in the management of the Institution as his other public duties would permit; but I am certain he will bear me out in this—that the Governors of the Hospital have done their utmost from beginning to end to carry out the objects of the Charity to the best of their ability, and with a desire to give effect to the wishes of the Founder. It is idle to suggest that they wish in any way to go against the wishes of the Founder. In the Bill of 1872, of which probably the House has no knowledge, power was taken to establish out-pensioners, and to devote some of the funds of the Charity to that object. I am not suggesting that hon. Members ought to know all these things. I have a knowledge of them from having been educated at the Charterhouse, and knowing

    519
    all about the Foundation. If the scheme of the Governors be inquired into by means of a Select Committee, and tested to the fullest extent that such a Committee would be able to test, and as it is impossible for the House to test it, I maintain that the wisdom and the judgment of the Governing Body would be supported. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) said he did not care whether it is a question of four acres or of two-and-a-half acres; but I venture to think it is of the greatest importance that the House should understand what the real scheme is. As much as three-and-a-half acres are left for open spaces, the old buildings are not touched except to the small extent I have admitted, and practically it is only the utilization of two-and-three-quarter acres, which are already, to a great extent, covered with buildings. If the House reject the Bill I am afraid they will not do so from a thorough understanding of the question, but from a natural desire, in which I entirely sympathize, to maintain an ancient relic of the past. I trust that that feeling will grow in the minds of hon. Members opposite. I repeat to the House, that this scheme has been most carefully considered by the Governors; that it has received the sanction of the Charity Commissioners; that it has been submitted to the Attorney General and received his approval; and that it has already passed the House of Lords. I wish I could put before the House some of the reasons which have weighed with the Governors, most unwillingly, to come to this decision; but I trust that the scheme will not be rejected, when I and those who deem it our duty to support the measure are quite willing, if it be read a second time, that it should be investigated to the fullest extent by a Select Committee, and where it can be easily ascertained, whether I or they who oppose the Bill are right in the matter. I regret that I should have been compelled to occupy so much of the time of the House; but it is a very important matter; and instead of hastily rejecting the Bill, I hope the House will allow it to be read a second time. I am satisfied that the result of passing it will be to carry out rather than to frustrate the objects of the Founder.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRTCE): I am sorry to
    520
    say that I have not heard the whole of the debate; but in reply to one part of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) I think he will not deny that, although a good deal of the ancient buildings will be left under this scheme, their character will be completely altered. For example, the ends of Washhouse Court will be pulled down, and a street run through the middle of it.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am sorry he was not here when I made my speech. What he has stated now is not the fact. The photographs show that no sides of the court will be pulled down, but that an archway will be made at each end of the court through which the road will go.
    MR. BRYCE: In other words, the character of the place will be destroyed. An old monastic building will be partially pulled down, and what is now the court turned into a street with an archway at each end and warehouses in proximity. The ends of the court will be destroyed and new archways built. Those who go there to see what a monastic building was ages ago will not be able to determine, because the lofty warehouses which will be erected around it will completely destroy the character of the place. Hardly any great historical city of Europe has lost so many of its antiquities as this capital of ours. There remain in London but few memorials of our mediaeval life; and as it is desirable to preserve these as much as possible, I hope the House will refuse to sanction the destruction of one of the finest now remaining. In these days, also, when so many efforts are being made to create new open spaces by the conversion of churchyards and other vacant spots into recreation grounds, I hope the House will think it undesirable to sanction a scheme which will reduce three acres of open space to a little more than one acre. When it is considered how much good might be done to the poorer inhabitants of London, and especially to the children of the poor, by appropriating this ground for playground and recreation purposes, I trust that the House, if for that reason alone, will not consent to read the Bill a second time.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: I am not going to detain the House very long; but I feel

    521
    that the proper course to take is to adjourn the debate. The more it has gone on the clearer it is that we are involved in a maze, and that we are discussing a matter of which a great many of us know very little, and about which there is a great deal of confusion. I will only, myself, venture to say that I have been over the spot, and have accurately examined the buildings. Judging from the discussion now going on, I consider that the House is not at present in a condition to deal with the matter satisfactorily. In these circumstances, I think the best course would be to adjourn the debate, not for any length of time, but simply for a few days, in order that a full opportunity should be afforded for reconsidering the matter. We are all of us animated by the same feeling—namely, a desire to preserve these valuable remains; but we do not all of us see the method of doing so in precisely the same manner. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTrose——
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he has already spoken.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I was about to second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent for the hon. Gentleman to second that Motion.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I simply wish, in one sentence, to explain the reason which induces me to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, and the suggestion which he made certainly seemed to me worthy of the most serious attention. Any suggestions of the kind I am satisfied would be carefully considered by the Governors. At present, I have had no opportunity of communicating with my Colleagues, only one of whom—the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—is now present. Whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me or not I do not know; but the
    522
    suggestion which has been made by the Chairman of Committees will, I have no doubt, be carefully weighed and considered by the Governors of the Charterhouse. I, therefore, think the debate ought to be adjourned in order to give them an opportunity of considering that suggestion.
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNE: I must repudiate the suggestion which has been made that hon. Members who have opposed the scheme do not know what they are talking about. The reason given by the last speaker is an admirable one for rejecting the Bill at once. In that case, the Governors would have ample leisure to consider the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees. As to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir Richard Webster), that hon. Members do not know what they are talking about——
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question now before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNE: Well, Sir, then I will say that I consider that if we need more knowledge it will best be attained by refusing the adjournment and rejecting the Bill.
    MR. W. H. JAMES: I regard the Motion which has just been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) and seconded by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) as really a wilful waste of the time of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the words "wilful waste of the time of the House" are a proper expression to use.
    MR. W. H. JAMES: I withdraw the words at once, and I will substitute "an unintentional waste of the time of the House." I believe the House has already given full consideration to the matter, and as it is thoroughly understood I trust that the House will be allowed to go to a division at once.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 198: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 89.)
    Original Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: After the division which has just taken place, I do not propose to trouble the House with a further division; but I will ask leave to withdraw the Bill, in order that the matter may be further considered by the Governors.
    MR. W. H. JAMES: In that case, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill withdrawn.

MOTIONS.

  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Bridport Water, Deal Water, Kettering Water, Southwold Water, and Lyndhurst Gas and Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 206.]

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Cranleigh Water, Farnbam Water, Frith Hill, Godalming, and Farncombe Water, Howden Water, and Tonbridge Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 207.]

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—ARMY OF OCCUPATION— MEDICAL OFFICERS AT SUAKIN.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for War, How many of the medical officers serving at Suakin have died or been invalided since the occupation of that place by the British Troops; and, whether the medical officers serving there now will shortly be removed to a more healthy climate?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE)(who replied) said: Three medical officers serving at Suakin have died, and ten have been invalided. The medical officers of the British Army are being removed from Suakin as the British garrison is withdrawn.

  EXCHEQUER DEPOSITS.
  MR. LIONEL COHENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the estimated amount for the current year of the Exchequer deposits and banking deposits which the First Lord of the Treasury described as—
  "Enabling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exercise so large a power of purchase in the stock market as effectually to counteract any abnormal depression;"
  what has been the amount of these deposits in each of the last three financial years, and in what manner have they been employed; whether any Return is annually made to Parliament of the exercise of any such power as that alluded to by the First Lord of the Treasury; and, what are the Acts of Parliament under which such power is conferred?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)in reply, said, he was not prepared to state the amount referred to in this Question.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—MAILS TO THE OUTER HEBRIDES.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the contract for the carriage of the mails to and from the Outer Hebrides to Oban was thrown open to public competition; and, whether it was necessary that the service to Tiree and Coll should be attached to Barra and Uist, instead of to Tobermory as formerly?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The contract for the carriage of the mails to and from the outer Hebrides to Oban was not thrown open to competition, but was a matter of arrangement with the Highland Fisheries Company. Tiree and Coll were formerly served by sailing packet from Tobermory, but are now served from Oban by the steam packet which also serves South Uist and Barra. The change, which is considered to be a very great improvement, would not have been, practicable if the direct communication with Tobermory had been preserved.

  TENURE OF LAND—HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTION LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, having

  525
  regard to proposals which have been made in this Country for legislation of a character similar to that of the Homestead and Exemption Laws prevailing in the United States of America, he will take steps to obtain Reports regarding the nature, extent, and operations of those Laws from the British Consular Agents or other available authorities in the United States?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The subject referred to in the Question of my hon. and learned Friend is one of great interest, and Her Majesty's Minister at Washington and those of Her Majesty's Consular officers in the United States who seem likely to be able to obtain satisfactory information will be instructed to furnish such Reports as he suggests. I may, however, observe that in the newer Western States, where chiefly these homestead laws are in operation, there are very few British Consular officers, so that I cannot promise my hon. Friend that the information will be as complete as we should desire. In the meantime, I may tell him that he will find much matter of interest regarding the homestead and exemption laws in the collection of State Constitutions published under the authority of Congress.

  BURMAH—MILITARY EXECUTIONS— COLONEL HOOPER.
  MR. JAMES MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the inquiry into the charges brought against Colonel Hooper, late Provost Marshal at Mandalay, has been concluded, and if it is the case, as reported in The Indian Daily News, that—
  "Mr. Moylan, The Times correspondent, has failed to substantiate several of his assertions, and that Mr. Bernard, the Chief Commissioner, remarked before the Court Martial that he considered the statements which had been made were not to be relied upon?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD): No Report has been received from the Government of India whether the Court of Inquiry has closed its proceedings. It is understood that the Court was not required to form an opinion on the case, but merely to collect and record evidence whereon to enable the Judge Advocate General in India
  526
  to decide whether charges could be framed on which Colonel Hooper could be brought before a Court Martial for trial.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE NAGPORE-BENGAL RAILWAY.
  MR. JAMES MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to a recent Letter from the Bombay Chamber of Commerce to the Bombay Government, representing that the construction of the Nagpore-Bengal Railway has been delayed, and
  "the ultimate success of the proposed Company for developing the undertaking seriously endangered, by the Secretary of State insisting upon terms from the promoters which are not likely to prove acceptable to the London market;"
  and, if there is any prospect of the removal of this cause of delay in the commencement of a railway which the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1884 reported to be "one of first-class importance and urgency, on account of its protective value," and the productiveness of which has been shown by the offers of two distinct first to construct it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD): The Indian newspapers have published the letter from the Bombay Chamber of Commerce referred to by the hon. Member; but it has not been received officially at the India Office. The commencement of the railway has been delayed, not because the Secretary of State in Council has "insisted upon terms from the promoters which are not likely to prove acceptable to the London Money Market," but in consequence of the pressure upon Indian finances at the present time, and the large obligations already incurred for frontier and other railways in course of construction. When this pressure abates there will be no delay in considering the claims of this line, the importance of which is admitted. I must add that I have not been able to find in the Report of the Select Committee the words quoted in the second part of the Question.

  GIBRALTAR—SIR JOHN ADYE.
  VISCOUNT CURZONasked the Secretary of State for

  527
  War, Whether his attention has been called to the general expression of feeling amongst the inhabitants of Gibraltar in favour of retaining Sir John Adye in the office he now holds as Governor; whether a Petition, signed by nearly 1,300 merchants, tradesmen, &c. living there, in favour of his retention, has been received by Her Majesty's Government; whether there have been instances of the term of office, in similar cases, being extended; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will extend Sir John Adye's term of office for a short period?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; Her Majesty's Government are aware of the feeling among the inhabitants of Gibraltar in favour of retaining Sir John Adye as Governor. A Petition has been received, signed by over 1,200 persons, giving expression to that feeling. Her Majesty's Government regret that under the present Regulations, as embodied in the Royal Warrant, it is not possible to sanction any prolongation of his term of office. There have been instances in which the term of office has been prolonged; but in such cases the officers were holding their appointments at the time the Regulation was made, and their vested interests were preserved by the terms of the Warrant.

  NAVY — H.M.S. "COLLINGWOOD" — BURSTING OF THE 43-TON GUN.
  CAPTAIN PEICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether an inquiry will be made into the cause of the bursting of the 43-ton gun on board H.M.S. Collingwood; and, if so, by whom will the inquiry be conducted?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT)in reply, said, that his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance had stated last night that the question of the bursting of the 43-ton gun would be inquired into by the Ordnance Committee of the War Office; and after they had reported his noble Friend Lord Ripon would suggest to the Secretary for War that an inquiry should be made by an independent Committee with regard to the remaining guns on board the ship in question.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL—THE WIVES AND FAMILIES OF NAVAL PENSIONERS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any alteration is to be made as regards the allowances to pensioners when in hospital; and, if so, when will it be made known to them?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF)(who replied) said: It is proposed to obtain an Order in Council to sanction an improved rate of allowance to the wives and families of naval pensioners admitted into naval hospitals at the expense of Greenwich Hospital funds, and also to the men in certain cases.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the importance and interest of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, he will, in accordance with precedent, propose that it should be continued de die in diem, except on Wednesday, until it is concluded?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): This is is a matter in respect of which I am not able as yet to form a forecast of what the desire may be for a prolonged debate. But probably on Monday I may be in a position to form that forecast, and it will be the duty of the Government then to consider the subject, and very probably to make a proposal in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL— NAMES OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLARasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the precedent in the case of the Irish Land Act, he will state the names of the Commissioners under the Crofters (Scotland) Bill before the Bill passes the Third Reading?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I wish heartily that we were in a condition to give the hon. Member the names for

  529
  which he not unreasonably asks. But we are not in that condition yet, and I think that he would hardly say that it would be desirable to delay the third reading of the Bill for that purpose. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall lose no time in concluding the arrangement.

  SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE-REPLY OF THE GREEK GOVERNMENT.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can give the House any information as to the reply which has been sent by the Greek Government to the last communication addressed to that Government by the Powers, and as to any steps which may have been taken, or which may be contemplated, in order to secure the object which the Powers have in view?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): The information which I can give the House to-day is very partial information; but I will give it as far as it goes. The reply of the Greek Government has been received, and it is an unsatisfactory reply. It makes no addition, or only a verbal addition, if any; but I believe in substance no addition to what have already been called inadequate and unsatisfactory assurances. That being the case, our intelligence is, as I have said, not complete; but I am in possession of intelligence that the British Minister has quitted Athens, and that so likewise have the Ministers of Germany, Austria, and Italy. Further information will probably arrive very shortly.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL —CONTROL OF CANALS.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNERasked the President of the Board of Trade Whether, in any further legislation with regard to canals, he can see his way to take into consideration the recommendation of the Railway Committee of 1882, which was to the effect that it was impolitic that Railway Companies should have control, either directly or indirectly, of canal navigation, and that where canals are already under the control of Railway Companies Parliament should endeavour to secure their use to the fullest extent?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA)in reply, said, the subject was one to which the Government attached great importance in the interests of the trading community. It was already illegal for Railway Companies to acquire canals without the express sanction of Parliament; but the spirit and intention of the law had been too often successfully evaded. The Government were now considering how far it was possible, by the insertion of clauses in the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, to secure that the provisions of the Standing Orders of this House, and also the recommendations made by the Committee in 1882, should be complied with, and he hoped they should be able to succeed.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

POSTAL SERVICE (BRITISH POSSESSIONS)—RATES OF POSTAGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HUTTON, in rising to move—
  "That the interests of the people urgently require that on letters, newspapers, and printed matter there should be a discontinuance of the charges of higher rates of postage in Great Britain than those which are charged to the public in other countries for Postal Service by British steamers carrying Mails to and from the Colonies and the possessions of Great Britain in India and elsewhere,"
  said, the question affected something like four-fifths of the population of the British Empire; and what he asked was not a boon, but a simple act of justice. Something like double the amount of postage was charged for letters sent abroad by our own steamers than for letters posted abroad for the possession of this country, and an act of injustice was there fore done to our fellow-subjects. He did not propose to interfere with the fiscal administration of the country, nor would he say a word against the administration of the Post Office. As far as inland postage was concerned the Department was most ably administered; but in regard to the foreign and Colonial postage an injustice was done to the interests of the country. It was calculated

  531
  some time ago that the population of this country had increased something like 1 per cent per annum, while the communications through the Post Office had increased something like 4 per cent per annum in the last 30 years. In England and the United States there was, at the present time, about one letter per head of the population written every week; in Australia the proportion was about one letter per head every two weeks, while in India it did not exceed one per head every twelve months. Were we to reduce the postal rates, there would, in his opinion, be a very considerable increase in the amount of correspondence sent abroad; and instead of the Treasury incurring a loss, there would probably be a very considerable addition to the profits of the Post Office. The meaning and purport of his Motion was that this country should not have, as it now had, simply a Treaty on paper with the different countries of Europe, but that the British people should be put in the position of taking advantage of the benefits to be derived from the Postal Union. Some weeks back the Secretary to the Treasury stated that all the civilized nations in Europe and America belonged to the Postal Union, and that its representatives met and fixed the rates of postage for the different countries forming the Union. He further stated that the charge fixed for postage was 2½d., with the power to charge another 2½d. for ocean service. But England was the only country which had taken advantage of the power to charge the extra 2½d. for ocean service; and the result was that if advantage was to be taken of the Postal Union people must go out of the British Empire to do it. A great injustice was thus inflicted on the people of Great Britain, on our Colonies, and on the population of India. The last meeting of the Postal Congress took place some time in February. The result of it was that while this country lost money every year it allowed foreign countries to use our Post Offices and steamers to send their letters by at a lese charge than we paid ourselves. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the rates now charged. Every letter sent from this country to India, Ceylon, China, and the East weighing ½ oz. had to pay a postage 5d.; whereas letters sent from any other country in Europe to the same places paid only
  532
  25 centimes, or something less than 2½d. The same difference occurred with regard to newspapers. Every newspaper 2 oz. in weight sent from this country to the places he had named was charged 1½d., while in Calais the same newspaper could be posted for ½d. Commercial papers going from this country paid 7½d., while in Calais they could be posted for 2½d. In the case of samples, a 4 oz. packet for the East cost in this country 3d. postage; but in France and Germany only 1d. The French had their own steamers running from Marseilles to India by which might be sent from here a 10 oz. packet for 5d.; whereas the cost by English steamer was 7½d. If the Government pleaded that they were losing money on the present service, the reason obviously was that samples were sent by the French steamers because they were taken at a great reduction. The same anomaly existed with regard to postage in India. Commercial and legal documents to this country were charged 3½d., and to other European countries 2¼d. The same excessive rates for postage to the East were also charged in this country for letters and other things sent to our Colonies, to the West Indies, and to the West Coast of Africa. Letters for these Colonies might be posted in any part of Europe—Odessa for instance—and sent thence viâ Liverpool, Southampton, or wherever the mail might go from, at a charge of 2½d.; whereas people living in the neighbourhood from which the mail started had to pay 4d. That was a great injustice to the mercantile community of this country. The same difference in rates applied to printed papers; 1d. for 2 oz. was charged for printed papers in Great Britain, while they could be sent from across the Channel for ½d. It was extraordinary that these anomalies should have existed so long as they had done; and a great many mercantile men told him that they were unaware of them till recently, when they discovered them by accident. It might even be worth while, in the case of firms having a large correspondence with the East, to send a clerk every Friday morning to Calais to post their letters. He had heard of one firm which was able to save £200 to £300 a-year by adopting that plan. He was informed by one of Her Majesty's Consuls in New Caledonia, who was a scientific man, that he

  533
  could send a letter to England for 2½d. but that it cost 5d. for a reply. That gentleman was in the habit of making up boxes of natural history collection and sending them to England, and he found it much more advantageous to send them through Prance, as the charge was only ½d. for every 2 oz. up to 10 oz. Moreover, since he had sent through France he had had scarcely any breakages; whereas the same boxes sent to England were nearly always broken, and were then charged letter rates. This was the experience of the advantages of the Postal Union to England by a gentleman in Her Majesty's Service. It was stated on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman that the Colonies had expressed no dissatisfaction with the present arrangements. The Colonists whom he had met in this country, especially Indians, had expressed the very greatest dissatisfaction at the large charge made for the conveyance of letters from this country. The Civil Service Estimates showed that India contributed £70,000 a-year to the Postal Service to the East, while Ceylon and the Straits Settlements and other places made up the subsidy to about £83,000 a-year. The Postal Report published last year stated the estimated receipts for the postage of letters and papers between India and this country to be £55,000. He was informed that that sum of £55,000 did not cover the whole of the Post Office receipts for the transmission of our mail to India. Mulhall's Tables for 1884 stated the amount of letters received in India from Great Britain in a year as 9,000,000. At 5 d. each those would have yielded £180,000 per annum. The estimated receipts of £55,000 were obviously without taking the Government Correspondence and despatches into account. He did not believe that the ultimate loss to this country, if his proposal was adopted, would exceed £120,000, which ought not to be charged to the Post Office, because the lines of steamers were subsidized, not merely for carrying purposes, but that we might have good vessels at the disposal of the country in the event of any emergency arising. If we wanted a thing done properly we must pay a fair and proper price for it; but as Her Majesty's Government did incur expenses for subsidies for mail and telegraph service to Zanzibar, West Africa, and St.
  534
  Helena, and charged those expenses to the Imperial Exchequer for other similar services rendered, he failed to see why that deficiency should be charged to the Post Office Revenues. He trusted the facts he had put forward would receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and he hoped the House would have not only an expression of sympathy such as they had had on previous occasions, but that Her Majesty's Government would be able to see their way to rectify what was really a great injustice on those men who went out as the pioneers of our commerce and civilization, to benefit the trade and industry of the country, and who ought, at least, to look forward to receiving their communications from the Mother Country regularly and at a cheap rate. He believed such a course would bring closer the ties of friendship and sympathy between England and her Colonies, and would reflect credit not only on that House, but on Her Majesty's Government. He would ask the House to consider the auspicious words uttered by Her Majesty the Queen, a few days ago, when she expressed the hope that—
  "This undertaking may be the means of imparting a stimulus to commercial interests in all parts of the British dominion by encouraging the arts of peace and industry, and by strengthening the bonds of union which now existed in every portion of the Empire."
  He trusted the Government would consider the sentiments expressed in those words, and would endeavour to at least do that justice which, every loyal subject of Her Majesty was entitled to. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved the Resolution which stood in his name.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEseconded the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the interests of the people urgently require that on letters, newspapers, and printed matter there should be a discontinuance of the charges of higher rates of postage in Great Britain than those which are charged to the public in other countries for Postal Service by British steamers carrying Mails to and from the Colonies and the possessions of Great Britain in India and elsewhere,"—(Mr. James Hutton,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, he was somewhat in a difficulty in dealing with this Resolution, because it was, in another shape, a repetition of a Motion brought forward on March 30, to which it had been his duty to reply in a speech of considerable length, and he did not wish to inflict upon the House a repetition of the statement he then made. The hon. Member, perhaps, would therefore excuse him if he did not go again into the Colonial question. He was also rather puzzled by the difference between the hon. Member's speech and the terms of his Motion. However, on the present occasion he would confine his remarks exclusively to the injustice of which the hon. Member complained—namely, that letters posted in England for India were charged 5d., whereas if those letters were posted in Paris for India they would only be charged 2½d.—the letters being carried by the British mail steamer—and that, therefore, there was the apparent injustice of a differential rate between this country and France. He might observe, at the outset, that there was no such differential rate at all, except with reference to the two places mentioned by the hon. Member—namely, the West Indies and the West Coast of Africa. There was no differential rate for a letter between this country and France to Australia or Canada or our principal Colonies. The only differential rate was between this country and the West Indies and the Gold Coast; and the postal communication between Great Britain and the West Indies and the Gold Coast was such a bagatelle that it was hardly worth the trouble of calculation. The question really rested upon the postage between this country and India, and on that he would give an explanation which he hoped would be satisfactory to the hon. Member. Some years ago this country went into the Postal Union, in which there was a uniform rate of charge—namely, 2½—whenever a letter was delivered within the limits of the Union. Certain countries inside the Postal Union were great carriers by sea, and some others were great carriers by land; and we must, as commercial and business men, look at both sides of the question. We carried the ocean postage, but we did not carry the land postage. He was sorry to say
  536
  there was heavy loss on the whole of the postage; and though there was an apparent loss in our carrying letters from France to India for 2½d., they must remember, as against that, that they had their letters carried for the same rate across the Continent of Europe; and the letters carried at a cheap rate by us were small in comparison with the letters carried at a cheap rate across the Continent. When these terms were fixed, those in charge of the interests of this country thought they made a good bargain, and he also was satisfied that they did, because, even if they carried letters from France to India at a low rate, they got a corresponding advantage upon the other side. The postage between Europe and India was almost entirely English postage, as the commercial transactions were practically English. Lastyear India bought something like £52,000,000 worth of goods from Europe, and of that amount £50,000,000 was from the United Kingdom, and only £845,465 from France. The receipt from French postage to India was £1,600, and no corresponding advantage would be gained by doubling that amount. The hon. Member said, they ought to deal with this question on the principle of justice. Well, the principle of justice was that a man should pay for what the service rendered to him cost, and our Indian and Colonial Postal Service was carried on at a loss of £1,000a-day. [An interruption.] "Cheap," an hon. Member said; that might be so. [Mr. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury): No, not cheap; chiefly India.] Oh, chiefly India. What was the Indian correspondence? It was a correspondence mainly between the Anglo-Indians and home. He did not wish to depreciate the importance of that correspondence; but who ought to pay for it? So far from that correspondence being a failure, the increase was enormous, and the business communications were of vital importance to this country. The principal loss of £136,000 was upon India, and they taxed the Natives of India something like £68,000 in order that the Anglo-Indian community might have their letters carried at a considerably less cost than that service entailed. The House, he thought, understood the nature of the case. They were losing £365,000 a-year by their foreign and Colonial postage; but they made no differential

  537
  charges except with India, West Africa, and the West Indies. The hon. Member contrasted the French and English Post Offices unfavourably to that of this country; but in that contrast he might have referred to the charges for internal postage in France. In France they charge 1½d. for every letter only weighing half an ounce, whereas in this country we only charged 1d. for a whole ounce. The hon. Gentleman's argument was that because we carried, say, one-tenth, or a much smaller proportion, of the correspondence at a great loss, under a bargain which they thought redressed itself in another Department, they should carry the other nine-tenths also at a loss. If we reduced the postage to India it would entail a further loss, and was that loss to fall on the English or the Indian taxpayer? He knew the answer which would come from more than one quarter of the House—namely, that the Post Office should be treated as one concern, and that, as there was a profit of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year, the loss should come out of that sum. Rightly or wrongly, they had made the Postal Revenue a portion of the Imperial Revenue; and if they were going to say that the whole Revenue of that Department was to be spent for the postal consumers, if he might so describe them, and were prepared to put on 1d. or 2d. extra on the Income Tax to make up that loss, did they not think that the people at home, whose letters made up that profit, would make a claim to share in the benefit by reduced charges on their own letters? They would have an outcry from the working and commercial classes, upon whom the postal charges were a heavy tax, and these classes would say that those who earned the profits had the first claim on the benefit. He hoped the House would not embark on so great a question as that; and he was satisfied, from the consideration he had given the subject, that the wise and experienced permanent officials of the Post Office, under Postmasters General of both political Parties, had made the best bargain for this country, and that at present the English Post Office would contrast favourably with any Post Office in the world.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS—HOURS OF POLLING.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. T. FRY, who had on the Paper a Notice to the following effect:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the hours of Polling at School Board Elections in Cities and Boroughs should be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m,"
  said, that the only objection which he had heard to making this desirable alteration was the extra expense which would be incurred; but, on looking into the matter, he found that the extra expense would be a very small matter indeed, for all the books, the printing, and other expenses would remain the same. There might be a demand for an increase in the fee to solicitors, agents, and clerks; but even these were usually charged as full days. However, the question of expense was hardly worth mentioning, considering the great convenience to large masses of the population which would result from the extension of the hours of polling in the manner which he proposed, and also the removal of a very serious injustice, which was keenly felt, more especially by the working classes. Numbers of people were prevented from voting, especially in large centres of population, owing to the early hour at which the poll was closed in many towns, and this was especially the case in the town which he had the honour to represent. Very many railway men went to work at an early hour in the morning, and did not return till long after the hour of closing the poll, and he knew that they felt this to be an injustice from which they ought to be relieved. He had himself been a witness to a scene where a large number of men were crowding round the door of the polling station, but who, to their evident disappointment and annoyance, were unable to vote owing to the closing of the poll before they could get in. He could not see any reason in the world why the hours of polling which prevailed in London should not prevail throughout the country, or, at all events, in all the large centres of population. It had been suggested that the fixing of the hours of polling should be left to the Town Councils or other Local Authorities; but there was the objection to this that there

  539
  would be no uniformity in the hours in, perhaps, adjoining districts, and there would always be the suspicion of political or religious influences being brought to bear in the matter for Party purposes. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that it would be much the best plan to fix the hours of polling at School Board elections all over the country as they were fixed for Parliamentary elections—from 8 o'clock in the morning to 8 in the evening—a plan which he believed would remove all feelings of irritation and injustice from the minds of the working classes. He was hopeful that his Motion, not involving a Party question, but simply one which regarded the convenience of the people, might be accepted by the Government. He had received many letters from different parts of the country approving his object. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had asked him to state that many of his constituents employed in the Dockyards were prevented from voting on the last occasion because the hours were so fixed that they had not time to record their votes. As the preceding Motion had been negatived, he could not take a division; but, in answer to a Question he had put a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council said that it would not be necessary to bring in a Bill to effect the reform which he (Mr. T. Fry) advocated, but that if there was a sufficiently strong expression of opinion by the House in favour of the alteration the object could be effected by an Order in Council. He had, therefore, brought the proposal before the House in the form of a Resolution, and he hoped that the House might accept it without opposition.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, if the Forms of the House had permitted, he should have been happy to second the Motion. He believed that this proposal, if carried out, would be very acceptable to the working men, especially in the large towns of the North, who took a great interest in School Board elections. Although they were unable to take the sense of the House upon it, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give such a reply as to render it unnecessary to take further action. As far as regarded the additional expense caused by extending the hours of election for the School
  540
  Boards, he ventured to say that in local government legislation, which he hoped the House would be able to undertake before very long, they would be able to simplify the system of elections, the number of which were now bringing local government into disrepute. It was a perfect nuisance that there should so frequent elections; and he trusted that the various details of local government would be entrusted to Committees of one elected Body. But there was no reason why the working men should be shut out by reason of the hours of polling being too short. He could show that many men had been shut out from voting at School Board elections, because they must vote either in the dinner hour or in the evening. But even if they cost a little more, he thought that the elections provided for by that House ought to be real elections. It was very unreasonable that working men should be shut out from voting just at the last moment, when they had not been able to vote at breakfast time, or at a midday hour of refreshment. He thought the good sense of the Motion was so self-evident that he need not trouble the House longer in supporting it.
  MR. SAUNDERSsaid, that during a recent School Board election at Hull it was found that many working men were prevented voting by the early closing of the poll; and it would be a great convenience to his constituents if the Government could see their way to adopt the Motion. Hon. Members generally seemed to be in favour of it, and he understood that the Government could give effect to the Resolution without the passing of an Act of Parliament. It was most desirable that the public should have equal facilities in all places for recording their votes at School Board elections.
  COLONEL E. HUGHESsaid, that as a Member of the London School Board, he was in a position to testify that it had been a great convenience to have the poll allowed to remain open till 8 p.m. As London had been made the scene of an experiment in keeping open the poll at Parliamentary Elections till 8 o'clock, which was afterwards extended to other towns, he thought the experience of London in School Board elections might be utilized for the whole country.
  An hon. MEMBERsaid, he regretted that the Motion was confined to boroughs and towns. There were many other populous places where it would be of advantage to extend the hours of polling. He hoped the Government would make a uniform rule all over the country.
  MR. CAINEsaid, he wished to call attention to the hardship of the borough of Tottenham, which was outside the Metropolitan area, and, therefore, did not enjoy the extended hours in force in the Metropolis. Large numbers of the residents were in the daily habit of leaving for town by early morning trains, and they did not return, many of them, till after 8 o'clock in the evening. At the recent Parliamentary election he found that some 700 or 800 electors were disqualified in consequence of the hour being even so late as 8 o'clock; and with regard to the School Board, he was satisfied the disfranchisement was much more extensive. The same rule applied to Liverpool, where there were generally from 8,000 to 10,000 persons employed on the steamers on the river, many of which men did not get away from their work till 7 or 8 in the evening, and it was impossible for them to get ashore in time to vote in the country districts. He was satisfied, from what he knew generally of electioneering opinion throughout the country, that it would be a most popular thing if the Government would grant the request of the hon. Member for Darlington.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he did not see why the polls should not be kept open for 12 hours even in rural districts. It was the electors, and not the officials, who had to be considered. In some quarters the working classes had a strong impression that the hours were deliberately fixed so as to exclude them from polling.
  MR. E. RIDER COOKsaid, he quite sympathized with the remarks of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine), for the borough which he represented, the borough of West Ham, being, like Tottenham, outside the Metropolitan area, was limited to the shorter hours. That was felt as a real hardship by an enormous population.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that if there was a hardship with regard to the Parliamentary elections it must
  542
  be still more the case with regard to School Board elections, because there the working men's children were most affected. He thought, therefore, that on the occasion of School Board elections the working men ought to have a real opportunity of expressing their opinion. In such a borough as that which he had the honour to represent, many of the working classes were occupied during the day at some distance from their homes, and it was only at the latter part of the day, when they got home, that they had the opportunity of voting. Unless there was an extension of the hours they were really excluded from the franchise. It was really a matter of great importance, in the interest of elementary education, that the working classes should be led to take the greatest interest in it, and that they should express their opinions in the most ample manner.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid, that an hon. Member had raised an objection on the ground of expense to the carrying into effect of the Motion of the hon. Member for Darlington, and other hon. Gentlemen had spoken against it on the ground that it would have the effect of making too great a tax on the energies of those engaged in taking the poll at School Board elections. He held that it was not necessary to have the energies of the officials taking the poll taxed for the whole of the day, except in populous places. In small rural parishes he considered that there might be a cessation in taking the poll at that time of the day when few persons attended to record their votes. Then the working classes would be enabled, by keeping the poll open till 8 p.m., to record their votes, without much extra trouble or expense to those conducting the elections, and there would be a cessation of taking votes during the afternoon. He desired to see the hours of polling extended, because he was anxiously looking forward to the time when there would be School Boards in every district, and therefore the hours of polling should be as late in the rural as well as in the town communities. The voters ought to be afforded adequate facilities for recording their votes, and the more interest they took in School Boards the better would it be for all concerned. He hoped that the

  543
  Government would approach this matter with the object of establishing a uniform system all over the country, and that before long this would be realized.
  MR. EDWARD RUSSELLsaid that, as representing a large constituency like Glasgow, he was glad to have an opportunity of supporting this Motion. As the Vice President of the Council well knew, the School Board institutions of Glasgow were conducted on a remarkable scale of efficiency; and not only so, but they were associated with a great deal of effort on the part of the members of the School Board, who obtained an insight into the minds of the people, and did a great deal of good from day to day by bringing social influences to bear on the % people. He knew that in connection with elections the members of the School Board had the means and opportunity of exercising an admirable influence on the people, and that the more they obtained the concurrence of the people in the electoral operations the better they were pleased, and the better they found the education of the children to progress. Experience showed in Glasgow that not only could the hours of polling be extended with safety, but with great advantage, because the more the feelings of the people were enlisted in the matter the greater was the influence of the education in the homes of the people, as well as in the training of the children.
  MR. L. FRYsaid, that, as the Representative of a large Western city which took a great deal of interest in the question of elementary education, he considered that the proposal now before the House would, if adopted, be of great advantage. It was not possible to take a division upon the Motion; but he hoped that the Government would see their way to accept it, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) would not require to pass an Act of Parliament to give effect to its proposal. There was a strong desire among the people of Bristol that every facility and opportunity should be afforded to the electors to record their votes at School Board elections.
  DR. FOSTERsaid, that while agreeing with the proposal he thought its scope should be widened, as he desired to see it extended to all loca-
  544
  lities in which School Boards now existed, or might be hereafter created. Public elementary schools were of such importance to the working classes that every facility possible should be given to them to influence and direct the policy of School Boards. He knew the extension of hours would be popular in Birmingham and other largo towns, and he believed it would be equally popular and advantageous in less populous districts.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR)said, the consensus of opinion in the House upon this subject had been very marked. It was obvious from all parts of the House there was a desire for fair play, and that there should be an opportunity for all classes to record their votes with the greatest amount of convenience. The position of the question at present was this—In London the working classes had 12 hours in which they could record their votes; in parishes and in boroughs they had seven hours allotted; but there had been a suspicion, and it was a very unfortunate suspicion, that the hours had been occasionally fixed for certain Party purposes. That probably was not true, but it had produced an unfavourable impression; and in the question of education such an impression ought, if possible, to be removed. He thought the general expression of opinion for extending the hours was of such a character as would induce the Privy Council at once to consent to a prolongation of the hours of polling. It was simply a question of expense. Hitherto, in the populous districts—in parishes especially, and small towns—the expense had been kept down to a minimum, and very small fees had been paid. For instance, £1 had been paid to a clerk for attention to the duties for seven hours. It was possible that it might be found they would not be able to obtain persons to attend at all the polling stations upon the same economical terms; but the increase of expense in ordinary cases would not be very large. Had he not heard such a general expression of opinion in favour of keeping all polling stations open for 12 hours, the suggestion which he would have put before the House would have been that at small or less populous places, where 12 hours might not have been required, the purpose might be met by limiting

  545
  the hours to eight, but that the hours should be specified—say from 12 to 8 o'clock—so that the working man might vote either at his dinner hour or after the day's work was completed. He would not, therefore, give a pledge that there should be a uniform system of 12 hours all over the country, but that 12 hours might be granted where there were considerably populous places and considerable towns. In his opinion, eight hours—from noon till 8 at night — would be a better rule where the population was small, and where it was desirable not to increase the expense. If that met the view of the House, he could say that the Department which he had the honour to represent would take care that in the next Order in Council there was an extension of the hours for polling given in the sense of the views which had been expressed.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was glad to hear the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, because it would be an absurd extravagance to open the poll for 12 hours in a country village where perhaps there might not be more than 100 voters on the Register. The object would be amply secured by having the poll open during the dinner hour and in the evening. Some hon. Members expressed the hope that the time would come soon when there would be a School Board in every rural parish. He hoped that time might never arrive; but if they wished to make School Boards more unpopular than they were, let them add to the expense by insisting on the absurd proposal to have the poll open for 12 hours, however small the number of voters.

POST OFFICES AT RAILWAY STATIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the defective arrangements of the General Post Office at Railway Stations, and move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that additional facilities should be afforded to the public for posting letters at the stations of the Railway Companies in Great Britain and Ireland,"
  said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman who in that House represented the Post
  546
  Office would be able to assure them that the same facilities for the posting of letters at railway stations should be given in this country as existed generally in Continental countries.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, the question of providing additional facilities at railway stations was carefully considered so re cently as three years ago, and he found from inquiries then made that upwards of 380 letter boxes were put up at various stations throughout the United Kingdom. The matter, however, was receiving the attention of the Postmaster General——
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension * (89); Municipal Corporations (Scheme Confirmation) * (90); Highways Acts Amendment* (91).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* (71).

ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER CORPS.

  RESOLUTION.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is prepared to supply gun-boats for the use of the different brigades of the Royal Naval Volunteer Corps, and to move for any further correspondence respecting the above corps from naval officers or other officials who have been instructed to inquire into, or to report upon, the subject? said, that the Naval Volunteer movement had been spreading largely of late, and that it had already gained great popularity. A brigade had recently been formed on the Clyde, and it was intended to raise similar corps at Yarmouth and on the Tyne. He hoped the Admiralty would do their utmost to render this Service as popular and as efficient as the Rifle Volunteers had long been. At present, a member of the corps was not adjudged efficient unless he could prove his competency at gun, rifle, pistol, and cutlass drills. Now, it was almost impossible for a sailor to become efficient at gun drill on shore. To handle a gun well on board ship a man must first acquire his sea legs, and he could only do that at sea. He hoped, therefore, that a gun-boat would be placed at the disposal of

  491
  each corps for a period of four or five months annually. There existed 10 or 12 which were more or less obsolete, but which would serve admirably the purpose which he had in mind. A frequent complaint made by Naval Volunteers was that an efficient man was removed from the list of efficients if he could not be present at the official inspection. That was a very hard rule, and he held that men certified as unavoidably absent by their Commanding Officer should be allowed to remain among the efficients. Volunteers who had obtained commissions after passing the severe examination now prescribed by the Admiralty Regulations were entitled to aspire to higher ranks than were at present accessible to them. The last suggestion he had to make was that officers should be permitted to wear gold instead of silver lace. The latter tarnished very quickly at sea, but gold was not affected by salt water.
  Moved, "That there he laid before this House any further correspondence respecting the Royal Naval Volunteer Corps from naval officers or other officials who have been instructed to inquire into or to report upon the subject."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The MARQUESS of RIPON)could assure the noble Viscount that he naturally took a great interest in the Royal Naval Volunteer Force, and that he was anxious to do everything in his power to give it reasonable and legitimate encouragement. The noble Viscount might have a little confidence in him upon this point, because he was connected with the Military Volunteer Force when it was first started. He regretted that he could not produce the Papers which the noble Viscount wished to have. The Report of Sir Robert Molyneux had been received at the Admiralty, where it was still the subject of discussion. That being the case, it would not be in accordance with the usual practice or convenient to lay it on the Table of the House. Besides, it was more or less confidential. Another Report connected with this subject which the noble Viscount desired to have was a Report which was made to the War Office, and he could not undertake to produce it without the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War. With reference to the noble Viscount's suggestions, he might say that of late years it had been
  492
  the practice of the Admiralty to place a gunboat at the disposal of the Corps of Volunteers, and it was the intention of the present Board to continue the practice. The Avon had been set apart for the London District, and the Tay had been commissioned as a tender to the Hotspur, with the object of making her available for corps at Bristol and Liverpool. As to the corps on the Clyde, it had been formed only a short time, and was not yet in a condition to embark on a gunboat for sea practice. Hereafter, the same course would be pursued in the case of that corps as in the case of the others. He was obliged to the noble Viscount for his suggestions, and would carefully consider them. Most of them related to points which were referred to in the Reports of Admiral Hamilton and Sir Robert Molyneux, and which would be taken into consideration by the Admiralty.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the noble Marquess to take into consideration the position and pay of the instructors of these corps, with a view to their improvement.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NAVY—EXPLOSION ON BOARD H.M.S. "COLLINGWOOD."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether an official Report has been received of the circumstances that attended the bursting of a gun on board H.M.S. Collingwood; and, if no Report has reached the Admiralty, by what process the First Lord intends that an inquiry shall be conducted? pointed out that the bursting of a gun of that kind was a matter of very great importance, because there were only eight or ten such guns on board a vessel; and it was a very different matter as compared with the time when there were a much larger number of guns of a lesser calibre. It was not the first time that accidents of this serious character had occurred. The opinions as to the cause were exceedingly diverse, and it was very necessary that a full investigation and inquiry should take place.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Marquess of RIPON): I am not at all surprised that a Question

  493
  has been put to me on this subject, and I quite agree with the noble Viscount in thinking that the accident was a very serious one indeed, and deserves, as it will most assuredly receive so far as I am concerned, the most careful consideration of the Government. There ought certainly to be a full and ample investigation into all the circumstances which attended it. This occurrence took place last Tuesday, the gun bursting with a charge of 221¼lb. of powder, being about three-fourths of the proper charge. As the House is aware, the gun burst about 8 feet from the muzzle. That, no doubt, was a very serious matter indeed, for the Admiralty had, at the time of this accident, 11 of these particular 43-ton guns, and this accident, of course, throws great doubt on the security of the other 10 guns on board the Collingwood and two other ships, the Colossus and the Conqueror. A full Report on the accident was received at the Admiralty yesterday from Captain Fisher, who was in command of the Excellent; but I did not wait until this Report had been received to take action in the matter. I immediately placed myself in communication with the Ordnance Department of the War Office as to what steps should be taken with regard to the remaining 10 43-ton guns. I conferred with Colonel Maitland, Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factories, Captain Noble, the manager of the Elswick Company, who happened to be in town, and with the Director of Naval Ordnance; and the result of our discussion was that these three officers were of opinion that it was desirable—they did not go so far as to say it was necessary—they said it was desirable to strengthen these 10 remaining guns by hooping them near the muzzle. I communicated the result of this conversation to my Colleagues on the Board of Admiralty, and yesterday we wrote to the War Office to request that they would proceed as rapidly as they could to strengthen these 10 guns. I fear that this will be a matter requiring some time; but Colonel Maitland is of opinion that the work can be done in a month, and that it will not be necessary to interfere with the gun carriages. Even if it is an under-estimate, and it takes two or three months to carry it out, it will still be very much less time than many have been led to suppose.
  494
  All that will be necessary will be to send the guns to Woolwich Factory—not all at the same time, but two or three at a time. We must all be agreed that this question requires a searching inquiry; and I understand it is the intention of the War Department to call on the Ordnance Select Committee, with certain associate members, men of great distinction, to report upon this accident. I have not been able to enter into communication with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman)on this question, as he has been absent from London; but he will return to-day or to-morrow, and I shall place myself in communication with him. I will suggest to him that inquiry shall not end with the Report of the Ordnance Committee, but that a further and subsequent inquiry shall take place into the whole of the circumstances connected with this unfortunate accident. I quite agree with the noble Viscount that this is a very serious matter indeed, and I can assure him that it will not be my fault if it is not thoroughly examined into, and if steps are not taken to prevent, so far as possible, the recurrence of such accidents. It must, however, be remembered that steel is a very uncertain material, and accidents of this sort must, unhappily, be expected from time to time.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHobserved, that the supply of ordnance was one of the most important questions of the day. Ships were delayed in their construction not only for months, but for years, because the question of the guns which the ship was to carry had not been settled. Unless the constructor of a ship knew what the size and power of the guns were to be which she was to carry it was perfectly impossible for him to design a ship properly. With regard to the question of the 43-ton guns, he wished to know whether he was correct in the idea that the very important Ordnance Committee, which had sat for at least a year, and which had reported last July or August, had recommended the 43-ton gun, but had joined that recommendation with another distinct recommendation that the full charge should not be used? If that was the case, that recommendation was surely very negative praise of that ordnance, and looked very much as if there was a suspicion concerning it in the minds of those experts who had examined into the ques-

  495
  tion. Now that slow burning powder was used the pressure upon the gun was very great where the hooping ceased, and this caused the danger. He had only a short time before been speaking to one who was a thorough judge both of ships and guns—Lord Charles Beresford—who had said that it was better to lose three ships than burst one gun, because if men distrusted the weapon with which they had to work it inevitably had a demoralizing effect upon them. That showed the immense importance of the question; and it was one also which affected the whole question of our home defences. Considerable progress had been made lately by the engineers upon some of our defences; but until they knew what the gun was to be they were altogether in the dark. He earnestly hoped that the work of strengthening the guns would be rapidly proceeded with, and also that this question, as affecting the manufacture of heavy ordnance, would be thoroughly sifted to the very bottom. He also trusted that the Government would carefully consider the possibility of making the Admiralty itself responsible for the supply of guns to the Navy.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that with respect to the large and important question alluded to by the noble Earl in the latter part of his remarks he fully recognized its importance, and both before and since the accident it had been occupyiug his attention, and would continue to do so. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Earl with regard to the recommendation of the Committee which had reported last year, the noble Earl was very nearly right, but not quite. This question did not touch all the 43-ton guns or those now being manufactured, which were made stronger towards the muzzle; and there were also several other 43-ton guns which were of stronger make. The question affected only 11 guns; and with respect to these 11 guns the Committee had reported that no alteration was required, but recommended that the full charge of 295lb. of cocoa powder should not be exceeded. He quite admitted that this direction that the full charge should not be exceeded might seem to express some doubt as to the gun, unless they bore in mind that in spite of this the Committee had reported that the gun should not be altered.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

  OBSERVATION. QUESTION.
  LORD ASHBOURNEremarked, that the Government had placed on the Table of the other House an interesting Return of the addresses of various Bodies in Ireland in reply to the invitation of the Prime Minister for the expression of opinion regarding the government of Ireland. He thought that it would be convenient if this Return were also circulated in their Lordships' House; and he would ask the Lord President whether he would lay it on the Table?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, that he would be perfectly willing to do so.

  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend the time for the repayment of loans granted by the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne for the Augmentation of the Maintenance of the Poor Clergy to incumbents of Benefices—Was presented by The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos; read 1a. (No. 89.)

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (SCHEME CONFIRMATION) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a scheme made by a Committee of the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to Higham Ferrers—Was presented by The Lord President; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 90.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.