said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Public Works, Whether the buildings to be erected at the back of Burlington House for the accommodation of the London University are to be in the same style of architecture as that edifice, or whether the Report be true that they are to be in the Gothic style; and, whether he will give directions for the exhibition, in the Library, of the elevation and plans of the new buildings, in order that Members may have an opportunity of inspecting them? He also wished to know whether it is true, as reported, that Mr. Pennethorne has protested against the employment of the Gothic style, and has furnished a design in harmony with the architecture of Burlington House; and, whether the noble Lord will allow that design to be exhibited with the others?

said, in reply, that the buildings to be erected would not be in the same style of architecture as Burlington House, but they would be in the style called Italian-Gothic, and he had no objection to the exhibition of the designs in the Library of the House. He believed there was no truth in the report that Mr. Pennethorne had protested against the use of the Italian-Gothic style, for he had himself presented a design in that style.

May I ask the noble Lord what he means by Italian-Gothic?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better consult the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) who sits next to him.

said, he wished to know, whether Mr. Pennethorne did not furnish an elevation in the same style as Burlington House; and whether the noble Lord would have any objection to put that plan in the Library?

said, both the alternative designs of Mr. Pennethorne could be placed in the Library.

asked, from whom this monstrous proposition emanated?

said, that Mr. Pennethorne furnished two designs, and he was not aware that either of them was objected to.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there has been any official inquiry to ascertain the expediency of extending the Factory Acts to glass manufactories; and, in case he has received any official Reports, will he lay the same upon the table of the House before the Easter recess?

said, in reply, that the hon. Member would find in the Commissioners' Report the most elaborate information in reference to the subject.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Petition (presented on the 14th of March) relative to Lancaster Borough, and to move that the petitioners be heard at the Bar of the House upon their petition, if they thought fit. Before addressing the House upon this point, he would present a petition from 1,200 householders in the borough of Lancaster, who had looked for- ward to gaining the franchise under the provisions of the Reform Bill, and who stated that as they bad been totally unconnected with what had taken place at the last election, they considered it would be an act of injustice on account of the malpractices of others to deprive them of the advantages they would otherwise have had. They prayed the House to take their case into consideration, and not to pass that portion of the Bill which included the disfranchisement of Lancaster. He had also to present petitions from two persons, electors of Lancaster, whose names had been inserted in the list of those found guilty of bribery, but who declared that they had taken no part in such bribery, and asked the House to take their cases into consideration, in order that their interests might not suffer. He bad now to bring under their consideration a petition which he presented some time ago from the mayor and corporation of Lancaster, praying to be heard by counsel at the Bar of the House against the disfranchisement of that borough as proposed by the Representation of the People Bill. After the presentation of that petition he had been intrusted with another, signed by about 500 electors of Lancaster, who were quite uncontaminated and unconnected with any of the corrupt practices at that election. The House might confidently rely upon his statement, when he said that no individual who had been either directly or indirectly found guilty of corrupt practices at the last election had been allowed to add his name to this petition. These petitioners also prayed to be heard by counsel against that part of the Reform Bill which proposed to disfranchise their borough. He was aware of the difficulties he had to contend with in introducing the question of which he had given notice. When the Reform Bill was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was impossible not to note the more than ordinarily favourable manner in which that portion of the scheme of the Government was received by both sides which involved the disfranchisement of those boroughs which had been reported as guilty of bribery. Having himself read with great pain the Reports of the Commissioners, he was not in the least surprised at these manifestations on the part of the House. It was perfectly natural and very creditable that they should have occurred; but it greatly increased his difficulty in striving to make them take a dispassionate view of the circumstances which he had to submit. It would be worse than useless for him to attempt to deny the corruption which was proved to exist in the borough of Lancaster. He should at once admit it, though he might be able to offer some extenuation on behalf of a portion of the electors. The main features of the case were very briefly told. After the last election, in consequence of a Report made to the House by the Committee appointed to try the merits of that election, a Commission was very properly sent down to make a searching inquiry into all the transactions. That Commission was composed of three gentlemen who were members of the legal profession. He might say in passing that he had nothing to say against these three gentlemen, nor had the petitioners anything to complain of with respect to their conduct during the investigation, which was conducted throughout with great ability, astuteness, fairness, and impartiality. He wished to ask, however, what object was sought to be gained in confining the constitution of that Commission to members of the legal profession? There must have been some advantage contemplated by such procedure. A glance at the Report would show what that advantage was. No doubt legal gentlemen were selected because from their experience in matters of this kind, from their manner of examining witnesses, and from their general ability in eliciting the facts of a case, they were considered to be better qualified to conduct such an inquiry than gentlemen not belonging to such a profession. That being the case, He claimed for the inhabitants of Lancaster to be allowed the same privilege in conducting the defence as had been granted to those who conducted the prosecution. The inquiry was conducted by these legal gentlemen with the intelligence and assiduity which characterized their profession. It extended over thirty-four days. 1,400 witnesses were examined, about 39,000 questions were asked, and the Report and evidence formed a book of 750 folio pages. That inquiry, however, which extended over so long a period, was from first to last conducted without any of those advantages on the part of the electors of the borough of Lancaster which were allowed to the prosecutors, and which might have enabled the defenders to have elicited facts in their own favour in cross-examination. For this reason, he contended that the petitioners should be heard by coun- sel at the Bar of the House. There was an important point which he should himself like to hear argued at the Bar of the House, more particularly as it was one not confined to elections. The whole of the evidence was obtained by means of an indemnity which was given to the people of Lancaster. In consequence of that indemnity electors came forward willingly, offered their testimony, and with one or two exceptions gave every facility for getting at the truth. He thought the question as to what that indemnity involved should be argued at the Bar of the House. Did it merely involve freedom from personal punishment, or did it also include the loss of the privilege of voting which the parties had enjoyed? Many of the electors of Lancaster believed that the indemnity covered both, and that they would neither suffer in their persons nor privileges, and many of them gave their evidence on that understanding. A Commission had lately been appointed to inquire into the operation of Trades Unions, and in order to induce witnesses to come forward, an Act was passed indemnifying every person who should come forward and give evidence. Some atrocious acts had to be inquired into by that Commission, among others one connected with the town of Sheffield, which had raised general horror throughout the country. Supposing that the House—respecting the indemnity so far as personal punishment was concerned—was yet to enact that the residents in the city of Sheffield should not in future be allowed to form or enter into such trades unions, would it not be held to be a very hard case? The House might just as well do that as follow out their proposed policy with respect to Lancaster. The cases were similar, and the question might well be argued at the Bar of the House whether the indemnity granted to Lancaster did not protect the electors from forfeiting their electoral privileges. No doubt it might be said that this was a question which it would be competent for Members representing the district to discuss. But hon. Members must labour under great difficulties in undertaking the advocacy of such a case. For himself, he must say he should hesitate to appear as an advocate under such circumstances. He had been returned for an entirely different object. He had never taken part in a case of this kind, and this was the first time he had ever been engaged in the advocacy of such a case. He wished to ask the House whether the suggestion of these parties, to be heard against the proposal to disfranchise Lancaster, was anything new? He had endeavoured to make himself master of all the precedents on this subject, and he had not found an instance in which the house had refused the prayer of the petition. There were thirteen instances to the contrary. He would refer to one or two of them. There was the case of Weymouth, in which the question was whether the voters should be disfranchised. The petition against it was referred to a Committee of the Whole house and was supported by counsel. Then there was the case of Penryn, and also of East Retford, and in both of those cases the parties were allowed to be heard at the Bar of the House. There were also the cases of Liverpool and of Sudbury. The case of East Retford was strictly analogous to Lancaster. After debate on the petition, which stated that the electors had no representative to argue their case, the question put was whether counsel should be heard at the Bar. The House resolved in the affirmative, and Mr. Denman was called in. These petitioners on the part of the borough of Lancaster had no representative, and therefore the same opportunity of being heard should be given to them. He would not trouble the House further with precedents. If hon. Gentlemen would look into the journals of the House they would find ample reasons for granting the prayer of this petition. One other point which he might mention was the fact that one of the Members which the borough of Lancaster had been deprived of by the house was a learned gentleman, a distinguished member of the legal profession, and the people of Lancaster were now deprived of his assistance in defending the Parliamentary existence of their borough. He knew there was a strong feeling in the House against Lancaster; but notwithstanding that, he would lay some facts before them to show that the borough ought not to be disfranchised. Some extenuation might be offered for what had taken place at Lancaster when he stated the amount of temptation which existed. No less than £14,000 were spent in bribery and treating amongst about 800 of the less wealthy classes of the borough at the last election. Notwithstanding so much bribery a large portion of the electors were uncontaminated, and he asked that they should not be sacrificed. He would not defend the expenditure which had taken place; but if there were an excuse for it, it would be found in the fact that the greater part of the money was spent amongst labouring men, who earned their livelihood by daily wages. It would be worth while, in considering this question, to look at the position which the borough of Lancaster would occupy in the event of the passing of the Reform Bill, and in case the clause disfranchising the borough was struck out. The present constituency of Lancaster, including those who had been placed upon the register since the election of 1865, and who were therefore untainted, and excluding those who had been declared corrupt, was 600 and odd, a constituency superior to that of seventy existing boroughs. The population was 17,500, being a larger population than that of ninety-nine boroughs, while the number of male occupiers over £6 and under £10 rating value, and above £10 gross estimated rental, was greatly in excess of that of seventy boroughs. The wealth and importance of the borough were also rapidly increasing year by year. He believed, therefore, that the question of disfranchising a large portion of the constituency who were totally uncorrupted, and he might add, from the temptation to which they had been exposed, perfectly incorruptible, was one well worthy the cautious consideration of the House. It had been his lot to become intimately acquainted with members of both parties in the borough, and from his own knowledge he could testify to the fact that a large portion of the inhabitants of Lancaster had from the beginning deprecated the malpractices which had existed in the borough. He felt, indeed, convinced that if the House should think fit not to carry out the proposed disfranchisement, so strong was the feeling on the subject on the part of those who had no share in the practices complained of, and so sincere was the repentance of many of those who had been concerned in them, that there would be no fear of their recurring at any future time. He had hesitated before bringing this Motion forward, because he had feared that it might be regarded as a desire on his part to cause interruption to the Reform Bill now before the House; but he could assure the House that his intention was far otherwise. He was as anxious as the Government or any hon. Gentleman could be to see a good Reform Bill passed, and to secure that result he had resolved to compromise many of the opinions to which he had hitherto clung. He was therefore far from wishing to offer the slightest obstruction to the Reform Bill; he only desired, if possible, to secure justice for those who, having no other representative, had intrusted their case to his charge.

said, that the question brought before the House relating to the disfranchisement of so large a borough as Lancaster was one which ought to be dealt with in a judicial, and not in a party spirit. Nobody who had read the Report of the Commissioners could doubt that there had existed a stupendous system of corruption in that borough. When he compared the number of voters with the number of voters bribed, he could not help feeling that disfranchisement was never more justifiable than it would be in this case. Out of 1,408 voters, 843 were bribed, while 89 acted as bribers, giving a total of 932. If the House dealt with Lancaster in a way other than that in which it had dealt with Sudbury and St. Albans, it would be holding out a premium to bribery and corrupt practices. The only thing that could be said was that it was a larger borough; but if that was to have any weight with the House it would be holding out a premium to bribery in large boroughs. Great Yarmouth was a larger borough than Lancaster, and the case of that borough would have to be dealt with in due time. For all boroughs, whether large or small, the same law ought in justice to be applied and administered. He certainly had entertained some doubt, and it was the only point on which he had entertained any, as to the advisability of hearing counsel at the Bar on the ground of the Members having been taken away. But that course had been adopted in only one case, that of Sudbury. There, however, the inquiry was held not by Commissioners, who, being appointed independently of party, might be regarded as judicial investigators, but by a Committee of the House—a difference which he regarded as very material. On the whole, be had arrived at the conclusion that no grounds being urged for impeaching the decision it would not be advisable to hear counsel at the Bar. He was of opinion that if any borough should be disfranchised it was that of Lancaster.

said, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that no injustice would be done by disfranchising Lancaster. But that was scarcely the question. His hon. and gallant Friend and Colleague had only asked the House to allow the petitioners, who were in the position of criminals, to be heard at the Bar against disfranchisement, The right hon. Gentleman observed that the Commissioners were a judicial tribunal, and therefore fully qualified to give an opinion on the points submitted to them. He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not deny that, nor did his hon. Friend and Colleague, but the Commissioners' duty was merely to report the facts, and it was for the House to decide what should be done upon those facts. The disfranchisement of the borough was not one of the recommendations of the Report. They did not desire that counsel should be heard for the purpose of disputing the conclusions of the Commission, but simply for the purpose of urging reasons against the course which the Government proposed to found upon these conclusions. He would not at present, if at all, enter upon a defence of the borough of Lancaster; but there were circumstances which might be brought forward in extenuation. The Report of the Commissioners was severe, though just. There were 600 voters against whom there had been no proof of corruption. He did not say that punishment might not be necessary, but it should be discriminating. He doubted whether punishment of such severity was productive of much good. The punishment of disfranchisement had been applied already. Sudbury and St. Albans had been disfranchised; but the experience of subsequent Parliaments, particularly the last, had proved that the end desired had not been secured. It was an accident that a petition had been presented against the last return for Lancaster, and it was an accident that the petition was heard. But for such accidents the corruption of the borough would never have been brought to light, the fear of disfranchisement having an obvious tendency to prevent petitions. If the House should decide on the punishment of disfranchisement after mature deliberation the case would be very different. His hon. and gallant Friend had mentioned a point which might properly be argued by counsel, and there was another which might be named—namely, that though the Commissioners, finding the previous election to have been a pure one, were precluded from formally entering into that or former elections, they nevertheless reported that corrupt practices had prevailed on previous occasions. Now it was doubtful whether the Commissioners had a right, under those circumstances, to fix such a stigma on the borough. It had not been the practice to disfranchise a borough on account of the proceedings at one election only. Sudbury and St. Albans were disfranchised not only on the ground that gross corruption had prevailed at the last election, but at many previous elections. But in the case of Lancaster the Commissioners affixed a stigma without full and formal inquiry having taken place, though this ought to be granted before the borough was disfranchised. What he asked was that a borough like Lancaster should not be condemned unheard. The course now proposed to be taken was without precedent. In former times the custom had been to bring in an Act for disfranchisement and for that only. In no previous case had the matter been disposed of in the same Parliament, or within a considerable number of years. It was true that in 1852 the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to dispose of the seats forfeited at Sudbury and St. Albans in the same Session of Parliament, but that proposal was defeated by a large majority. If hon. Members referred to the debates of the time they would see that it had been maintained by persons of great distinction on both sides of the House, that the question of the disfranchisement of a corrupt borough should be considered solely with respect to the borough. It was proposed to mix up a question so peculiarly important to the boroughs themselves in a Bill of the general importance of the Reform Bill. The course proposed would be unjust and inexpedient. The punishment proposed to be inflicted in the cases of Lancaster and Yarmouth, and other boroughs, would be very much nullified on account of its severity and injustice. It should be clearly seen by the country that Parliament acted solely from a sense of justice, and not with a view to the convenience of Government or the House of Commons, when it resolved upon so extreme a measure as disfranchisement. It should not appear to result from a desire to obtain seats to be allotted to new constituencies with as little trouble as possible. If the punishment were inflicted it should be carried out in the same manner as in former times. A Bill of disfranchisement alone ought to be brought in. It was not fair and just that the discussion of this question should be mixed up with the discussion of a Reform Bill. Parliament would, to a certain extent, expose itself to the imputation of insincerity if it assented to this proposal. What would be said if, upon the trial of a criminal, the Judge and jury proceeded to appropriate and dispose of the property of the condemned? Even though the punishment might be just, the justice of the proceeding would be very liable to observation. That was just such a course as the Government proposed. This mode of dealing would secure to them seven seats, and there was no doubt that they desired to get seats with as little trouble and alarm as possible. He asked the House to hear the electors by counsel at the Bar. He hoped the House would pause before they proceeded in the course pointed out by Government, and that they would deal with the question separately, and not as part of a Reform Bill. He asked this, not in the interest of the borough alone, but on the grounds of honour and justice.

I think it would be difficult to read a document disclosing more general corruption than the Report of the Commissioners in the case of the borough of Lancaster. That being the case, and the House being asked to inflict the highest penalty they are capable of inflicting, I ask them to be careful not to omit the smallest portion of that justice which might be claimed by the humblest criminal. Let the House hear at least what these electors have to say in their defence. I hardly ever heard of a case where the parties were not heard. You may say the parties were before the Commission; but those were the guilty parties only. The parties not mixed up with this transaction have not been heard. The Commission had simply to report whether corruption existed; and, if so, who were the guilty parties. They had not to form any opinion as to the consequences of their finding; and this proposal did not emanate from them. This is entirely a new matter. I think the House has never proceeded to punish parties without a hearing. I know nothing in which this country stands so high as in this—that every man is entitled to offer what he has to say in his defence. It cannot be presumed that we should argue the case of Lancaster on the second reading of the Bill, or on going into Committee—still less on the third reading. But if a special Bill had been brought in, these parties and their friends, if they have friends, would have had the opportunity of raising the question at every stage; whereas now it will simply arise in Committee on the question whether the word Lancaster shall be retained in the clause. Disfranchisement being intended for an example, it ought not to be inflicted in an unusual manner nor the condemned parties refused a hearing. What has been heard at one time might be repelled at another. The case looks a strong one primâ facie, but the stronger the case the greater the claim to be heard. But here it will be said that you have acted contrary to the usual custom; and it will be alleged that you have refused to hear what was to be said in defence. Having been always desirous to hear what can be said on both sides before I proceed to judge, and especially before consenting to inflict the highest penalty, I think my hon. and gallant Friend is justified in asking us to hear before we proceed to a decision.

It is not without regret that I feel compelled to take a part different to that pursued by my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington), to whose spirit and motives I desire to do full justice. But we have to discharge a duty involving a principle not connected merely with a particular place. We have to consider not only the case of Lancaster, but the cases of the three other constituencies which are to be disfranchised; and we are also about to make a precedent for future cases which may arise. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, whose statement is founded on the fallacy that there is something we are to hear and decide that has not already been heard and decided. What has been done? Cases of corruption have frequently come before the House; and Parliament enacted, by 14 & 15 Vict., that when it should have been reported by an Election Committee that extensive corruption had prevailed in any particular case there should be an inquiry by a Royal Commission, when all persons connected with the locality might be examined generally as to the proceedings at the last and previous elections. All persons concerned had notice therefore that their borough would be placed on its trial. Those who had an interest in showing that there was a large section of the community which had set its face against bribery had the opportunity of coming forward to prove it; and those interested in preserving the representation of the place had the opportunity of making out a case for that purpose. But let not the House suppose that because there are 600 electors not proved guilty of bribery that all these must be innocent persons to whom we should be doing wrong by disfranchisement. It is impossible that such gross corruption could have gone on without its being generally known. If all these electors had done their duty there might have been no necessity for the Commission. The Commission has heard the case and has reported. What, then, is the House to hear? This is not a question of private right. It is a question of public functions of which we are judges. No counsel could assist us in the duty of debate which will devolve upon us when it comes before us. We are the persons to argue this question on the ground of public right. It would be wrong to look at this as a matter of private right. When it is proved that a constituency has been guilty of gross and systematic corruption, it is for us to determine whether that constituency shall continue to return Members. That is not the duty of counsel; and if the House were to take the course proposed, it would, in fact, be calling upon counsel to participate in our debates. For this reason, I say such a course ought not to be followed. Enormous inconvenience would arise from such a precedent. If counsel were to come to your Bar, who could stop counsel? They might argue from the contents of these blue books to the very end of the Session—and they not improbably would, and bring business to a dead-lock. If it could be shown that sound principles of justice required this, then no difficulties ought to stand in the way. But no principles of justice do require it:—it is our business, when facts have been ascertained before a competent tribunal, to determine what ought to be done. My noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) gave forcible reasons why the cases of these boroughs should be dealt with singly rather than be mixed up with a Reform Bill; and it is only right to point out that the mode in which it is proposed to deal with these places is inconvenient on many accounts. Upon all former occasions of disfranchisement where there has been corruption established, the proceeding has beets by Bill for that special purpose; and it has been shown, on the face of the Act, what were the grounds of disfranchisement. When we arrive at that part of the Reform Bill which deals with these boroughs, if it is not thought right to deal with them by special Act, I hope a special preamble will be introduced stating the grounds of the disfranchisement of these particular boroughs.

said, he had understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman that in all cases where corrupt practices had prevailed extensively a Commission had been issued.

said, that such a Report must have been made as to justify the issue of a Commission. It was for the House to address Her Majesty to issue a Commission.

said, he wished to point out that last year, from the inquiry which took place, it was shown that corrupt practices had prevailed extensively at the election which took place in 1865 for the borough of Galway. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) whether it was his intention to move for a Commission to make inquiry into the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was unwilling to move for a Commission to inquire into the corrupt practices, as the Chairman of the Committee did not think fit to do so; but that if any other person moved for it he would assent to it. No Member of the Committee did move for the issuing of a Commission. He wished to know whether it was the right course that the Government of the day should allow the question whether a Commission should issue to depend upon the opinion entertained by the Chair-of the Committee or the zeal of some Member of that body? It appeared to him that it was not right to allow a matter of this kind to depend on what the Chairman or the Members of the Committee might think fit to do.

said, he would remind the House that there was another case last year besides that of Galway. He alluded to Bridgwater. He had made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the issue of a writ for that borough. But the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) supported the Motion for the writ. Probably the right hon. Baronet expected to win the seat. Both sides expected to win it. At all events, both sides of the House assented to it, and both had won it one after the other. The Ministerial side had been outbid in that borough. It was not an im- proper or extravagant assertion to say that in all probability the same means had been employed at Bridgwater as had previously been had recourse to at Yarmouth.

said, that in the case of the borough of Galway the Chairman of the Committee objected to move for a Commission because he found that Commissions were not followed by the exercise of the penal powers of the House. He (Sir George Grey) endeavoured to dissuade him from acting on that opinion, but unsuccessfully, and when the hon. Member (Mr. Yorke) applied to him he told him that it was perfectly competent for any Member of the Committee to move for a Commission, and that if that course were acted upon he had no doubt that he should be able to support the Motion made. Such a Motion, however, had never been made by the Government. It was always made by a Member of the Committee, because the Members of the Committee were familiar with the evidence. The practice had been for the Chairman of a Member of the Committee in moving for a Commission to give a short summary of the evidence, to point out the parts that bore most materially upon the question, and upon that to ask the House to issue a Commission. No Member of the Committee had taken that course. Therefore, he ventured to presume that no Member of the Committee thought that a sufficient case had been made out for the issue of a Commission; and he had not felt himself called upon to read the evidence through in order to move for a Commission. The case of Bridgwater was very different. The matter in that case was brought before the House, and one Member of the Committee after another said that though they felt there had been corruption at Bridgwater, yet they were unanimously of opinion that the evidence would not warrant the issuing of a Commission. It was in that case just as competent for the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) as for him (Sir George Grey) to move for a Commission. It was not a matter which rested with the Government.

said, that in the case of Galway the attempt to move for a Commission was not carried out because it was felt that the evidence was not sufficient.

If the House wants really to put down bribery and corruption at elections there are two things that it is necessary to insist upon. The first is that the inves- tigation of the Royal Commission shall be conclusive. The second is that the House may be induced—as I hope it will within a few days—to delegate part of their authority whenever there are these allegations of bribery and corruption to assessors, who shall proceed to investigate the matter on the spot. If the House shall adopt these two proposals and adhere to them, I do hope and believe that we shall, if not entirely terminate, at all events greatly limit bribery and corruption.

said, he thought that there was one point to which attention had not been directed, and that was, what was to become of the voters in these corrupt boroughs? Were they, when the boroughs were disfranchised, to enter into the county constituencies? If so, it would place the Members for the counties in rather an unenviable position. He would suggest to those Gentlemen who were so fond of grouping that all the corrupt boroughs should be grouped, and that they should return one Member that was, if there could be found any gentlemen bold enough to canvass them.

said, that he had seldom been more surprised than he had been by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) when he propounded the opinion that when a Commission went down to investigate the conduct of a borough it was the duty of the inhabitants to go before that Commission and to make their case clear. He (Colonel Wilson Patten) could only say that so far as the inhabitants of Lancaster were concerned they were totally ignorant of this being so. They were summoned before the Commissioners, and they went there like a flock of sheep. As to those 600 inhabitants defending themselves, or offering reasons why their borough should not be disfranchised, they were entirely ignorant that it was their duty or their privilege to do so. The hon. and learned Member warned the House against establishing a bad precedent by admitting counsel—the truth being, that he was establishing a precedent, and that former precedents were all the other way. In former times there was no exception to the rule as he (Colonel Wilson Patten) had stated it. In modern times there was only one precedent, that of St. Albans, for the course now proposed by the Government. Some of the precedents were most forcible the other way. In the case of East Retford the investigation, according to the custom of that day, took place at the Bar of the House, and the examination of witnesses was by Members of the House; therefore, there might then have been some reason for saying that they would not hear counsel. But even under those circumstances it was thought that the parties should not be condemned unheard. What was more, from some cause or other on that occasion East Retford was not disfranchised. The same course was adopted with regard to Penryn, and that place also was not disfranchised. Why, then, was Lancaster to be told that the place should be disfranchised without hearing the parties. He, however, felt that the opinion of the house was against him, and therefore he should not press his Motion; but on a future occasion he should take another opportunity to try to induce the House to review the question.

said, he rose for the purpose of asking leave to introduce a Bill for the preservation of Bunhill Fields Burial Ground as an open space, and for other purposes relating thereto. The introduction of the Bill would not be opposed on the part of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but he wished to state briefly the nature of its provisions. The Bill would leave the fee of the estate in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but the City of London had undertaken to repair the tombs and monumental memorials, and to maintain the burial-ground in proper order as a place of public resort. The Bill did not interfere with any of the matters in dispute between the Commissioners and the City of London respecting rents and other receipts. He was glad that the Bill would not be opposed at its present stage, and lie hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) would be able to inform the House that he would not oppose it on the second reading.

said, on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that there was no intention to oppose the introduction of the measure. The Commissioners never contemplated devoting the ground to any other purpose than that proposed. At present, however, he had not had an opportunity of reading the Bill, and until he had done so, of course he could not pronounce an opinion upon it. He was glad to hear that his hon. Friend proposed to reserve the questions now pending between the corporation and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with respect to certain pecuniary claims which the Commissioners thought they had upon the corporation. He wished, however, that the hon. Gentleman was in a position to state that the corporation were willing to accept the proposal which had been made to them for submitting to arbitration all the matters in dispute.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the sixth Report of the Children's Employment Commission, and to move that, in the opinion of this House, the employment of Women and Children in Agriculture should be regulated, as far as may be, by the principles of the Factory Acts. The Report contained facts of so grave a nature as to the bad results attending the indiscriminate employment of women and children that it became the duty of the House, as it had already been the duty of the Press, to take cognizance of them. In 1843 the Assistant Commissioner appointed by the Poor Law Board touched upon the system of employing women and children in gangs in the agricultural districts. In 1862–3 the medical officers connected with the Privy Council, in their Report upon infant mortality, again alluded to this system. It prevailed in Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Notts. A gangmaster contracted for the work of the farmer, and was a sort of middleman, often perfectly unfit to undertake such a charge. Under him worked the gang, which consisted of from ten or twelve to 100 women and children of both sexes. This system had been attributed to the existence of large properties and close parishes, on which the labourers were not allowed to live. But it was not entirely consequent upon this state of things, because in the isle of Axholme, where the land was owned principally by small freeholders, women and children were employed "to a greater extent, perhaps, than in any district in the county." The Commissioners estimated that 6,400 persons were employed in public gangs; but there were also private gangs, superintended by one of the farmer's own labourers. Au analysis of returns from a number of parishes showed that 1,636 children were employed under the age or thirteen, of whom 871 were males and 765 females; that of young persons between thirteen and eighteen quoted there were 386 males and 536 females; and over eighteen years there were seventy males and 388 women. Mr. White found twenty children employed under the age of seven, and they began work even as early as five or six. Boys and girls of this tender age went five or six miles to their work and the same distance back. In fact, a case was given in which two girls aged respectively eleven and thirteen years had to walk eight miles each. day to their work, so that they walked sixteen miles each day, besides working from eight in the morning to five or half past five in the afternoon. In some districts the day's work averaged eight, in others eleven hours, and in some cases these did not include the time occupied in reaching and returning from work. Children were sometimes called up at half past five in the morning, and did not return home till seven or eight o'clock at night. Their wages were in Suffolk as low as 2d. or 3d. a day; and one woman stated that—

"Frank was six years old when he went out. He got 1½d. a day the first year, and was raised 1½d. a day each year. Agnes, seven years old, got 2d."

Although the individual wages were small, the aggregate sum earned by women and children was very large. Mr. Hudson, of Castleacre, said that he paid in the year no less than from £700 to £800 to women and children alone. In one district the earnings of a family reached 37s. 6d.; in another, four or five children earned 14s. or 15s., and in others about 5s. each. As a rule, the evidence received by the Commissioners was that the children and young persons employed in agricultural operations exhibited the appearance of rude health. But this testimony must not be received without some hesitation. If they examined the Reports of the medical officer of the Privy Council, who was struck with the extraordinary death-rate of infants in these districts, they would be rather startled to find what was the result of the employment of women in public gangs in the field. The great cause assigned by the medical officer for the large infant mortality was the employment of adult women in the manner he had mentioned. In Wisbeach the death-rate of children under one year was the same as in Manchester. In Whittlesea the death-rate was 23, in Spalding 21, and almost an equal amount in Goole. Not only was the result of the system bad with regard to the children, but it produced the most horrible and frightful feelings in the women themselves. The recklessness of human life by these women was something terrible—nay, almost brutal. Young women were often seduced whilst at their employment, and after coming out of the workhouse they lost their children, and the brutality of elder mothers after losing one or two children was something shocking. It was a common remark of the neighbours, after a woman had had one or two children, for them to say amongst themselves when she had another, "Oh, that won't live long"—the prophecy being made the subject of laughter. He could not conceive a more fatal or hardening influence to come over the women of this country. The gang system was spoken of by the Royal Commission as a recent thing. It had only been in existence about twenty years, and arose mainly from the reclamation of large tracts of land from the sea, which now had become, through the ingenuity of our engineers and the energy of our farmers, from mere marsh, the most fertile part of the country. As yet the effects of the system had not been thoroughly felt by the people of this country; but they might depend upon it that if this hardening and cruel influence was allowed to continue and increase it would be hardly possible to conceive the injurious effects it must have on the whole of our future agricultural population. Other medical men, besides the medical officer of the Privy Council, had had their attention directed to the present frightful state of things. A tradesman of Chatteris, in his evidence before the Royal Commissioners, said the death-rate in that district of children under two years was very great. He attributed this to the conduct of the mothers towards their infants, and to the drugging them with opium. He added that out of seventy-two burials in the year, thirty of them were children of one year old and under. However healthy and hardy and strong these women might be, and however admirable labourers the men might make, the system, if continued, must have a considerable effect on the diminution of the population in those districts In a moral point of view, nothing could be worse than the description they found in the Report of the Royal Commission. He would not quote the evidence of the clergy, knowing the prejudice that existed against them in the minds of some persons. He believed their labours had been, and still were, most meritorious and painstaking in the agricultural districts; but he would quote some of the evidence given by the women themselves and the employers of this description of labour. The first effect of the system on the women was to produce a hard, rude, bold manner, which perfectly unfitted them for all kinds of domestic service. They found that ganging was a more free and independent life, It enabled them to stay out at night, and to spend the Sunday as they pleased, which they frequently did immorally, wildly, and recklessly. The consequence was that it unfitted them hereafter to become good mothers of families or comfortable wives. What possibly could be more uncomfortable or wretched than for a labourer to marry a woman who had never been trained to anything like domestic habits? Such a woman could never make him happy or bring up his children properly. The women themselves admitted that they did not like their daughters to work in the gangs, and that if they remained out too long they did not make good wives. One said it was not fit work for girls, and another that she would rather her girls had to go into the workhouse than join the gangs. The employers of labour themselves condemned the system for girls of tender years, and said they should be glad indeed to see women and girls excluded from the fields. He was inclined to believe that the evil did not arise from the scarcity of male labour in those districts, but rather from the cheapness of female labour. In different parts of Norfolk agricultural wages were as low as 10s. or 12s. per week, and in other districts he found that the farmers were complaining that the labourers were emigrating because wages were so low, and this lowness of wages was attributed by many persons to the competition of these gangs of women and young children of both sexes. He did not believe there were so many advantages to be gained from female and children's labour in the place of labouring men as some persons supposed. If they put a check upon it the position of the labouring man would be greatly improved without any great expense to the employers of that labour. He was happy to say it appeared from the Report that several large farmers were giving up the public gangs. They also disapproved of large numbers of children working together in private gangs. The Royal Commission had suggested the adoption of several remedies. First, they suggested that no gangmaster or middleman should be allowed to take out gangs without a licence from a magistrate. When they considered that these middle-men were many of them convicted felons and thieves and men who had committed gross and indecent assaults on members of their gangs, all must acknowlege how desirable it was that there should be a cheek, some hold upon them, that some course should be adopted to ensure as far as possible their respectability. He could not imagine there could be the slightest opposition raised to having the gang-master licensed on the recommendation of one or more of the guardians. His opinion also was that no child should be employed for hire under ten years of age, though some wished to fix it at eight. Some decided restrictions also should be adopted to prevent the sexes from working together, for he left it to hon. Gentlemen who knew the Fen districts which were without hedges or places of shelter, to say, if they mixed the sexes in gangs, what decency or morality they could expect to prevail? He doubted if they could restrict women from working in the fields, but he should like to see young females under seventeen years of age re- stricted from being employed in public gangs. He should rejoice could all women be prevented from doing so. He thought that eight hours a day, including the time occupied in going to and from work, sufficient for children of from eight to ten years of age. From ten to thirteen he thought ten hours would not be too much. At the age of twelve, from the work being scattered over large districts, the principle of the Factory Act, with regard to the attendance at school, must be left in a measure to the discretion of magistrates. In some places the half-day system, in others alternate days or weeks, might be devoted to labour and education. In others it would be impossible to do this. They might then have to require three or six months' continuous attendance at the school at one time of the year to make up for the continuous labour required of these children at another period of the year—such, for instance, as at harvest time, hop-picking, &c., which were special times, that could not be interfered with or interrupted. Much might be done towards checking the employment of women or children in gangs by improving the dwellings of the labouring classes, and by their being located near the farms on which labourers were required, instead of their having to reside a distance off. The blame in that respect did not wholly lie with the landlords. In some districts, such as the Fen district, where the land had been but recently reclaimed, there had been no opportunity of building the cottages required—a great portion of it not being fitted until lately for the habitation of man. In other districts the farmers were to be blamed as much as the landlords for not having cottages erected on their farms for the labourers, having been anxious to drive them away to save the poor rates; but he believed they were now beginning to appreciate the fact that a labourer who had to walk four or five miles daily to his labour had so much good work taken out of him. Another thing that would in a great measure tend towards removing the evil complained of was better schools and more attention paid to education. Mr. Long, the Assistant Commissioner, stated, in his Report, that children were less worked where there were good schools, and he had found that in almost every instance where there were no day schools these agricultural gangs existed. In the diocese of Norwich there were at the present time no less than 120 parishes in which no day schools existed. With regard to the attendance of children at day schools a portion of their wages might be set aside for their education, when they began to earn wages for themselves, and he suggested that the guardians of the poor should be empowered to pay the whole or a portion of the school fees of the children of an earlier age who attended where they thought it right to do so. That was allowed to be done at present by Mr. Denison's Act as relief to the parents; but as there were many who did not like the idea of receiving relief, even for the education of their children, he should like it to be put on a different footing, and not as relief. He regretted that many hon. Members who resided in the Fen districts and other places where these gangs were employed were not present to give them their opinions and their experience, because he had been told by some persons that they could scarcely believe the evil existed to the extent which had been stated. All he could say was, that the evidence, which had been carefully and fully taken by the Royal Commission, and detailed in the blue book, justified immediate legislation with reference to the public gangs; but whether they should go further as to the employment of children generally in agriculture was not for him to say. With regard to public gangs, there was sufficient evidence upon which to legislate about them and put them under proper and strict regulations. The horrors disclosed in the Report were greater than anything he could possibly have conceived, and worse than anything that had been brought before the notice of the House, He was not disposed to condemn the gang system altogether. There could be no doubt that boys could be worked in the fields with advantage to the employer and the employed; but they must take care that they were not treated as slaves, so as to enable the gang master to make the whole of his income out of the hard work of the boys. They must take care that he was a respectable man, over whom they could have some control. He hoped the House would see it was right and proper that this kind of labour should be confined to males. But if females must go out into the fields to work, they should go out with their fathers and mothers and sisters, and not indiscriminately with both sexes. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State (Mr. Walpole) must have had his attention called to this subject before, and he should be glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to legislate upon it this Session. If not, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the House that he or his successor would be able to do so next Session.

said, he was glad that this subject had been so ably brought before the House by an hon. Gentleman having such a thoroughly practical knowledge of agriculture. Any one who bad read the Report which that Gentleman had referred to must have become convinced of the fact that a more pressing case for immediate legislation was never disclosed to that House. The most melancholy and startling facts had been disclosed; they must feel humbled until something was done. When they passed through the counties of Lincoln, Norfolk, Huntingdon, and Cambridge, and saw the beautiful fields of corn, they must remember that that admirable thing had been produced by sacrificing the minds and bodies of hundreds of children and bringing immense numbers of women to a state of perfect degradation. Were not those counties represented in that House? and how was it they had heard nothing of that before? The hon. Member for Lincolnshire came down to that House and made piteous appeals to the Government to save the country from the murrain which was raging amongst cattle. Why did he not tell them of that which was far more frightful—the sacrificing of the minds and energies of a large class of the people in the country? Could anything bring out more strongly the fact that the interests of those who were not directly represented were too often little regarded? How came it that the Church had told them nothing of that frightful calamity? The cathedral at Peterborough was in the centre of those districts. Often and often from the pulpit of that cathedral had appeals been made for funds to reclaim the heathen in foreign parts, and how did it come that under the very shadow of that beautiful cathedral there existed a degree of ignorance, of immorality, of depravity, which if they found in any foreign country would at once confirm them in saying, "this is indeed a country devoid of the blessings of civilization?" He had had many letters on the subject. One clergyman told him that as the archdeacon of the diocese and himself were riding along one day they saw several gangs of men, women, and children working together, and the women as these gentlemen were passing committed a gross act of immorality, which he could not mention in that House. How was it that they never heard of such a state of things before? What he wished to point out to the House, as showing the necessity for prompt legislation, was the primary cause of the evil—namely, the utter want of cottages in those districts. If they wanted to remedy the evil they must interpose every obstacle in the way of the gang system. The building of cottages would take some time, which was in itself an argument for immediate legislation, and there was another argument on which he would appeal to their generosity. The gang system was the natural but unfortunate offspring of unjust legislation in past years. The future historian of this country would have to write a melancholy page when it became his duty to describe the evils which had resulted from the Law of Settlement, which was one of the most obnoxious laws that had ever disgraced the statute book. The first effect of that law had been to throw the burden of supporting the poor upon the parishes in which they were born, and many landlords thought that if they built no cottages on their estates, but imported labourers from other parishes, they would escape their due and just share in supporting the poor. In the counties to which he had referred large tracts of land were reclaimed fifty or sixty years ago. There were of course no cottages on such estates when enclosed, and in order to escape the poor rates those who reclaimed and enclosed the land seemed to have agreed among themselves not to build cottages at all, which was really the cause of the gang system. There were in the district of the Deeping Fen farms of 300 acres and upwards on which there was not a single cottage to be found. He only wished that the names of the landowners of such farms had been published by the Commissioners, so that they might be held up to the scorn and contempt of the world. It might be said that if they placed any impediments upon this gang system they would destroy it altogether. That was exactly what he should like to see done—and by destroying it and building cottages it was his opinion that they would ultimately confer great advantages upon the landowners themselves. He agreed in many of the proposals which had been made to remedy the evil by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent); but he would go further than that hon. Member, and urge that no child under thirteen years of age should be employed in such gangs. As for the gang master, he should be compelled to take out a license, and one condition should be that no children or young persons should be employed, which would go far to put an end to the system, for a careful scrutiny of the Commissioners' Report would show that it was by exhausting the strength of the poor helpless children, who could not defend themselves, that the gang master made his profit. Who could say that by the abolition of such a dreadful system altogether they would not confer a benefit upon the landowner? Was he benefited by it? Suppose a farmer were forbidden the use of stables upon his farm, and his horses had to travel five or six miles before they reached the fields in which they were to work, would not the farmer complain that their strength was to some degree exhausted, and would it not form a great grievance as against the landlords? Yet these poor workers often had to walk six or seven miles to their labour, and was it not of greater importance that the strength of the labourers should be unexhausted than that of his cattle? What strength could these poor children have left to work after such a walk? There was every reason indeed to believe that the building of suitable cottages for farm labourers, so far from being a burden, would prove remunerative. Lord Leicester, in a remarkable speech, had detailed his experience of the result of building cottages. He told the tenant farmers that if they wished to farm with success they must have good cottages, and he expressed his belief that if the experiment were tried, farmers within ten years would care more about having good cottages on their farms than they would about good stables or a reduction of rent. The Legislature, therefore, in abolishing this system, and compelling the landowners to build cottages, would in effect confer an equal benefit upon landlords and tenant farmers. But this gang system was after all only a branch of a much wider question, that of the education of the agricultural labourers. The Commissioners had incidentally remarked that the ignorance manifested by those employed in gangs too often represented the general ignorance of the agricultural labourer, and that was true, because no skilled artizan or well-instructed labourer would allow his children to join such gangs, and they were made up of the sweeping and refuse of large towns and the rural districts. Since he first brought the subject before the House he had received communications from all parts of the country, which fully convinced him that the only way to remedy the evil was to endeavour as much as possible to dispel the ignorance which reigned among agricultural labourers, in consequence of which he had endeavoured to incorporate the educational clause of the Factory Act with the Bill so far as it could be made to apply. He did not think the difficulty of dealing with the question was so great as was anticipated, because they would have the sympathy of all the clergy and lauded gentry enlisted in their favour. It might be said that if they employed children under thirteen years of age only on alternate days or weeks, they would have to employ adults. Making due allowance for that, he did not believe, from the calculations made, that on a farm of 1,000 acres the increased cost would be more than £20 per annum, which was a very trifling sum to be put in the balance compared with the benefits to be derived from the improved education of such children. That £20 would not be money lost, or unprofitably spent, but would rather be of the character of an investment of capital, the profit of which could not be over-estimated. He could hardly venture to predict the extent to which the wealth of the country would be increased, its prosperity augmented, or the greatness of the nation stimulated by the formation of an educated and skilled class of agricultural labourers. The other day the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) pointed with solemn warning to the Treasury Bench, and asked whether the Government were going to enfranchise the agricultural labourer. He did not share the right hon. Gentleman's alarm, but what a sarcasm was that upon past legislation. What a stimulus to future effort when such words could be addressed to the House with reference to a class spread over the length and breadth of the land, whose labour was the prime source of all its wealth, but who stood so low in the social scale, in consequence of their poverty and ignorance, that the right hon. Gentleman should express astonishment and dread at a proposal to enfranchise them, and give to a few thousands a direct voice in that Legislature by the action of which alone they could hope to improve their condition.

said, that all who were interested in the condition of the labourer must feel grateful to the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent) for the manner in which he had brought this subject before the House on that occasion. In considering this question it must not be forgotten that the provisions for education in towns were more numerous than in the country where there was a sparse and scanty population of agricultural labourers spread over a large district. Therefore, it would be impossible to apply the provisions of the Factory Acts to the children of agricultural labourers unless they were considerably modified. Agricultural employment was of a very peremptory and yet of a very desultory character. It had, therefore, been suggested that the children should work during one half and be taught during the other half of the year. But if such a system were to be adopted, it would be found that the children would forget in one six months all that they had been taught during the previous six months, and therefore, in his opinion, the alternate-day or half-day system was the best compromise that could be come to. One touching argument that had been used on behalf of the agricultural children was that, whereas the adult labourer saved and economised his strength, and took care not to overwork himself, the child, in its innocence and unselfishness, tasked its feeble strength to the utmost. The House was therefore called upon to protect the child from the consequences of its own unselfishness. He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) to a particular kind of labour, something akin to the agricultural gang system that had come under his especial observation—namely, what was called the coprolite gathering and manufacture, in which a large number of women and children were employed, in the counties of Bedford and Cambridge. He had made some notes of the state of things in two of those coprolite mills. In the first, which was a small mill, thirty-five men, women, and children were employed, among whom were three female children from five to seven, and three from eight to ten years of age. The education of all these labourers was on the whole fair. The second case was of a very different nature. In that mill, which was a large one, 196 men, women, and children were employed, of whom twenty were women, twenty-six were children of from five to seven, and twenty-three from eight to ten years of age. Of the 196 individuals ninety-one could read, but only forty-eight could read and write, and their education was of the very lowest and most imperfect character. The coprolites were first dug out of the earth by means of a pick, and then were gathered up and taken to the mill, where the women and children were employed in selecting the true from the false coprolites, in doing which it was necessary to use water. The coprolites when chymically treated, washed, and ground, furnished the best superphosphate of lime, was exported to Germany and used by our own agriculturists. To revert to the gang system. He had seen instances of tyranny on the part of the gang masters towards those under them which would make one's blood run cold. It was imperatively necessary that the gang masters should be required to have a certificate, and there should also be a proviso that they should not be publicans or innkeepers, otherwise all the evils of the truck system would be revived. He had seen men at the end of the week going for their wages, and instead of receiving money for their labour they were obliged to truck or barter, mostly for drink sold at a price fixed at the discretion of the gang master. He therefore hoped that that fact would be kept in view in any legislation which might take place on that question. The subject of education was intimately connected with that of the employment of women and children in agricultural gangs; but there was one kind of mis-named education by which the House ought not to suffer itself to be misled. At the town of Luton, in Bedfordshire, the great head-quarters of the straw-platting trade, there were so-called platting-schools, in which the worst tyranny was practised in regard to the exaction of youthful labour for the sake of trade, with the least possible reference to any educational training whatever. The inspector of that district mentioned thirty-three of these schools in which straw platting and reading were supposed to be combined. Of the 1,015 children attending those thirty-three schools he classed the whole of them in the category of children who were deprived of the benefits of education owing to the demands of labour. Those "schools" were nothing less than low, hideous, damp, and fetid factories; and it was to be hoped they would be brought within the scope of the proposed beneficent legislation. He trusted the House would endeavour to protect those who could not protect themselves from the double danger to which they were exposed—first, from the danger of missing all, or nearly all, the advantages of education; and secondly, from the tyrannical exaction of what little residue of health and strength they possessed.

said, he much regretted that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) should have taken advantage of that occasion in order to make remarks hostile to a large class of English society—namely, the clergy and the owners of land. The hon. Gentleman had also thought fit to re-open the question of the cattle plague, which certainly had no relation to the present discussion, and the introduction of which could not possibly facilitate legislation in reference to organized gangs. All who had read the Report of the Commissioners must have observed the extreme anxiety evinced by the clergy to put an end at once to every evil connected with the gang system. The hon. Member also must have been unhappy in his acquaintance if he had not found that there now existed a widespread desire among the country gentlemen to ameliorate the condition of those who lived on their estates, and to provide better dwellings for the families of labouring men, who were unfortunately too often ill-housed. Very few were aware of what was recorded in the ghastly pages of the Report referred to. It was only by exacting severe labour from children that a profit about equal to that of ordinary day labour could be made by those who led these gangs. Human nature being what it was, great cruelty and hardship would frequently be inflicted by these men upon those under them. The Rev. Henry M'Kenzie, rector of Tydd St. Mary, in his evidence, described the evil effects of the employment of women in field work, enumerating among them—

"The loss of self-respect, dirty and degraded habits, slovenly and slatternly households, the alienation of husbands by the discomfort of their homes, the great neglect of the education of children, drunkenness among the men, and the consumption of opium among the women. The evil effects of employing girls in that manner comprised first, boldness, next ignorance, then unchastity, want of cleanliness, incompetency in sewing, mending, cooking, and other household work, indifference to parental control, and unwillingness to apply themselves to any regular employment to gain a livelihood."

What were the causes? The state of the law previous to the passing of the Union Chargeability Act had a great deal to do with the matter; and all who had aided in carrying that measure must be delighted to find that it was already helping forward the improvement of the condition of the people. Another cause was that in textile manufactures the material being once procured, operations could be carried on at any time. But agriculture was dependent on the weather and the seasons of the year. Periodically, therefore, there was a great demand for labour all over the country, and at other times scarcely any such demand. Migratory labour was, consequently, necessary for agricultural operations. It was well known that bands of humble Irishmen came from their own country to gather in the harvests of our Northern counties. Still, though migratory labour could not be entirely done away with, attention ought to be directed to the best means of regulating it and preventing the mischiefs arising from it. Another cause of the evils which had been referred to was the low moral tone which undoubtedly existed in some parts of the country. The evidence contained in the sixth Report of the Children's Employment Commission disclosed that lowness of wages was not the cause, for that parents in the receipt of £4 per week sent their children to labour in these gangs. It was not therefore so much a question of necessity as of will and inclination. The remedy for these evils might be divided into two classes—the one self-acting, and the other dependent upon legislation. In the first class might be included the multiplication of houses, which would bring the children nearer to their work. Next, an improved cultivation of the land, whereby it would become better cleaned. One witness said that the quantity of weeds growing upon the Fen land was becoming less every year. Another remedy in this class was the introduction of machines to do the work now performed by children. Parliament must legislate on this subject, but should proceed with caution. It was stated in the Report that, in many districts, the condition of the labouring class was so good, that they declined to employ their children in the gangs. If Parliament were too severe in its legislation, and attempted wholly to suppress the system, he feared that it would re-appear in some shape which would evade legislation, and which it would be difficult to bring into order. The hours of labour must be restricted, and if so, it would be necessary in the same Act of Parliament to impose some educational provision for the hours gained from labour, or the young people would be exposed to dangers from which they were now exempt. He doubted the possibility of adopting the half-time system, or even the alternate day or week system, owing to the urgency arising from our fluctuating climate. Still, he thought it would not be very difficult to devise a scheme which would secure some education to the children. Legislation must be uniform; he did not think it could be left to the option of the different localities. If a licence were to be given to the masters of gangs, it must be given under stringent conditions, after due investigation into the character of the applicant, and taken away promptly in cases of misconduct. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would remember that the whole question of agricultural labour should be gone into.

said, that all must acknowledge the moderation and fairness with which the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent) had introduced this subject. He went a long way with the hon. Member in condemning the evils of the gang system, and in many of the remedies he proposed. He did not, however, believe that public gangs were so numerous as they used to be, and bad as they were at the present time, they were much worse a few years since. He could endorse the truth of the statement made by the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel) that it was customary a few years ago for the head of the gang to keep a public-house or general shop, and to pay the wages in drink, &c. He agreed that mixed public gangs were an unmixed public evil. By all means let them license the master, separate the sexes, and limit the distance of walking to the place of work, but let the House be reasonable and moderate. Let them keep out boys under nine from the gangs, and girls under thirteen, but not go the length of some of the recommendations contained in the Report, one of which was that all the females under eighteen should be excluded, and another that no women should be allowed to work in these gangs. In this free country it would not be well to put this fetter upon free labour. There was a difficulty in providing employment for females of all classes, and there was a growing superabundance of women in agricultural districts, owing to the migration of the men into towns, and the numbers of those who left this country for foreign shores. Many young women, if not employed in this way, would grow up in idle- ness. It was all very well to say that they ought to be employed as domestic servants; but if they did not wish to be so employed, Parliament would not be justified in depriving them of one description of labour in order to force upon them another. Then it was said that field work was detrimental to the refinement and delicacy of women. It did not, however, follow that because they were coarse and rough that they were also immodest and immoral. He believed that female immorality was not unknown either in manufacturing towns, in farm kitchens, or the servants' halls of the "upper ten thousand." The mixture of boys and girls in field labour was not an evil so great as the crowded state of the cottages, for when young persons of both sexes herded together in the same bed-room, they grew up with no sense of decency or delicacy. It was singular that the arguments stated to be used by the mothers against allowing their daughters to work in the gangs were the same which were used to himself when he asked the reason why they did not send their children to school. A woman told him one of her daughters caught a fever at school and died, and on no account would she send another. A second said her daughter caught rheumatism from the cold and wet of the journey. A third said her girl got into bad company, which did her more harm than the school did her good. With regard to the causes of the ganging system, sixty years ago the land which in Norfolk was tenanted only by rabbits and bustards, and which in Lincolnshire produced only the wild duck, the bittern, and the snipe, was now covered with fleecy flocks and waving corn. There were neat farm buildings and good roads, but not many cottages. The question in those days was not how to get labour, but how to employ it, and he must bear his testimony to the way in which the landowners were building cottages. Every farmer would gladly pay 5 per cent for a judicious outlay of this kind. The employer of agricultural labour was treated, as a rule, in a very different manner from that in which the employer of manufacturing labour was treated. The manufacturer might shut up his mill or work half time without his conduct exposing him to remark; but a farmer could not cease growing corn, or be stingy about the employment of labour without being reproached with not being a good citizen. The farmer, indeed, was driven to the employment of these gangs, and did not employ them as a matter of choice. No labour, in his opinion, was so bad or so costly as this kind of labour, and he assured the hon. Member for Scarborough that the gang system did not supplant good manual labour, and that it in fact only existed where that real and good labour could not be obtained. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had suggested that improved machinery might supersede the necessity of employing these women and children. But there were some things that machinery could not do and never would be able to do which manual labour alone could perform, and this was especially the case in some departments of agriculture. In manufacture machinery was employed for working on material in a uniformly good and excellent condition; but in agriculture it was very different, and the farmer had to contend against different descriptions of land and weather as well as different descriptions of crops. He did not, however, believe that if properly managed, these gangs were altogether bad. It would too, he thought, be a mistake to keep the agricultural labourer too long at school. Boys kept at school until they were thirteen or fourteen years of age might make very good indoor servants, but they required the hardy training which could only be gained from an outdoor employment while young, to qualify them for the work of agricultural labourers. Strong muscles and sturdy health were necessary, and the rural clergy whose opinions were entitled to every respect, were of this opinion. The intermittent system of education might be very easy in the case of farmers living near the manufacturing towns, where relays of boys could easily be obtained, but in the purely rural parishes it would be found more difficult to adopt such a system. Inspection was indispensable in the case of gangs or any description of field work where boys were employed. They had a saying in Norfolk to the effect that one boy was equal to half a man, two boys to half a boy, and three boys to no boy at all.

said, he thought the debate of that evening must convince the House of the progress that had of late years taken place in the minds of the public on this question. The exceedingly moderate and excellent tone of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who, as they all knew, sat in that House as the representative of the farmers, was in itself a proof of that fact, for in all attempts to improve the con- dition of the juvenile or female labour, the opposition to the improvement had invariably come from the employers of that labour. The hon. Member, however, evidently felt that the case presented to the House was so strong that he did not pretend to oppose legislation on the subject, but simply to direct the manner in which that legislation should be applied. He rose—without any practical knowledge on the subject, and judging merely from the Report—to suggest that the matter should not be legislated upon without further information. The Report of the Commissioners proved that no sufficient reasons had been advanced for allowing bodies of girls to work in public gangs; but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that premature legislation ought not to take place. The House ought to have some information with reference to private as well as to public gangs, otherwise the effect might be simply to lessen one evil by promoting another. In any case it would not, he believed, be possible, or, at all events, advisable, in respect to education, to apply the provisions of the Factory Acts to this kind of labour. Still, the public would not much longer remain quiet while the children of the agricultural labourers of this country were allowed to grow up untaught or certainly less educated than children engaged in other employments. Speaking from his experience of factory legislation, he trusted his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) would not legislate on this subject without providing for ample inspection, without which all enactments would be useless. Even delay was preferable to more speedy legislation if that delay resulted in a more complete and useful measure.

said, he tendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Scarborough for having introduced this question. As the farmer of a large estate, and one practically interested in agriculture, he could indorse much that had been said as to the state of the agricultural population; but he must remind the House that the question had its bright as well as its dark side. He could not subscribe to all that had been said that evening as to the condition of agricultural labourers. He believed that their progress, both morally and physically, would compare with that of those of many of the manufacturing districts. He cordially assented to the proposal that women should not be employed in the fields until they were at least seventeen years of age, because then he believed they would never be employed at all. Field labour unfitted girls for domestic service, and induced immorality, and on these accounts the question peremptorily demanded attention. The employment of boys also required regulating. There was no intermission of the labour of boys, so numerous were the jobs to which they were put. Although Englishmen were averse to compulsory measures, he thought it would be well to forbid the employment of a boy who could not read or write; indeed, without such a regulation be thought it would be impossible to get the poor properly educated. On making inquiry he found that scarcely any of the boys on his farm could read or write. He sent them to an evening school; but that had remedied the evil as far as his farm only was concerned. He thought it a mistake to suppose that field labour hurt young people physically. The evil was a moral one; and in gangs, of which he knew little, he presumed it was to be found in the indiscriminate mixture of boys and girls. He had found that female labourers might be dispensed with. With regard to cottages, it was clearly the interest of the landowner to build them. He always provided not less than three rooms where there were both sexes in a family. He thought the condition of the rural districts was not quite so black as it had been painted. As an instance he might mention that in his own neighbourhood a tenant farmer had presented a reading room, for the use of the labourers of the parish. He objected to agricultural employments being tacked on to the Factory Acts; but be believed a separate measure might be framed which, while no hardship to the farmers, would be of great advantage to the labourers.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member, that they could not deal with field labour in the same way as with labour in factories. The Report which had been referred to related only to public or to organized gangs of labour. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent), who had brought the subject so ably and clearly before them, desired legislation for women and children employed in agriculture as if they were employed in factories. His opinion was that if they attempted to legislate in that manner they would not be able to follow it out. He cordially assented to the Resolution which the hon. Gentleman had moved, on the understanding that it did not imply that the employment of women and children should be placed under the same regulations as factories, but that the principles of the Factory Acts should be applied to it as far as practicable. Whether immediate legislation could be founded upon the Resolution was open to doubt, for only public or organized gangs had yet been reported on, although the evils attending private gangs were equally great. He had considered the subject a good deal since reading the sixth Report of the Royal Commissioners. The number of women and children employed in public gangs was much less than the number employed in private gangs. There were about 6,400 employed in public gangs, and—according to the best information he had—nearly 20,000 in private gangs. He wished to impress on the House and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if they attempted to legislate for public gangs before they had information as to private gangs they would find themselves in a great difficulty; for if they legislated for the one and not the other, the gangs being frequently in close proximity, they would drive the women and children from the one to the other. The time, therefore, had hardly arrived for legislating on the subject. He had ascertained that Mr. Tremenheere was of opinion that the inquiry ought to be extended to private gangs. He thought, therefore, the best plan would be to re-appoint the Commission for that purpose. The inquiry could probably be completed by the end of the autumn or beginning of the winter, and the House would then be in a position to legislate with regard to the employment of women and children in gangs of any kind. Whether the employment of women and children in agriculture generally could be regulated was a larger and more difficult question, which must, be thought, be postponed to a later period. In the meantime, he heartily supported the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Scarborough.

said, he regretted that immediate legislation was not instituted, since he thought the Commissioners had already reported on private gangs, and on the general employment of women and children in agriculture, and that their Report presented ample materials for Parliamentary action. Some of the evidence which had been taken was in favour of compulsory education, and there might be some stipulation with respect to the age and acquirements of children allowed to labour. Parliament certainly ought not to permit another year to pass without ameliorating the disgraceful and indecent state of things which existed in some parts of the country.

said, lie must remind the House, as to building cottages in the fens of Lincolnshire, that it was only in recent years that the fens had been rendered habitable. Formerly the miasma was so bad that farmers who resided in the districts died of ague. Recently drainage had been carried out to a great extent, and the water during the hot weather was forced up the drains, and in that way the miasma was dissipated, or sufficiently so to render the district habitable. The remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) upon the landowners for not building houses were totally misapplied. At the same time, he was far from saying that some restraint should not be placed on the gang system. If it were to be allowed to prevail it would have to be regulated in the same way as labour was in mines and potteries. The evils were the result of the new system of farming. Under the old system of agriculture the farmer was identified with his labourers by ties of neighbourhood and of instruction in farming, but the modern system was based upon economical principles and looked chiefly, if not only, to profits. The gang system, therefore, was of recent growth, and though it might have advantages, it had many evils. He was glad that the question had been brought under discussion, and hoped some good would be the result.

said, he had felt much gratification at the recognition of the evil by practical agriculturalists on both sides of the House. He left it to the Government to determine whether or not they had sufficient information to justify legislation, only trusting that whenever a measure was introduced it would deal with the whole question of the employment of women and children in agriculture.

Sir, I rise to move the following Resolution:—

"That it is expedient in the interests of the public, that in cases where adequate security can be given, the State should assume the responsibility of the Debenture Debt of Railway Companies unable to meet their engagements, upon conditions providing for the eventual acquisition of such Railways by the State, upon terms of mutual advantage to the State and to the Railway Companies."

I am about to bring under the consideration of the House this evening one of the most important subjects that can engage its attention at the present time; and, in order to do so in a concise form, I have placed on the paper a notice, which I think raises the question, clearly and distinctly, as to the course which legislation should take, with reference to the general subject of railways under present circumstances. The magnitude of the question, and the multiplicity of the several interests involved, will be at once my plea and justification for seeking to engage the attention of the House on this occasion. I have myself no interest whatever in the question; for largely though I have been engaged for many years past in the prosecution of railway enterprize in other parts of the world, I do not happen at any time to have been concerned in the management of any railway lines in the United Kingdom; and further, I have no personal interest in any such railway company. I hold neither share nor debenture bond in any; in short, I have no interest of a personal character, immediate or remote, direct or indirect, in the question. But I have been led to investigate and consider the subject carefully, by the fact that I live, and move, and have my being, amongst a great community, whose political confidence I possess, and who, perhaps, beyond any other community in this country, has the deepest interest in our railway system. I wish, therefore, clearly to state beforehand, that the consideration which governs me in this matter is the public interest, and that alone. However much companies may have suffered, however much the individuals composing those companies may have suffered, however much the holders of debenture bonds or other railway securities generally may have suffered, I am not here to advocate their private interests. I wish to regard the question solely from a public point of view, in reference to the fact, that railways were constructed under the authority of the State for the service of the public, and therefore that it behoves Parliament to see that the advantages which railways were intended to confer on the community are not frittered away by mismanagement. Every other consideration should, in my humble opinion, be subordinate to that. Salus populi suprema lex. Now, Sir, the proposition which I have to submit to the House involves two suggestions. The one is, that the State shall, under certain circumstances, assume the responsibility of the debenture debt of railway companies; the other is, that it shall do so upon conditions which provide for the eventual acquisition of such railways by the State; and to both of these propositions a subordinate condition is annexed; first, that in every case where assistance is given by the State, the company assisted shall furnish adequate security; and secondly, that the terms, under which the State may acquire in the course of years the ownership of the railway, shall be terms of mutual advantage to the public and to the railway companies. Both of these propositions I am prepared to maintain, and my object now will be to explain the manner in which I think Parliament may—not perhaps immediately, but at some future time—make arrangements for carrying them into effect. It may be asked why I have chosen to take the course of proceeding by way of Resolution, when it might be more convenient if I were to ask the House to give me leave to lay a Bill upon the table. But it is no easy matter to draw a Bill, even with a single clause in it, so as to meet the general concurrence of the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Leeman) no doubt has experienced. My Bill, if I were to produce one, must be a Bill of prodigious magnitude, and must have been drawn up with a thorough knowledge of the relations which exist between the different Departments of the Government and the subject of the proposed Bill. And even if I had possessed the requisite knowledge, I could hardly have gone to the expense of preparing such a Bill, for hon. Gentlemen know well that a Bill of this character is not to be drawn without a large number of Bills of another kind coming on the back of it. Then it may be asked why I have not waited for the Report of the Royal Commission on the subject of railways generally. My answer is that I do not know when that Report is likely to be presented, nor what its terms will be when presented; it would be deferring the subject to an unknown period if I were to wait until the Report of that Commission has been placed upon the table. I think it better, therefore, to submit at once to the House, clearly and distinctly, the proposal which I wish to bring under its notice. But perhaps it may be convenient first to inquire for a moment or two into the meaning of the term "railway system." What does our railway system imply; what does it signify? What is this immense machine by means of which the whole intercourse of the country is carried on? Sir, I hold in my hand the last Annual Report from the Board of Trade on the subject of railways. It is for the year 1865. I have carefully examined that Report, not with a view to the present Motion only, but with reference to the general question and the public interest it involves; and perhaps the House may derive instructive information from some of the figures contained in it. I will read those figures to show the extent to which our national interests are at present bound up with our railway system. On the 31st December, 1865, the whole capital embarked in railway undertakings in the United Kingdom amounted to £455,478,143. Of that sum £357,657,046 was composed of share capital, and £97,821,097 of debenture and other loans. In England and Wales the share and stock capital amounted to £299,184,751, and the debenture loans to £80,420,076. In Scotland the share capital amounted to £38,569,767, the debenture loans to £11,636,265; and in Ireland there were £19,902,528 of share and stock capital, and £5,764,756 of debenture loans. The number of miles over which railway lines extended was 13,289. We now come to a fact which will perhaps astonish hon. Members. It is the extent to which railway locomotion is made use of by the people of these islands. In the year 1865 there were carried upon these lines no less than 252,000,000 of people—that is to say, about 700,000 persons were carried every day over some one or other of these lines—a circumstance which amounts to this, that every man, woman, and child in the country made on an average eight journeys of more or less extent by railway in the year 1865. From that we may derive some idea of the enormous extent to which railway communication has become a matter of daily necessity amongst us. I might also give the House figures as to the quantity of live stock, minerals, and general merchandize carried by railways, but hon. Members will be able to ascertain these things for themselves. I will merely state that 78,000,000 tons of minerals are annually carried by railways—a fact indicating the enormous extent to which the manufacturing interest and the consumers of coal for domestic purposes are dependent upon railways. The whole sum received for passengers and goods during the year 1865 was £35,890,113. With that information before the House it will be readily conceived what a vast effect upon the national interests would be produced by the cessation of working or stoppage of any one of the principal lines of the system. This may be a tempting opportunity for entering into a review of our railway legislation from the earliest period; but I will not take up the time of the House by doing so. It will be sufficient for my purpose to say that, in the opinion of many persons competent to judge, Parliament has legislated upon no fixed principles. There has been a sort of fortuitous legislation dependent on the composition of Committees, the intelligence of counsel, the activity of agents, and a variety of other circumstances, all of which, if we could have seen our way at an earlier period, ought to have been made subordinate to the carrying out of a general scheme upon principles applicable to the whole country. A system of that kind we have never yet arrived at; but, although we have not done so, I do believe that the time is coming when we may, to a certain extent, be able to take those steps in that direction which ought to have been taken at an earlier period. Dealing with legislation in an experimental form, we have benefited foreign nations and other people to a much greater extent than ourselves. We have been the pioneers of railway enterprize; other nations have seen our mistakes and adopted wiser courses. There is one point which I apprehend must be admitted on all hands. On the inception of railway legislation, five-and-thirty years ago, it was not a wise proceeding for Parliament to authorize a number of private persons, forming a company, to take the lands of A and B, and hold them in their possession to all eternity. The wiser course would have been to have allowed these persons to acquire a sort of Parliamentary lease for a long term of years. In point of fact, we ought to have adopted the system which our experience has suggested to the French and other nations of granting long but still limited leases to railway companies of the lands taken under compulsory powers from individuals for the construction of these public works. Another great error into which we fell in the course of our legislation was to leave so large an amount of capital, about to be sunk in a fixed undertaking, to be raised in the form of short debentures. What could be more unwise, or more unsafe as is now found by practical experience, than to permit about £100,000,000 to be invested in railway works, in a form which renders it necessary for those who borrow the money in that shape to be constantly, I may say almost hourly, coming before the public for a renewal of their loans? This was all very well when the horizon was clear, when there was an abundance of money in the market, and, above all, when confidence was undisturbed and people wished for such securities. But times would come—and we are now, I believe, in one of those times—when the same facilities for obtaining money do not exist, and when difficulties take their place, with which it is almost impossible to cope. There were some reasons, no doubt, why such a large amount of capital was allowed to be raised in so exceptional a form. One reason was that a debenture was a form of investment which trustees and other persons could take who were precluded from holding shares because of the risk. Another reason was the expectation that the profits upon railways would be so large that a, limited amount of interest payable upon debentures would leave a proportionately larger sum to be divided upon the capital stock of the company. But, however that might be, that reason has now fallen to the ground, for, with very few and rare exceptions, debentures may be said to pay a better interest than the stock of the companies. Another mistake into which the Legislature has fallen is this—that there is nowhere to be found a clear definition of working expenses, that is to say, nothing to define the charges, which ought to go to make up the working expenses of a company, before you arrive at the profit upon which the debenture interest forms the first charge. The definition of what is proper working expenditure is a disputed point. Of course, there are the obvious charges for conducting the business of the company, about which there can be no dispute. But then there come other considerations such as the Queen's taxes and local taxes; then there are compensations and charges of a very debateable character in the form of the rent paid for leased lines. This last point is difficult to deal with, from the fact that leased lines may be held by the companies leasing them under circumstances differing in different companies. For instance, if a company leases a line, which is simply a branch line, then it may not be a very difficult thing to estimate the claim which is to be charged on the working expenses. But in the case of such a line as the "Mid-Kent," leased to the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, and which forms a link in the main chain of its communication, it is a very different thing. That line, in fact, forms an integral part of the main line, and if it were severed from or taken out of the main line the traffic could not be carried on. Upon the subject of debenture securities, I wish to quote a few words from the recent celebrated judgment delivered by Lord Cairns—

"Although I have arrived at the opinion which I have expressed without hesitation, I cannot avoid feeling regret that securities such as railway debentures, upon which so many millions of money have been invested, should have been left at their creation in a state to admit of so much argument as that which has taken place in this case, and that their legal operation and extent should come to be defined not at the time when they have been given as security, but after difficulties have arisen in their repayment."

I quote these words as illustrating the want of forethought and consideration for the future, which has characterized all the railway legislation of this country. There are a variety of ways in which short debentures operate unfavourably upon various interests; but I do not imagine that there is any interest which suffers more than that of the Government itself. Formerly the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no difficulty in floating £40,000,000 of Exchequer bills in the market, whereas now he can rarely float £10,000,000, because of the demand for money on the part of railway companies to renew their debentures constantly falling due. The Government suffer; the public suffer; and the shareholders suffer; and therefore it seems to me, that one of the objects which we ought to have in view is, if possible, to frame such a new system of legislation, with reference to railway capital, as shall remove, as far as possible, the future probability of difficulty arising from this constantly-recurring necessity. Now, the present position of our railway companies is becoming exceedingly serious. There is no disguising the fact; it is in everybody's mouth. Many of our railway companies are experiencing at the present moment the utmost difficulty in renewing their debentures. I need not allude to particular companies. But I dare say there are some Gentlemen in this House—probably more than one or two—who hold railway debentures, and, if they have bonds which fall due this month, they will feel in their own persons a practical exemplification of the difficulties which I have named. I have said that the difficulty has arisen, in a great degree, out of the judgment of Lord Cairns. Upon that judgment I am not going to indulge in one word of criticism. I feel that I am not competent to do so, because I should not be able to state it in proper phraseology, or in terms such as legal gentlemen may not fairly take exception to. I have, however, an idea of my own upon the subject; and this I may be allowed to say, that, looking at the position of those companies, which, in consequence of that judgment, may be unable to renew their debentures falling due, I conceive it to be not impossible, or even improbable, that the Court of Chancery may be called upon to interfere. I should like to know what is the position of a company which once finds itself within the domain of the Court of Chancery. Now, I will read one or two words from the judgment I have referred to. Lord Cairns said—

"When the Court appoints a manager of a business or undertaking, it in effect assumes the management into its own hands; for the manager is the servant or officer of the Court, and, upon any question arising as to the character or details of the management, it is the Court that must direct and decide. The circumstance that, in this particular case, the persons appointed were previously the managers employed by the company, is immaterial. When appointed by the Court, they are responsible to the Court, and no orders of the company or of the Directors can interfere with this responsibility. Now, I apprehend that nothing is better settled than that this Court does not assume the management of a business or undertaking except with a view to the winding-up and sale of the business or undertaking. The management is an interim management; its necessity and its justification spring out of the jurisdiction to liquidate and to sell; the business or undertaking is managed and continued in order that it may be sold as a going concern, and with the sale the management ends."

Now, the point I wish to insist upon is this—that when a railway company finds itself under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in the sense to which I have alluded, the Court of Chancery becomes as it were the manager of the company for the purpose of keeping it a going concern, for the purpose of sale. But who will buy a railway placed in such a position? Any number of persons possessing the requisite capital may constitute themselves a company; but I apprehend that no individuals forming a company could proceed to buy up a defunct railway concern without special legislative authority. To obtain such powers would necessitate a long delay. Nor could any existing company purchase such a defunct concern, because no existing company has any powers which would enable them to do so. To acquire such powers it would have to make application to Parliament. And there are many other difficulties attending such a course, difficulties which have been well described in a letter bearing the signature of "Inquirer," which appeared on the 23rd of February last in The Economist newspaper. In that letter the whole question was discussed at length of a railway company being offered for sale, and the difficulties are so great, that in the event of any company being brought to sale in that way, it would be impossible for the Court of Chancery to act as managers of the concern without enormous public inconvenience, and even without a cessation to a great extent of the advantages which the public derive from the continuance of traffic in the district. See, for instance, what effect has been produced within the last few days by the comparative cessation of traffic on only one line, the inconvenience to which persons living to the South of London were exposed owing to the strike of the engine-drivers on the London and Brighton Railway. From that circumstance we can form some idea of the effect which would be produced by the stoppage of the traffic on some great line such as the Great Western Railway; and I select this company as an example merely on account of the fact that it lies in the centre of a great traffic system. If such a stoppage were to occur on this line, even for one day only, the inconvenience that would result to the public in consequence it would be impossible to estimate. Now, Sir, for this state of things a great many remedies have been proposed. The newspapers have, indeed, teemed with letters on the subject. I have the greater part of them with me at the present moment, but I do not certainly intend to read them now, because I take it for granted that they have already been seen by hon. Gentlemen who feel interested in this subject. A letter from an instructive pen, the authorship of which I think I can trace, appeared in The Times under the signature of "Civis." We have also suggestions innumerable for the creation of debenture stock; another for a mutual guarantee on the part of good lines of the debenture debt of other and weaker enterprizes; for an association of railway enterprizes by which the weaker brethren would receive assistance at the hands of the stronger. There is something novel in this proposal, but it is not the one should ask the House to adopt. The creation of debenture stock is a question well deserving, in my humble opinion, the consideration of this House; but the real remedy is to be found, I think, in the proposal which, with the permission of the House, I will suggest. I would ask the House to consider the outlines of a plan by which the Government shall be empowered to assist with the credit of the State railway companies which are unable to meet their engagements. I would limit that plan to railway companies unable to meet their engagements, for two reasons. The one is, that I do not wish to excite opposition, on the part of those railways whose affairs are so well conducted as to place them beyond suspicion, and the necessity of applying for assistance to the Government or to any one else; and in the second place, I do not wish to arouse jealousy on the part of that body of the public who naturally view with jealousy any guarantee on the part of Government, or any participation of the Government in any national enterprize. I should like to see the plan I am suggesting tried tentatively, to see how it worked; because if it did succeed, as I apprehend it would, the advantage which it would confer upon the railway company receiving assistance would be so great it would, in point of fact, so raise it from the mire of despondency into so happy a frame of mind that many other well-to-do companies would view its condition with envy, and seek to share in the benefits of the plan, if Parliament should consent to the enlargement of the scheme. I would suggest that any company unable to meet its engagements, and against which a judgment at law may have been obtained, may apply to the Government under the provisions of an Act to be passed for the purpose, and then that the Government, if satisfied with the security offered, and the general condition of the railway company requiring assistance, may grant it the assistance it needs. In the majority of cases the Government would, I apprehend, run very little risk, because all the main lines of railway in the country are at this time well constructed lines, upon which no great amount of expenditure is required; lines which are earning large gross incomes, and on which the working expenses do not on the average exceed 48 per cent of their gross traffic receipts. If that be the case, it is clear that any assistance which the Government might be empowered to render to the railway company would be the subject of the first charge upon the remaining 52 per cent of the traffic receipts. I would suggest that the Government be empowered to guarantee the principal and interest of the debenture debt of the company, and that they should issue in place of that debt, as the debentures fell due and came in, obligations of the Government, in a form to be prescribed, to run for a term of fifty years. These obligations should be the first charge upon the receipts of the company after payment of working expenses, and these working expenses, if they are not sufficiently defined by the recommendation of the Committee now sitting upstairs, ought to be defined in the Bill to be submitted to the House. But as the Government would have rendered considerable assistance to the railway company, the railway company should not have the power by a lavish expenditure, and an improper use of the assistance rendered by the Government, in any way to damage the security which its profits would afford; and I would therefore enact that the Government should thenceforward possess a power of veto over the proceedings of the company in all matters affecting its capital expenditure. That power should, however, be strictly limited to matters of capital expenditure, because it is exceedingly undesirable that the Government should have anything to do with the working arrangements. A railway company might be permitted to expend money from its capital for enlarging its stations, or for purposes of an analagous character; but a controlling power should be very strictly exercised by the State to prevent companies from coming to Parliament, as they do now, at the instigation of agents, or of engineers, or of lawyers, or of any members of that class who spy their prey in the distance, for the purpose of expending capital in waging war on other companies. The public, as well as the Government, should be protected from any improper attempt to enlarge the capital expenditure. It will not be at all difficult to do this. In India millions upon millions of our money have been expended upon the construction of railways, and the system adopted there has been found to work remarkably well. It would not be difficult to lay down rules by which the Government would be enabled to exercise that power of veto. Though permitted to expend money upon the enlargement of stations and matters of an analogous character, railway companies should not be permitted to wage war upon their neighbours by invading the territory of other companies, or to offer them any molestation. The public would, I think, be pleased at seeing a power interposed between themselves and the scheming portion of the population engaged in the speculative manipulation of railway affairs. I have stated that, in my opinion, Parliament made a great mistake in not securing the reversion of the freehold interest in the lands taken from private individuals for the purposes of railway construction. I think that it is even now not too late to remedy that mistake, and that, if a railway company find it to its advantage to apply to the Government for the purpose of obtaining relief, the Government should, upon assuming the liability upon the debenture debt, call upon the company to make a surrender to the State of the freehold interest in its property, and should then grant a Parliamentary lease to the railway company of the lands and the undertaking for a long term of years—say for ninety-nine years—subject to a power on the part of the State to re-enter, at an earlier period, upon conditions which I will shortly mention. But, before doing so, I wish to say, with reference to the charge for which the Government would be liable—that is to say, for the interest upon the amount of the obligations which it assumed on the part of the company—I would compel every company to render to the Government weekly 1–52nd part, or monthly 1–12th part, of the sum estimated to be necessary to cover the liability of the Government in respect of the interest on its obligations. Now, inasmuch as the Government would have a claim upon the 52 per cent of the gross receipts of the company, it is clear that the Government would take upon itself no great amount of risk, if the money with which it was to pay the interest on these obligations were sent in at once, immediately upon its receipt, by the railway company. But inasmuch as the credit of the Government is a very different thing from the credit of a public company—being perhaps fairly estimated as the difference between 3½ and 4½ per cent—I would call upon the railway company to pay to the Government a further sum of 1 per cent, making in the whole, say 4½ per cent; the credit of the Government enabling it to issue money to the companies at 3½ per cent. This 1 per cent, which would be paid upon the amount of the outstanding obligations of the company, should be invested every half-year in Government stock, or in redemption of the railway obligations; and as £1 invested in a Government Three per Cent Stock will produce at the end of fifty years £114 8s., so at the end of the fifty years the whole of the liability of the State will have been extinguished. It is true that it will have been extinguished by the payment on the part of the railway companies; but the railway companies would have paid no more than if they had borrowed the money on their own credit, whilst they will have at the same time the benefit of the extinguishment of their debt. At the end of the fifty years, when the obligations of the Government shall have been discharged, and the other liabilities with reference to the bonded debt shall have ceased, the Government should have the power of purchasing the undertaking at the average price which it had borne in the market for a certain number of years, previously, say for two, three, four, or five years, making payment in Government securities, issued at such a price, as would enable the persons who received them in exchange for their stock, to reproduce in their pockets the value of the stock according to the computation agreed upon. If the Government did not see fit on the part of the State so to purchase the railway, the lease would then continue to run to the end of the ninety-nine years. I apprehend that it may appear to be a formidable proposition to require a railway company to relinquish and give up its property to the State even at so distant a period as ninety-nine years. Ninety-nine years is a term on which any person, when taking a lease for that time, bestows very little thought; and it is not until some forty or fifty years of the term have passed away that the possibility of the expiration of the lease suggests itself to the mind of he holder. Indeed, so small is the sum required to re-produce capital at the end of ninety-nine years, that 20d. taken out of every £100 of its net profits, and investeb by a railway company every half-year in a Three per Cent Government Stock, will reproduce the capital of the company at the end of ninety-nine years. By means of this proposition the Government would, I conceive, be enabled to render to the rail way interest at large very great and very valuable assistance. It would, I think, have the effect of relieving railway companies, and the railway world in general, from the pressure which is now placed upon them. It would enable them at once to carry on their transactions without the fear, or apprehension, or cost, attendant constant renewal of their debenture debt, while they would be subjected to no higher charge than they at present have to meet. For the charge of 1 per cent, which I have already mentioned, would place them in no worse position with respect to the rate of interest payable upon their bonds than that which they now occupy, and they would besides have the benefit of being enabled to extinguish the whole of their debt in the manner I have indicated. If, on the other hand, they were called upon to surrender their property at the end of the long term I have stated, they might by a very moderate provision secure themselves against loss. I think, therefore, upon the whole, that however startling such a proposition as this may appear to those who look upon it from a Government or shareholder's point of view, there is nothing in it, at all events, which should not entitle it to receive the attentive consideration of this House and of the public. I may add, although it may appear a somewhat visionary view, that, supposing all the railway companies to have in the course of time thus surrendered their property to the State, and State to be at the end of ninety-nine years in possession of that property, it would then have an estate of the value of something like £500,000,000, which it might, if it pleased, re-let to railway companies for the purpose of being worked. If let at a sum equal to 5 per cent, an income of about £25,000,000 per annum would be secured by the State from this property; or, in other words, a sum amounting to about the annual charge for the National Debt. It is, of course, quite true that ninety-nine years are a long time to look of forward to; and it may be said, as was once observed by a distinguished person on the other side of Temple Bar, that there is no good reason why we should trouble ourselves about posterity, inasmuch as posterity has never done anything for us. There are, however, some persons in this House who do think it worth while to have an eye to the interests of posterity; and there is, I think, nothing in my proposition which does not recommend it to the consideration of those who entertain that view. I may remark, that in the year 1768, the Finsbury Estate was let under the authority of an Act of Parliament for ninety-nine years, and that the end of that term was at the time, no doubt, looked upon as being very remote. The ninety-nine years have, however, all but passed away, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are now about to step into an annual income of £70,000 from that property. I am therefore of opinion that the country may very fairly be content to have some regard for posterity, and to assist in relieving it from a heavy charge in the way I have suggested. There is one other point to which I wish to refer before I sit down, and that is the application of this suggestion to the case of Ireland. I find from the Parliamentary accounts relating to that country, that, on the 31st of December, 1865, the whole of the capital authorized to be raised for the construction of Irish railways amounted to £34,035,491, of which sum £19,902,528 were paid up, while the debenture loans outstanding were £5,764,284. I further find that the gross receipts from Irish railways amounted to £1,737,061, and the net receipts to £900,592. Now, if from that sum of £900,592 interest at the rate of 4½ per cent on the debenture debt be deducted, you will find that 3 per cent would represent the profit on the capital invested in those railways. But when it is considered that the Irish railways, which are upwards of fifty in number, are conducted and carried on at a great expense in the aggregate, and that that expense might be very considerably reduced by the amalgamation of the various companies under one, two, or say three or four systems of management, I think it will scarcely be thought that I am taking too sanguine a view, when I state that the receipts would, in all probability, be so enlarged by the application of my proposition to the case of those railways, that the shareholders would obtain a net profit of something like 4 or 5 per cent. I mention this by way of illustration, to show how the project might be made to work. I do not think I have anything more to say in submitting this Resolution to the notice of the House. My object is to obtain a general expression of opinion upon it. I am very thankful to the House for having allowed me to make this statement, and I leave my proposition in its hands to be dealt with as it may deem fit.

said, there was no man in the House more entitled to be heard on such a question as that now submitted as his hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Crawford). His high position in the mercantile world, and his great experience on this subject, and especially in regard to Indian railways, entitled him to speak with authority, and no one could consider this Motion ill-timed. We were now passing through a great crisis in our railway history—a crisis of deep gravity and severity, involving the interests of thousands—from which he trusted we might emerge with less loss and difficulty than we were sometimes disposed to fear. His hon. Friend had drawn a distinction—a very proper distinction—between private and public interests; but when it was considered how enormous was the number of those beneficially interested in railways, the term "public" might with great truth and force be applied to these; also, considering how many calls for immediate legislation in various directions were made upon the Government, and what confusion existed in men's minds as to the kind of legislation which was required to give them what was wanted, and even what was necessary to relieve railways from their present difficulties, he thought his hon. Friend had done good service in raising a discussion like this. He thought, at any rate, that such a discussion might clear away many difficulties, and might possibly indicate the best course to be pursued. He would endeavour to follow the points of his hon. Friend's able and interesting speech, and make such observations as his less experience might enable him, with all humility, to offer. His hon. Friend began by proposing that the State should assume the debenture debt of those companies only which are in difficulty, provided their security is good, and for the purpose of eventually acquiring the lines; and having given a very interesting and no doubt very accurate description of the vastness of railway property, and the way the public were dependent upon it for most of the comforts and conveniences, and even the daily necessaries of life, he went on to ascribe the position in which that property was now placed to the action of Parliament—to railway legislation, which he said had been experimental, guided by no fixed principles, and had operated as a warning to other countries which had profited by our example and avoided our errors. And he said we should have followed the same policy as the French Government had done in respect to their railways, by leasing the lines to companies for a term. The late Sir Robert Peel, no doubt, had that opportunity, and after much deliberation, as we are told, decided not to avail himself of it. There was much to be said in favour of such a plan; but, on the other hand, there were many objections to it. One of the objections to it was that the lessor, something like the consignee of a West Indian estate, was sometimes tempted to make advances for the purpose of obtaining his rent, and, in fact, ended frequently by throwing good money after bad. We had heard, whether truly or not, that the example of France had not been so encouraging, and that the French Government had advanced considerable sums to the railway companies for the formation of branch lines which were not likely to be commercially successful. We heard, too, that the Russian Government was on the point of selling its Imperial Railway from Petersburg to Moscow to a private company. We must bear in mind, moreover, that these Governments were the original owners of a whole system, and not the purchasers of fragments. His hon. Friend found fault with the law respecting debentures, saying they were too short in date; and he quite agreed with this. The primary idea was, no doubt, that debentures would be merely temporary loans paid off when the railway came into full work. On the Continent they ran for much longer dates, and consequently the "obligations" were brought and sold on every Bourse; whereas the sale of debentures here was a matter of negotiation, which of course affected their value, thus making them less desirable as investments for capital. Moreover, on the Continental railways a reserve was kept as a sinking fund to pay off these obligations. We were compelled to trust to renewals, and therefore were at the mercy of every wind that blew. His hon. Friend mentioned debenture stock, and it seemed to him that the best way out of this part of the difficulty was the issue of debenture stock, at long dates and at any rate of interest. But here we required fresh legislation, because a limit had been placed on the rate at which this stock could be issued. This was done, no doubt, with the very laudible object of protecting those who came after us; but like most attempts in that direction, it had been productive of much mischief; and he was in favour of legalizing the issue of debenture stock at such a rate of interest as would float it, taking care that it should be registered, and that the public should know what the company already owed. He believed, with his hon. Friend, that our legislation had been very mischievous. We began by looking upon joint-stock companies and railway companies as things to be put down. As a schoolmaster sometimes regards his pupils whom he ought to foster, so we regarded such companies as our natural enemies, and instead of confining ourselves to watching jealously their compulsory powers over other people's prosperity, and leaving their finance to take care of itself, we hemmed them in with restrictions, which they had generally found some way to evade, and thus while professing to protect the creditor, we had simply lulled him into false security, from which, sooner or later, he was sure to awake—like people who are frightened during sleep—in an unreasoning panic. Hence the judgment of Lord Cairns, which simply stated what people who had thought about the matter knew before, and which did not practically make the situation or remedies of debenture-holders one iota worse, was called the immediate cause of the panic—just as the failure of Overend, Gurney, and Co. immediately preceded and possibly precipitated the panic of last year; but it was a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and the real cause was general distrust of the finance of railways. People began to hear of over issues, open debts, Lloyd's bonds, fictitious payments; and a general alarm was the consequence. His hon. Friend said this had attained such magnitude that no smaller remedy than Government interference would have any avail—just as in the panic of last year it was said that the only panacea for the panic was a Government bank. His hon. Friend proposed that the Government should guarantee the principal and interest of the debenture-debt, and that they should take the railways and place a Government Director upon the Boards.

I said that the Government should exercise a veto, not that there should be a Government Director upon the Board.

understood the hon. Member to allude to the practice with respect to Indian railways, where a Government Director was placed upon the Board. He said that by his plan they would prevent a speculative increase of capital; the transaction would be quite safe and the Government would obtain in the end a property the value of which it was impossible to estimate. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it was impossible to estimate the value; but the Government might get a worse bargain than that which appeared on paper. And if there were no net profits how could capital be replaced? But the hon. Gentleman said it was only a guarantee that was required. They had had similar proposals at different times, from several quarters and for various purposes. Some proposed that assistance should be given to sound railways only; but his hon. Friend wished them to assist only those which were in difficulties. The proposal of a guarantee was no doubt a very fascinating one. It was a mere form. They might not be called upon to give anything. It was only to satisfy the public, and there was no sort of difficulty or insecurity. He remembered the year before last being persuaded to give his guarantee—and, if he was not mistaken, his hon. Friend was also persuaded to give his—to an International Exhibition which was quite certain to have a very considerable surplus; but somehow or other in the end they found that the guarantee was not a mere matter of form. This proposal must to a certain extent tend to centralization. Now, if ever centralization was inexpedient it was in a country like this where the Executive was so liable to pressure. His hon. Friend talked about the Government veto, and mentioned India as an instance of what he meant. But in India the local interests were much weaker and more divided, and the central Government was almost a despotism. He could not fancy anything more difficult or more invidious than the position of a Government Director or officer trying to prevent a branch line much desired through a district of considerable Parliamentary influence. All who had acted as trustees knew what pressure was sometimes put upon them to consent to some investment at a higher rate of interest; but where, in his opinion, there was not sufficient security. Any one who wanted to ascertain what the position of such a Government officer would be had only to read the correspondence between Mr. Howell, who was the Government officer in New Zealand, and the Colonial Office, between 1848 and 1849, and they would there see how the Government threw over at last a man who really tried hard to do his duty—or, as they put it, had "an overstrained sense of his own responsibility." A proposition had been made to the Government that they should buy up all the Irish railways. That was a proposal clear in itself—totus teres atque rotundus. His hon. Friend proposed only that they should guarantee the railways which were in difficulty. The effect of that would be that the Government would be plunged into all sorts of railway disagreements. Supposing they took the London, Chatham, and Dover, the South Western, or the Great Western, the Government must either immediately, or in some short period, which, as his hon. Friend said, was nothing in the life of a State, be committed to partisanship or hostility to the different railways around them. He (Mr. Stephen Cave) must confess he had a most profound distrust of sinking funds. A sinking fund had a tendency from time to time to assist the surplus of an ambitious, or to palliate the deficiency of an unfortunate, Budget. He believed that in this country, as a general rule, the Government ought to do nothing that could be done by individuals. It would be a very dangerous thing for a Government to do what his hon. Friend proposed—to stand between the public in general and railway proprietors. It was not the duty of a Ministry to supply a programme to public companies or to private firms. It was impossible that it could do so; because the interest of the public would always be at direct variance with that of the shareholders. The interest of the Government would be simply to secure its debt, while the interest of the shareholders might be to run some risk for the purpose of getting profit. Government appointments were sometimes found fault with now; but how much would that dissatisfaction be increased if the Government were to turn attention to trade and finance, and obtain a patronage extending all over the country? The Government, resting as ours did upon public opinion, could not in seasons of misfortune stand against the general discontent. When panics prevailed it was a great advantage that public feeling should be able to expend itself against Boards of Directors, who were much less amenable than Members of the Government. If he might venture to make a suggestion, he would say that the best course to be pursued was to set railways free from financial trammels, and put them as to finance on the same footing as joint-stock companies. Perfect freedom and perfect publicity were the maxims that ought to prevail with regard to railway finance. Let railway companies issue debenture stock for any length of time at any rate of interest. If they became embarrassed, and could not come to arrangement among themselves, let them be wound up voluntarily by consent, or compulsorily, under the Bankruptcy laws, by the action of the Court, so as to prevent the ruinous operation of separate suits; and let the insolvent railway be sold either to a joint-stock company, which would take all the duties and be vested with all the powers, either with or without Parliamentary sanction, as might appear safe, or to another railway company which would have to come to Parliament for power to purchase. His hon. Friend said, who would buy a defunct railway? He presumed that would depend upon the price. He remembered in a once popular play, Used Up, some one saying, "We have nothing like St. Peter's in London;" the answer to which was, "If we wanted one, we should get up a company, issue shares, and run one up in no time." So, he believed, there would be no difficulty in getting up a company to buy an insolvent railway at a favourable price—just as had been done more than once in the case of the Great Eastern steamship. This cry for Government interference was no new one. Before last year companies were to do everything; now their prestige was temporarily departed—"none so small to do them reverence." His hon. Friend had drawn a vivid picture of the stoppage of a railway for a single day. He (Mr. Cave) was not much afraid of the stoppage of a great public highway from any cause except that of a strike. If the London, Chatham, and Dover could go on performing its services so admirably, there was little to feat. He did not hear complaints of the state of the permanent way over England from the Inspectors. Perhaps they might, as had been proposed, guard against any seizure of the working appliances of a railway; but, after what had been said elsewhere, they must all be alive to the danger of destroying the credit of a company for its daily expenses by imposing too much difficulty on the recovery of open debts. He thought that the general and increasing dependence of railways upon each other was the great protection against any one being brought to a standstill. He had ventured to make these remarks in the most friendly and respectful spirit upon the proposal of his hon. Friend. He admitted his great experience, and should be followed no doubt by others whose opinions were entitled to far greater weight than his own. Many plans had been proposed to get rid of these difficulties. The air, in fact, teemed with plans. That morning he had received several proposals from men of known ability and experience. One of these, which had the merit of not asking anything from the Government, was for the formation of finance companies to deal in debentures, increasing their security by the guarantee of capital of the finance company, and making them in various ways more readily negotiable. Another was for the Government to place the companies in immediate funds, by paying down at once the estimated cost of carriage of letters and troops in perpetuity. Another was satisfied with simply extending the lien of a debenture to the chattels of the company, and to the profits as well as the tolls. Another advocated the suspension of all suits, reference of all questions to one tribunal, and the raising of a preferential stock taking priority before debentures, for the purpose of clearing away incumbrances and completing works. The House would pass its time profitably and gain much by discussing such schemes in company with that of his hon. Friend. He would ask leave to conclude with one remark. Most people were feeling their way gradually, hardly appreciating the difficulties before they set themselves to grapple with them. Public opinion was forming itself, changing and ripening from day to day. This discussion would assist it. They were now waiting anxiously for the Report of the Royal Commission. He asked the House not to act, in order, as it might fancy, to gain time, with a precipitancy of which they might hereafter repent. They should not be tempted by the natural and laudable desire of terminating present inconvenience, however pressing, of alarm, however widespread and injurious, into hasty resolutions or inconsiderate fragmentary legislation on a matter of such importance.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Crawford) had not overstated the case when he spoke of this question as one of very great magnitude. The proposal submitted appeared of so startling a character that he could hardly imagine it receiving the sanction of the House. A few days ago there was a proposal for guaranteeing £3,000,000 for Canadian railways, and they were assured that there would be no possible risk, danger, or chance of their having to pay anything. The statement that was made gave every hope that that might be done without this country incurring any liability. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) pointed out that they must consider it as a loan of £3,000,000, and that it would diminish to that extent the facilities of this country for borrowing money. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Crawford) was that they should lend £95,000,000 or guarantee to that amount. That was a very startling proposal in order to relieve certain interests from an embarrassment which he believed to be of an entirely temporary character. He believed that if the Government were to interfere they would only aggravate the difficulties of the railways. He had no confidence in the Government management of any such enterprize. The hon. Gentleman, of course, did not propose a Government management; but he admitted that the companies would have to be under Governmental protection in such a case, and proposed that a Government Director or inspector should be appointed. What, then, would be done in the case of the disputes and altercations which were of daily occurrence between railways? The hon. Gentleman said it was impossible for a railway to be sold, but they were bought and sold every day. The amalgamations and changes of railway property which were constantly coming before Parliamentary Committees were neither more nor less than sales by one party and purchases by the other. There would always be found parties willing to buy railways, if facilities were given for selling them. The great difficulty which attached to all these questions was owing to the mistake in our Acts of Par- liament, of giving facilities for borrowing. Those facilities were given originally for temporary purposes, it being intended that when a railway became established it should pay off its debts, and the railway supply its own capital. Railway companies were never intended to be made permanent borrowers and competitors in the money-market. One-third, or at least one-quarter of the railway work in the country was executed upon borrowed capital, and it was impossible for the companies to pay off their debt in the limited period of three, four, or five years. If the railway companies had no debt at the present moment Parliament would not be called on to interfere in the matter. He thought the difficulty might be got over by Parliament being more careful in granting of borrowing powers in the future, and with regard to the past, what must be done was that the railway creditors must become railway debtors. The debt must be amalgamated into the railway company—it must become part of the railway stock. It would be impossible if the Government became guarantors for railway companies, for them to borrow the money which they might afterwards require for the purposes of the State. Government stock would be depreciated as a matter of course, for if people could buy railway stock, guaranteed by the Government at 4½ per cent, they would naturally prefer that to the ordinary Government stock at 3 per cent which would go down as in France to 75 instead of being at 90.

said, the House was indebted to the hon. Member for London for bringing the question forward. The question could not be snuffed out as the hon. Member (Mr. T. Hankey) seemed to imagine. He (Mr. Alderman Salomons) was not a railway man, and was not a large holder of railway stock, and therefore he might be fairly supposed to take a thoroughly dispassionate view of the subject. Whatever the railway Boards had done, and into whatever difficulties they had got themselves, it should be borne in mind that in all cases where they had not exceeded their powers they had Parliamentary sanction for all their operations. The railways of this country involved as large an outlay as from £450,000,000 to £500,000,000, and therefore he thought the House could not be engaged in a more important duty than that of considering, when they found that great interest in a distressed condition, by what means it could be relieved from its difficulty. The Vice President of the Board of Trade had quoted the example of the Great Eastern steam ship, which had been sold two or three times over. But the Great Eastern ship was not the creation of Parliament like the Great Eastern Railway. All the railways had been the creation of Parliament. It had been suggested that insolvent railways only should be dealt with and assisted by Parliament; but for his part, he would not touch the insolvent railways at all. They could give no security to anyone, and the only course in their case was to sell them. Even in the case of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, extensive as it was, it would not be difficult to find a purchaser at a high value, if it were put up for sale in the railway market. The House would be surprised if he mentioned the number of millions it was said it would fetch in the railway market. If in good hands, it might be relieved from many of the extraordinary difficulties which now affected that company. If it were necessary to legislate for railways, it would be desirable to see whether something might not be done by which the interests of railways might be made compatible with the interests of the State. It might be possible by some system of guarantees, or by raising money for solvent railways, taking them as security upon the condition that Parliament should lease them for ninety-nine years, similar to what is done in France, holding them as security until the debt should be paid off.

said, railway companies had got into difficulties through mismanagement and improvidence, and he suggested that they should take a lesson from the course pursued by such companies United States. There were 40,000 miles of railway there—nearly three times the length of the railway system of this country—and of course there had been from time to time great difficulties among the railway companies; but they had surmounted those difficulties, not by applying to the Government, but by depending on themselves. Our railway companies had very imprudently borrowed money on debenture bonds at short dates, and so long as there was an abundant money-market there was no difficulty in renewing those bonds, but when money became scarce they had to give any price to renew them. These bonds ought all to be converted into debenture 4 per cent stock; and instead of paying divi- dends in money every year, they might apply the sums which should be payable on dividends to the purchase of railway debenture bonds, and pay this railway debenture stock, instead of cash dividends, to their shareholders. They would then, in fact, be borrowing money of their own shareholders. That was the course adopted in the United States. If a railway company found they wanted money to develop the traffic of their railway, or to pay off their bonds, they applied the traffic receipts to the payments required. Instead of borrowing fresh capital at a great disadvantage they borrowed money from their own shareholders, and paid dividends in stock instead of cash. It was said that the amount of debenture stock was about £100,000,000, of this, £90,000,000 was perfectly good security, because it held the first claim on the traffic receipts, after the payment of expenses. There was scarcely a railway in the kingdom which had not a large surplus after the payment of these, so that there could hardly be better security. If a man were paid in debenture stock and wanted cash he could easily raise it, because debenture bonds would pass in the market, and he could get cash at a small sacrifice, while the advantage gained by his railway would more than compensate for any loss. There would not indeed be a loss, as this stock, if its value were properly understood, would be as good as consols. What could be a better investment for trustees or ladies than a stock of this kind? The railway interests, therefore, need not implore the Government for assistance; let them help themselves. The course pursued in the United States met all requirements.

said, that the payment of dividends in debenture bonds was about equal to not paying them at all. It seemed like paying a debt by a promise to pay. He knew many persons who were from much inconvenienced by the non-payment of their dividends, and they would not be be much consoled by the suggestion that they should accept a debenture, whether it could be converted into money or not. A great deal of the difficulty that had arisen in connection with these debenture bonds had been long foreseen. He thought nothing else could have been expected from the way in which Railway Bills had been passed in that House, and for which Parliament was, to a great extent, responsible. Parliament did lay down some rules by which Committees were directed to inspect the financial condition of these undertakings. This was difficult; but he thought there were means of ascertaining whether companies applying for powers had the means of carrying out their undertakings. He believed there was a sort of instinctive apprehension where it might be known that the parties applying to Parliament for Bills had the right amount of capital for carrying them out. There had been a flood of enterprize at one time, followed by stagnation at another; there had been too much confidence at one time, and too much distrust at another. The Duke of Wellington, with his usual sagacity, stated the real case when he said that all railways were, in their real nature, monopolies. They should therefore have been recognised as such, and the best possible bargain made with them. However bad monopoly might be, a ruined monopoly was the worst of all. He thought it would be well that they should come to a definite conclusion by which the embarrassment should be lessened. If Members were not willing to adopt the remedy of the hon. Member (Mr. Crawford), then he thought they had better say what remedy should be applied, or come to the conclusion that nothing should be done to meet the requirements of the railway interest.

said, he wished to point out to the House what was the real and most important issue raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Crawford). The hon. Member had taken too narrow a view of the subject in looking at it as one simply relating to the existing state of railway embarrassment. If the position of railways in this country had been like that of the lines in the United States—if an uniform and consistent system of absolute free trade had been adopted, and if, afterwards, the railways had fallen into embarrassment, he would then have entirely concurred with the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Stephen Cave), that all that could be done was to remove all legal restrictions, and leave them to work themselves out of the difficulty as well as they could. In dealing with the proposal of the hon. Member, the House might, at the present stage, set aside all question of details. If the House could see its way to the principle involved in the proposal the working of details might be easily adjusted. The idea of Government interfering to give a guarantee did not, he thought, involve Government interference in the working of railways. No loss on a guarantee was likely to occur, as the debenture capital had been limited to one-fourth, with the exception of a few railways in a state of hopeless insolvency. Except in such instances he thought there was an ample margin of security in all cases. It might be assumed, then, at present that no practical risk of loss would be incurred on the guarantee. Another assumption which he would make was that assistance of the kind mentioned would be a very great and essential relief to the railway companies, and be the means of enabling them to convert the short-dated debentures into perpetual or long annuities. He then came to the question as to how this proposal was to be considered as a broad one of principle, and with respect to that he must say that weighty arguments had been adduced on both sides. On the one hand, there was no denying that if the House were prepared to guarantee railway debenture stock it must be prepared to do it largely, and must look the £120,000,000 of capital in the face. It was not exactly like going into the market for a loan of consols to that amount; but, no doubt, by such a proceeding the Government securities in the market would be greatly increased. The supply would be beyond the demand, so that the prices of Government securities would fall, and in time of peace the great national reserve for a time of war or any other emergency would be used up. He thought the question not ripe for practical decision, but it was desirable that the arguments pro and con should be fairly put before the House and the public. On the one hand, weighty and solid advantages might result from the suggested measure. There existed a mass of railway property, amounting to nearly half the amount of the National Debt, which was in a position of great distress and difficulty, that distress and that difficulty having been occasioned to a great extent by the action of Parliament. The question then arose whether by a measure which would not cost the country anything—the proposed guarantee being covered by the railway receipts—Parliament could restore that large amount of property to a condition of comparative prosperity. It was impossible to deny that the distressed condition of the railway companies was owing to the inconsistent policy pursued by Parliament. If this country had gone on the United States plan of total free trade in railways, the railway system might have been much less costly. If they had adopted the French system, or that sketched out by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) many years ago, things might have been in a very different position. We should have had large companies in several districts whose interests were identified with that of the public, either by terminal concessions or enforcing a reduction of fares. But, by halting between the two systems, we had arrived at a state of things which placed us at a disadvantage with foreign countries as regarded railways, our cost of railway transport being on an average something like three times as much as that in Belgium. Looking at the extent to which trade and commerce was identified with railway travelling, and the conveyance of raw material and manufactures, it was a great drawback as regarded the future of this country. Then, again, while France at the end of a limited term of years would come into possession practically of a sinking fund, equal to half its National Debt, we had nothing of that kind in this country. Last year there was much discussion about the reduction of the National Debt. If anything on a large scale was to be done, this was, perhaps, the only opportunity of doing it. By giving a guarantee which cost nothing, we should bring into operation a sinking fund equal to the whole capital invested in railways, say £400,000,000. This in ninety years would become the property of the State, and so available as a set-off to the National Debt—and eventually our railway fares might be reduced to the Continental standard. Such seemed to be the balance of the weighty arguments on both sides. On the one hand we had the disadvantage, practically, of increasing the amount of the National Debt in time of peace. On the other the advantage resulting from providing a sinking fund of magnitude for the redemption of the National Debt, while at the end of a period of years the control of the Government would enable them to reduce the scale of fares of railways to a level with those of the Continent. He did not think as yet they were ripe for balancing these comparative advantages and arriving at any positive conclusion on the subject. It was one of those subjects on which they could hardly expect the Government to take the lead till public opinion ripened into definite conclusions. He thought this discussion, however, very useful as a means of calling attention to it, and in the meantime railway property could afford to wait the solution of the question. He was therefore very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stephen Cave) an indication of his opinion as to the more immediate remedies necessary to meet the exigencies of the position. He did look forward to the time when they would relieve railways from all those absurd restrictions by which they were bound, when they would allow them to issue debenture capital to any amount and at any price the public chose to take it. That would be an immediate and practical measure; but he felt greatly indebted to the hon. Member for having raised the discussion of the far larger question of principle involved in the case.

said, that in dealing with the general question, they ought not to forget the legislation of 1844. The idea of the mode by which the country might become the owners of these train roads was not therefore formed to-night. It had been in the minds of statesmen since 1844. At that time a Committee was appointed at the instance of Sir Robert Peel, which devoted a great deal of time to the consideration of the question, and the minority were in favour of altering the constitution of railway companies to this extent that, instead of being freeholders, the railways should after a certain period become the property of the State. At this particular moment the State might make conditions which in the time of their prosperity railways would have refused. If he were a financier charged with any department, he should consider whether an opportunity was not now offered to effect a good, permanent and useful transaction for the country. Were they to do anything for the reduction or final extinction of the National Debt? It might be thought by some that it was better to have the steadying weight of £800,000,000 around our necks. But all must admit that both the credit and interests of the country were bound up in the reduction of the National Debt. How, then, were they to reduce it? Not by taxing industry. Was it, then, to be reduced by cash payments or by applying the credit of the country to the operation? A great financier would endeavour to use credit rather than a hard, dry payment of cash. Was there any other operation available but one analagous to that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Crawford) to bring about that admittedly desirable result? It seemed to be a matter on which there was very little difference of opinion—after all it came to a question of terms. In France they would have the means in fifty-seven years of paying off the whole of their National Debt. If we did not initiate some measure of policy with regard to our Debt, we should still have £800,000,000 around our necks. An opportunity now existed of taking advantage of the necessities of railway companies to lay down some scheme by which that great property would become the property of the State in a limited number of years. This was not purely a question of finance. Thirty-five years ago railway property in this country would have been covered by £1,000,000; it was now £450,000,000, What, if it increased in the same ratio, would it be twenty-five years hence? It would be the most powerful industrial and the most powerful single political element in the whole country. Were they, then, indifferent to the consequences of committing such an enormous political power into the hands of railway companies as they were now gradually and silently, but certainly, accumulating? This was, in his opinion, a favourable opportunity for a great financial scheme. There were precedents for its success. This was the only way in which the National Debt could be dealt with, and there was great danger in allowing these great political corporations to grow up uncontrolled.

The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Crawford) is one of such great importance, that whilst we are obliged to him for having called the attention of the House to it, I would appeal to him whether it is desirable that he should ask the House to come to a vote on a question of such magnitude, which is hardly ripe for decision. What strikes me in the discussion is this—that there are two considerations, one of which throws doubt on the other. On the one hand, it is said that the position of a certain number of railway companies is such that it is difficult for them to raise the money they require to meet their debentures—that to a certain extent the embarrassments of these companies is due to the action of Parliament and to legislation—and therefore that they have certain claims on Parliament and on the Executive for some assistance. On the other hand, we are told now that we have an excellent opportunity of effecting large transactions for the reduction of the National Debt. When we have two such arguments as these two such fine birds to be killed by one stone, it is necessary that we should consider carefully the ground for such arguments, that appear too good to be compatible one with the other. What is the case as it lies upon the claim of the railway companies? The railway companies say, "We are in a position in which we cannot raise the money we want, and therefore we come to you to help us to raise the money." Now, why were they not in a position to raise it for themselves? They say that they cannot raise at less than 4 or 5 per cent the money that they think the Government can raise at 3 or 3½ per cent. Is it because the security of the railways is not good enough to induce people to invest their money, or because there are some legal difficulties or artificial impediments to their obtaining the money that people would be glad to lend? If it is meant that there are artificial impediments in the way, then the question arises whether we cannot clear them away. But if the security is not good enough to induce the public to lend the money, then what you are asking the Government to do is to take upon themselves a certain amount of risk for the sake of the railway companies. I do not say that, under certain circumstances, the Government should not take upon themselves some risk for the sake of the railway companies. But then, you set aside the other part of the argument, that it involves no risk to the Government to secure such a large privilege as would enable us even to pay off the National Debt. I confess that the second argument makes me look with very great suspicion upon this proposal, and it appears to me a very sufficient reason not for setting aside the proposal, but for asking in detail for the data upon which the proposal is made. We think that hon. Gentlemen ought to tell us whether they are of opinion that the railway companies, whose debts we are to assume, have or have not sufficient security. If they have, I want to know what is the inducement that the railway companies should give 1 per cent to the Government to finance their railways for them; give 1 per cent more than the Government could borrow the money for. Some definite statement should be made upon these points before the House is asked to deal with the question. Under present circumstances, it would be unfortunate if the House were compelled to pass a hasty vote, either in favour of or against the proposal. I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion.

I am very much inclined to join my voice to that of my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) in expressing the hope that the hon. Member for the City will not ask the judgment of the House upon the Resolution which he has proposed. It is quite plain that whatever the opinions many of us entertain, or whatever the leaning of our minds, this is certainly one of the most vast and intricate subjects that was ever introduced into the House of Commons. If the assumptions of the railway companies be correct, or the protest against all interference be just and sound, yet neither party ought to desire, in the present immature and crude state of our information and views, that the House should be committed to any judgment. I can quite appreciate the anxiety of my hon. Friend (Mr. Crawford), connected as he is with the money-market and all time transactions in the City, to avail himself of this particular moment for effecting what he feels to be a great public object. I quite grant that there are specialities at the present moment which, if we were in a condition to entertain the question, would make it desirable that at this very moment we should come to a decision in the affirmative or negative. But in matters of this kind we have not always an unembarrassed choice, and certainly at this time it would be premature to give a decision upon a question of so vast a range, which so deeply affects the public interest, and reaches so far into futurity. I think, after the very intelligent statement of my hon. Friend (Mr. Laing), and with the example of France before our eyes, it is difficult to deny that there is considerable weight, and also that there is great attraction, in the views which have been pointed out as to this proposal being calculated to relieve the railway companies of their difficulties without any great increase of the public burdens of this country. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that by causing a very great extension of the aggregate amount of public securities in the market, without any means of procuring an extension of the number of those who are bidders and buyers of those securities, you would have to account for a fall in those securities. I am far from inclined to think that it would go so far as to affect seriously our credit. I believe that its action would be restrained within much narrower limits. I would venture to say that the amount of that action would be very much restrained, or extended and enhanced by the general policy of Parliament in dealing with the ordinary amount of balance and expenditure from year to year. Many Members take a special interest in the application of this question in the sister country, and it appears to me there are many considerations that must recommend a separate inquiry and a separate dealing with Irish railways. The total amount of railway property in Ireland is much more limited. Therefore the inconvenient consequences that are apprehended must be very much restrained, and it is possible that an experiment in Ireland might tend to prove the possibility or the impossibility of any such experiment in England. There are some difficulties connected with the matter which could only be disposed of after a most careful and minute examination. As to Government management and centralization, it appears to me that these are topics which might be easily disposed of. Government management ought not to be under any circumstances entertained; and as to centralization, this is a matter to be disposed of from time to time as the leases of the lines fall in and shall be renewed. As far as we can see at present, there would be great difficulties in the practical working connected with new works for which the demand is so instant and various in form. It appears to me that we are not in a condition to arrive at a decision at the present moment, and therefore the best practical course is to wait and see what encouragement or discouragement we shall receive from the labours of a body of very competent persons, who have undertaken an investigation into railways under a Royal Commission appointed some two years ago. The publication of the Report of that Commission cannot fail to be an epoch and a stage in the discussion of the question, and I trust that my hon. Friend will be contented to wait till the Report of that Commission is printed, to consider what is the nature of the step which he should take. I trust that for the present he will be content with the acknowledgment, that is universal, of the public service which he has performed in drawing attention to a subject of such great magnitude.

said, he was sure the House would be of opinion that the last two hours had not been thrown away. He should, for his own part, be willing to take the advice given him by Gentlemen on both sides, not to ask the House to express an opinion upon the Motion. He was not without a hope that the discussion which had taken place would be of great use in the House, as well as outside of it, and in that hope he was willing to withdraw his Resolution.