, in moving the second reading of this Bill observed that it was very nearly in the words of a measure which last Session passed through the House without a dissentient voice. Two Members of the Cabinet expressed their opinion in favour of that measure, and a like opinion had been expressed by two Chairmen of Committees appointed to consider the Mortmain Act, 9 Geo. II., c. 36. He was not aware that on the present occasion there was any real opposition. The late Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth) had stated that he could see no possible objection to the Bill. Its provisions extended to all sorts of charitable and scientific, as well as religious societies, and it really only conferred on them the same powers as was given by the Companies Act, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, s. 21, to joint-stock companies—namely, power to acquire two acres of land for the purpose of building for any charitable institution which they might require. By the provisions of the Mortmain Act, certain restrictions were imposed on such institutions, and the Bill proposed that whenever land was purchased for the purposes of such an institution there should be no necessity for incurring such an enormous expense as was at present required to obtain a proper conveyance of land. The Mortmain Act contained two sets of provisions: the first was that no person should devise land for charitable purposes, and that when any gift was made by deed, the deed must within six months be enrolled in Chancery, and the donor live twelve months after the execution of the deed and the second was, that every conveyance for a charitable institution should be void (see Section 3) except it were duly executed and duly enrolled six months after execution, although a full and valuable consideration should have been actually paid for the purchased property. It was with the latter only that he wished to interfere. He did not object to the enrolment of deeds and the consequent expense, in the case of large and rich institutions; but the present regulations operated as a great restriction to the establishment of many of the smaller religious, benevolent, and literary societies of the kingdom. In many schools the requirements of the Mortmain Act were dispensed with by law altogether. All that he wished was that charitable institutions, not exceeding two acres, should be freed from the expense which the present state of the law cast upon them. Since the passing of the Mortmain Act thousands of deeds, made and executed for full consideration paid, had become void in consequence of their not having been executed in the form prescribed by the Act and enrolled, and Acts of Parliament had from time to time been passed for the purpose of restoring deeds of this character to their full legal operation. There was already an Act to allow trustees to apply at any time to the Court of Chancery to be allowed to enrol, and thus make good, their deeds; and since 1860 there had been several thousand deeds enrolled in the Court of Chancery, and thus made legal and binding, under recent Acts of Parliament; whereas for many years they had been illegal. One remarkable instance of the bad effect of the old law was that, many years ago, of the Manchester Infirmary, in reference to which the requirements of the Mortmain Act had not been for fifty years complied with, and during this time the heir to the estate might have taken possession; but instead of doing this he nobly completed the title of the trustees.

said, that some years ago he was Chairman of a Committee upon the Laws of Mortmain, and he might say that though, in that Committee, there was great variety of opinion upon the general subject, yet there was perfect unanimity upon this point, that there should be an exception in favour of institutions such as those mentioned in this Bill. In a former Committee, also, he believed that there was similar unanimity in favour of such an exception.

said, he should offer no objection to the second reading of the Bill. Last year a clause had been moved in "another place" which had induced the hon. Gentleman to give up his Bill; but that was a clause which it did not appear necessary to insist upon in a Bill which applied only to the objects which this Bill contemplated. He by no means said that it was unnecessary to keep up those restrictions on grants and alienations of land which were imposed by the Laws of Mortmain; yet, having regard to the small quantities of land which would be taken under this Bill, he should certainly offer no objection to the measure.

moved the second reading of this Bill.

wished to guard against its being supposed that he assented to a portion of this Bill, which some persons thought was a very essential part of it—namely, the third clause, by which it was proposed to make every speaker at a public meeting liable for words spoken to the same extent as if he had sat down and deliberately written and published them. He did not wish to discuss the question on the second reading of the Bill; but he begged to give notice that in Committee upon the Bill he should move that the clause to which he referred be struck out. In the Committee the question could be fully discussed.

said, he would also abstain from discussing the Bill at its present stage. He hoped there would be a discussion of the principle of the Bill, to a certain extent when it was in Committee. The law of libel affected the liberty of the subject almost more than any oilier branch of law. So far as he had heard every one of the petitions in favour of this Bill had originated, if not directly emanated, from parties who were interested in the matter—namely, the representatives of the Press. If there was any injustice whatever in the present law of libel, such was the elasticity of the Common Law of England that any man could go before a Court of Law and say, "Here is an unjustice, it is not right that a man should be punished for this transaction." If that could be made clear to the common sense of those who presided over the Court, they could adapt their decision according to the circumstances. If this Bill were passed, it would be impossible for any man to understand the law of libel. The Bill, which had been prepared in Ireland, struck at the root of freedom of speech. The Courts of Law, having administered the law of libel for centuries to the satisfaction of the country, the House was now called upon, for no valid reason, to take the matter into its own hands. He implored the House not to allow the laws of England to be hampered at the caprice of any hon. Irish Member, however learned or however eloquent, more especially if that hon. Member must be supposed, in his attempts to introduce such alterations, to be influenced by a spirit of favour to another system of laws which was in direct opposition to the laws of this country.

said, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) was mistaken in supposing that this Bill had been prepared in Ireland in the form in which it now came before the House. It underwent considerable examination and alteration last year in Committee of that House and in Select Committee. He did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, although it was a fair matter for discussion in Committee, whether the measure ought to receive the sanction of that House or not. There was an important principle involved in the Bill—he should rather say in the first section, by which it was proposed for the first time to allow an editor or proprietor of a newspaper to show that an alleged libel was a true and fair report of the proceedings at a meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose, open to reporters for the public newspapers, and at which a reporter was present for the purpose of reporting the proceedings of such a meeting for a public newspaper, and that the report was published in such newspaper by the defendant bonâ fide, without malice, and in the ordinary course of business, and to allow "not guilty" by statute to be pleaded, under these circumstances to an action. It was a fair matter for discussion whether it was expedient that such an extensive alteration in the existing law of libel should be made. It was said that the Bill had been promoted merely in the interest of newspaper proprietors; but he should rather say that it had been introduced for the purpose of protecting the proprietors of newspapers from being liable to actions for libel in cases where they had admitted reports of speeches which, as far as they were aware, contained accurate statements of fact, and where they had published them without malice, merely for the purpose of informing the public upon matters of interest. It had been shown that, on more than one occasion, proprietors of newspapers had sustained considerable hardship in consequence of such reports not being privileged. The principal object of the Bill was to allow newspaper proprietors to publish the proceedings of meetings lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose with a certain amount of impunity, and to enable them to plead in the form pointed out by the Bill that the report was an accurate report of those proceedings, published without malice and in the ordinary course of business. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) had objected to the third clause, by which a speaker of defamatory words at the description of meeting contemplated by the Act was rendered liable to an action for libel. Now, the speaker at such a meeting would be perfectly well aware that his words would be reported in the newspapers and circulated, and that was very different from the case of a man making use of hasty words under circumstances where he could not suppose they would be published. He knew that there was a marked distinction between the law of slander and that of libel, but it was all founded on this—that words uttered orally were fleeting, and were not intended to be permanent. But the distinction in fact between slander and libel was much modified at the present day. At all events, if the first clause of the Bill was carried, and they allowed reports of the proceedings of public meetings to be privileged, they should afford a person defamed by a speaker some opportunity of coming into Court and showing that the charges that had been brought against him were false. The subject was a fair one for discussion in Committee, when he should state at greater length his reasons for believing that some clause should be inserted in the Bill giving the person prejudiced by words published an opportunity of disproving the truth of the charges made against him.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) in introducing this Bill in November last, intimated that the Bill would have been passed into a law in the previous Session had it not been for his (Mr. Ayrton's) opposition to it, and, in truth, the remarks of the hon. and learned Member, instead of being addressed to the merits of the Bill, had rather been addressed to his demerits. In his opinion the Bill had passed through that. House last Session in consequence of an assurance that it would go no further. Being one of the many efforts of the hon. and learned Member for the benefit of mankind it was suffered to pass in the full conviction that it never could be recognized as part of the law of the land. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the Bill had been approved by an illustrious Committee; but, as far as he could test the opinion of that Committee, he did not think that they had been so highly in favour of the Bill as the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. A very eminent Member of that Committee disapproved of one fundamental principle of the Bill, while another had told him that he regarded the Bill as most mischievous. It was clear that some distinguished Members of the Committee did not appreciate the legal difficulties of the Bill. He was prepared to show that, even upon the principles which had been laid down, the leading provisions of the Bill ought to be struck out. He was, however, willing to permit it to be read a second time on the understanding that he should take the opportunity of examining into the character of its provisions in Committee. He was ready to admit that the Bill contained some clauses which, when amended, might be useful; and that the clause which placed prosecutions for libel upon the same footing with another class of prosecutions would effect a desirable amendment in the law. The remarks of the Attorney General would be found on examination to furnish no satisfactory reason for adopting the provisions of the Bill. It was said that the Bill was introduced for the benefit of newspaper proprietors. That might be so; but the question was, whether newspapers proprietors ought not to be treated like others who entered into commercial enterprises for their own profit and advantage, and whether they should not incur the responsibility that naturally attached itself to such enterprises. He could not understand how Parliament could pass a law by which a man deriving profit from an undertaking should be protected from all the consequence that might arise from his own negligence in the conduct of that undertaking. If he were to sum up in a few words his opinion of this Bill, he should say that it was an attempt to degrade by law one of the most honourable and useful, and, at the same time, most intellectual professions—that of reporting for the public journals—to the level of a mere mechanical process. The effect of the Bill if carried would be to induce newspaper proprietors to employ mere mechanical reporters, mere stenographers, at a salary of a few shillings per week, to take down the words of a speaker, and write them out just as they were uttered, instead of engaging gentlemen of education, intelligence, and discrimination, who were competent to perform the task of reporting a speech in conformity with decency and with law. The Bill was just such a one as the most ignorant and ill-disposed members of trade unions demanded, in order to enable them to escape the consequences of their illegal acts. It would be a great misfortune if a class of ignorant and incompetent persons were, by an Act which afforded them protection from the responsibility which naturally attached itself to their profession, placed upon an equality with gentlemen of education and intelligence. He thought the subject was a very grave one, as it involved the high character of the press of this country. If this Bill were passed he was afraid it would prove but the first step in a course of legislation which would be likely to endanger that freedom of the press which we at present enjoyed. He had used his best efforts to free the press from the fetters imposed upon it by taxation, and he should deeply regret to see it oppressed by a censorship of any kind. On a future occasion a much wider view of this subject would have to be taken than that suggested by the Attorney General, whose address upon this Bill, instead of being that of a statesman, had been that of a nisi prius lawyer fresh from the defence of his client. And before the Bill was passed he should like to see some one on the Treasury Bench — if such a person ever sat there—capable of grappling with great public questions, who would enter into this grave question with earnestness, instead of allowing the time of the House to be frittered away in listening to legal quibbles.

said, he was convinced, from the evidence which had been laid before the Select Committee appointed to consider this Bill, and of which he was a Member, that the Press of this country was entitled to some legislative protection against vexatious actions for libel, which were frequently brought by speculative attorneys and involved costs amounting to hundreds, if not thousands of pounds, even although only one farthing damages might be awarded to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances he was prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that several material alterations should be made in it in Committee. Although he was willing to give reasonable protection to the proprietors of newspapers against vexations actions, he was by no means prepared to go the length of exempting them altogether from the necessity for the exercise of that discretion which everybody was bound to use in dealing with the affairs of other people. The first clause of the Bill proposed to give newspaper proprietors the opportunity of pleading that the report complained of was published without malice, and that it was a true and faithful report, produced in the ordinary course of their business. It further provided that the proof this plea should amount to a defence. He thought it would be an improvement that such plea should be received in evidence, but that it should be left to the Court to decide whether such proof in all cases constituted a defence. He confessed he was unwilling to take from the Court a discretion upon this point. It might so happen that though there was no malice on the part of a newspaper proprietor in publishing a certain matter, he might nevertheless be made the means of circulating the malicious statements of others. The provision in the third clause requiring the person uttering the defamatory words to publish a retractation of them in the same newspaper in which his speech had appeared was, in his opinion, not quite satisfactory, seeing that a large number of the edition containing the libel might be circulated throughout the country, while a limited number of copies of the paper only might be published containing the retractation. Something ought to be done to secure the defendant, in a vexatious action, his costs. While he was of opinion that the Press should be free from all previous restraints, he had never gone the length of saying that it ought to be exempted from those penalties which justly fell on it, for the careless or culpable circulation of calumnious and libellous matter. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) that it was not advisable to alter the law of slander in the way proposed by the Bill, nor in any way to curtail the liberty of speech, for the sake of giving protection to the newspaper proprietors. It might frequently happen that at vestry and other meetings a speaker might properly, on public grounds, bring against a person provisional charges which called for investigation; and it would be unfair, in such a case, to render the speaker at once liable to an action for libel. He should give his assent to the second reading of the Bill, with the view of agreeing to such Amendments as the discussion in Committee might show to be right.

said, he also had served upon the Select Committee upon this Bill, and fully appreciated the great difficulty that existed in dealing with this question. He agreed, on the one hand, that the Press should be freed from all undue restrictions, while, on the other, it should be rendered answerable for any abuse of its privileges. As to the question whether the provision in the Bill rendering a speaker amenable for the words he used should be retained, he must inform the House that the clause as it now stood was altered to its present form in Select Committee. The case of a man who deliberately used words at a meeting where he knew reporters were present for the purpose of publishing his speech was very different from that of the man who casually uttered words which he believed would, in all human probability, go no further, and it was worth the consideration of the House whether some difference should not be made in the law with regard to the two cases. The words of the Bill upon this point were very precise, as they strictly limited its operation to a certain class of meetings at which reporters were known to be present. On the whole was it not of great advantage to the public that publicity should be given to the proceedings at the vast number of public meetings at which reporters were present? The question must be judged by the balance of convenience. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had objected to relieve those who published newspapers from their responsibility, on the ground that by adopting such a course Parliament would be degrading the office of reporter. But when hon. Members recollected what the gentlemen of that profession—whose vast skill and accuracy in recording speeches he readily admitted — had to do they would see that it was hardly possible that they could think of anything except of making a faithful transcript of the speaker's words; and really this was all they had to do. It was, therefore, not the reporters, but the proprietors of newspapers, for whose relief the Bill had been introduced, and even they had but little time for exercising their discretion as to what should and what should not be published. It was sometimes extremely difficult to determine what was and what was not a libel, and frequently it puzzled both Judge and jury to determine the question, and yet newspaper proprietors were expected to arrive at a sound legal conclusion at a few minutes' notice. Under these circumstances, he thought that, trying the question by the balance of convenience, it was preferable that the newspaper proprietors should be protected when giving faithful reports of such meetings as were contemplated by the Bill than that they should be made defendants in actions whether real or vexatious, brought against them by those who felt aggrieved by the language of the speakers. It was not right that the newspaper proprietors should be subject to such actions while those who uttered the defamatory words in the presence, perhaps, of 5,000 people, with the foil knowledge that they would be reported and published, escaped scot free. He had assented to the Bill in the form in which it left the Select Committee, and unless he heard stronger reasons against it than had yet been adduced he should support it in Committee.

said, he did not intend at that moment to enter into any general defence of the Bill, believing that the House was favourable to its second reading, and that it would be better to discuss it clause by clause when they got into Committee, as each of the first five clauses involved an important principle. Under these circumstances, he should fix the Committee for such a day as would enable the whole subject to be fully discussed. In answer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), he begged to state that he had not charged that hon. and learned Gentleman with having prevented the Bill from passing into a law, but merely with having prevented it from getting into the House of Lords in sufficient time for it to be carried last Session. The Bill was introduced last March twelvemonth, and after being read a second time, was referred to a Select Committee, which included among its Members the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), the Attorney General, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). Having been fully considered by that Committee, the Bill in an altered shape came down to that House, and was discussed clause by clause in Committee. On the third reading of the Bill the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets thought fit to put a Notice upon the Paper to read the Bill a third time on that day six months, but was beaten upon a division by 79 to 18. The effect of that notice was to delay the Bill in this House so long that it could not be considered in the Lords last Session. The first clause of the Bill was agreed to unanimously by the Select Committee, and Clause 3, which was objected to by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir R. Collier), was the result of a compromise, and was agreed to by a large majority of the Select Committee. He should be prepared to defend the principles of these clauses in Committee.

gave his cordial support to the Bill, which he believed was very much wanted. Newspaper proprietors had done their duty admirably, and should not be subject to such restrictions as at present. Being a great reader of newspapers, and a subscriber during thirty-five years to no less than nineteen of them, he thought he was entitled to express an opinion on the subject.

objected to its terms as giving too much power to medical officers of health.

agreed with the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis), and said that in legislating on this subject they must take care not to introduce continental despotism.

said, this was one of the most useful clauses of the Bill.

complained that as the clause was now drawn the report of the officer of health could be carried out without giving the owner of the premises notice, and his only remedy would be by an appeal. The clause ought to be amended so as to give him notice in the first instance, and allow him to be heard upon the complaint made of the state of his property.

said, this clause merely provided how the Act was to be put in motion. The subsequent clauses provided for carrying into effect the medical officer's report. The objection might more properly be taken upon the 8th clause.

objected to the clause and to the whole scope and substance of the Bill, on the ground that it would lead to an enormous extent of taxation. Knowing that in Marylebone the limit of endurance had been reached with reference to local taxation he hoped the House would reject the clause. The medical officer was not only to inspect streets and premises, but to report if their condition, state, and situation were injurious or prejudicial to health. There was not a town in the kingdom where exception might not be taken to the situation of houses; and were they on the mere report of the officer of health to have them swept away? This Bill was not required; for more had been done during the last ten years to improve the dwellings of the labouring classes than had been done in the previous 100 years.

thought it was not within the province of the Committee to renew the discussion on the policy of the measure. The Bill had been twice read a second time, and would have gone through Committee but for want of time. He defended the provision contained in this clause as beneficial and necessary.

said, there was hardly a street that might not be swept away under the clause. A medical officer might have reported at one time against that House on the ground that its situation in proximity to the Thames was prejudicial to health, and have had it swept away.

said, he would remind the Committee that the clause was identical with that in the Building Act; so that it was not new. All the clause imposed was that the medical officer should report; and as the principle had been previously affirmed by the House, it was their duty to endeavour to bring the Bill into such a shape as that it should be just to the ratepayers and beneficial to the inhabitants of these miserable and wretched dwellings. This clause, after all, merely provided for a report which need not be carried out. The question of increasing the rates was a material one, and deserved consideration.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) would divide the Committee on the clause. They ought to use very great caution before adopting it. He thought it would be very difficult to find an officer of health whose discretion would warrant their intrusting to him the carrying of this clause into operation.

thought the objection of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) should have been taken at an earlier stage of the inquiry. He had no respect for any man who dared to get up in the House and say the dwellings of the poor were not a disgrace to the country. It was all very well to talk about sweeping away districts—that was all clap-trap. He was in favour of the Bill in the main, and he feared that, if it were now thrown over, legislation upon this important question would be for a long time delayed. He was surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) to the measure; and he thought that hon. Gentlemen who went to the hustings with professions of anxiety for the welfare of the working man on their lips ought to carry out those professions practically in the House.

said, he trusted the opposition to the clause would be withdrawn. All it did was to carry out to a further extent than had hitherto been done the policy of the Act of 1855. It simply provided that if a house was in a certain bad and unhealthy condition it should be brought under the notice of the local authorities. That, he considered, was a very necessary provision in order to rescue the poor from the consequences of the past neglect of the Legislature. As to the expense he trusted the House would put the expense incurred for the metropolis on the metropolis.

suggested a modification in the terms of the clause. He was friendly to the measure; but he thought that the scope of the duties assigned to the officer of health was too wide, and he wished to restrict the duties of the surveyor by leaving out the word "prejudicial." "injurious" or "dangerous" was quite sufficient.

said, other parties besides the inhabitants of Marylebone had petitioned against the Bill, and the clause under discussion would be so exceedingly expensive in the carrying of it out that practically it would be inoperative. He thought a clause ought to be introduced into the Bill to provide that a certain, number of cubic feet of air should be provided for each person by the construction of the dwelling.

moved an Amendment to the effect that the contents of the report of the local officer of health affecting the premises of any person should be communicated to that person, in order that he might have an opportunity of removing the nuisances complained of, without the necessity of his being summoned in the first instance before the quarter sessions or the magistrates.

thought that until the Committee had determined by whom the orders were to be made, they were not in a position to go on with the Bill.

proposed an Amendment which he thought would meet the view of the hon. Gentleman—namely, that a copy of the inspector's report be delivered to the person whose premises were reported to be unhealthy.

suggested that an alteration should be made, for the purpose of giving a discretion to the local authorities. As the clause stood the local authorities would have to carry out the suggestions of the local inspector.

moved an Amendment that would substitute "fourteen days" for "three calendar months," with the view of preventing owners postponing the execution of works for too long a period.

said, the clause as it stood was an exact copy of one which had for some years been working in the most satisfactory manner in Liverpool.

said, that as this was the case he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved to omit the words "subject to the provisions of this Act with reference to the use thereof," his object being to leave the owners of property interfered with under the Act in the same condition as other owners of property.

objected to the proposal.

objected to the effect it must have upon the disposal of the ground from which premises should be removed. It would, he contended, if adopted, impose a restraint upon the use of the land even for purposes that might be desirable for the public good or for the private advantage of the owner. By various local Acts, in force in almost all the large towns, there was ample power given to the local authorities to regulate the erection of buildings, he proposed to omit certain words, to get rid of the objectionable effect of the clause.

observed that the clause was simply conditional, and could not be acted upon without the previous assent of the local authorities.

remarked that the point under discussion was one with reference to which previous legislation had failed. It happened that, after the ground was cleared, there were instances of warehouses and sheds being erected on the site, thus preventing the free circulation of the air, and causing an evil as great as the one intended to be redressed by the clearing of the ground. In fact, a very high price was paid for improvements by the local authorities, and when the money was paid, the site was turned to private and individual purposes, This was a point that required very careful consideration, and he suggested its postponement to enable them to go carefully through it.

could not see on what principle severe restrictions should be placed upon a man who, having pulled down his old property, was about to rebuild it.

did not think there could be any objection to the local authorities exercising powers to prevent any deviation from the rule they may lay down as to the erection of buildings.

thought that all the requirements of the case could be met without the operation of this clause, and if his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) persevered with his Amendment to strike it out, he should go into the Lobby with him.

thought that the operation of this clause would be very useful, especially in many districts of London, where the powers of the local authorities were far from sufficient to cope with cases which this clause was framed especially to meet.

thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and which had been accepted by the author of the Bill, would answer every purpose; and therefore he hoped the hon. Member for Cambridge would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved an Amendment enabling building companies, as well as the local authorities, to erect dwellings for the labouring classes.

proposed the omission of the words after the word "first" in line 5, down to the word "authority" in line 8, for the purpose of inserting the following words:—

"Dispose of by way of absolute sale or exchange — or for a lease for a period of not less than ninety-nine years—any part of the premises acquired by them under this Act, so as to provide thereby for the construction of new buildings or the repair or improvement of existing buildings thereon suitable for the occupation of the labouring classes."

thought that if power was given to the local authorities to turn working people out of their dwellings on the ground that they were unhealthy, the local authorities ought to be compelled to provide better dwellings for them.

said, if the object of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) was not to prevent the local authorities from being obliged to erect new dwellings for the poor, there was no necessity for the Amendment. He apprehended that the hon. Member's object was to relieve the local authorities of that responsibility, and therefore he should oppose the Amendment.

denied that that was his object.

thought there was no necessity for the Amendment. The local authorities within seven years would be obliged to divest themselves of all property which they had acquired under this measure.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved an Amendment to restrict the maximum rate to 1d., instead of 3d., in the pound.

pointed out that the power to go up to the maximum was permissive, and not compulsory.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire, work, and maintain Electric Telegraphs in the United Kingdom, said, he was sorry that he had not a more convenient opportunity to ask leave to introduce the Bill of which he had given notice; but the business of the last week had been so engrossing, that he had not been able to find a more convenient one. He was afraid that the time now at his disposal was so limited that he should not be able to detail to the House at any great length the scheme of the Government; but he would endeavour to give all the information which he thought the House could expect. The Bill was to enable the Postmaster General to acquire, maintain, and work electric telegraphs. In this country they had been in the habit of leaving to private enterprise the administration of most of the internal affairs of the country; but there had always been one exception, and that had been with regard to postal communication. He believed it had been with the entire assent and approbation of the community that that postal communication had been a monopoly in the hands of the Government. He would submit to the House that telegraphic and postal communication might be considered as coming within the same category. Both provided means for communication between correspondents at a distance, and it was only in the mode of conveying that correspondence that there was any difference. He thought it would be admitted that that which had succeeded so well with regard to the conveyance of letters might be expected to succeed equally well with regard to telegraphic communication. He was not aware of any reason having been urged against monopoly in the one case that would not hold good as regarded the other. It might be asked, for what reason was the change proposed? First of all, he thought he should be able to show by statistics that this country was behind other countries with regard to telegraphic communication, and he would quote a few figures which would show that this was the case. Now, he would take two countries—Switzerland and Belgium. He took the proportion of telegrams to letters in those two countries, and in the United Kingdom, for the year 1860, and it appeared that we were very far behind Switzerland and Belgium with respect to the proportion of telegrams to letters. In that year there was in Belgium one telegram to 218 letters; in Switzerland there was one telegram to 84 letters; while in the United Kingdom there was one telegram to 296 letters. He went on to the year 1863, when in Belgium there was one telegram to 114 letters; in Switzerland, one telegram to 74 letters; while in the United Kingdom there was only one telegram to 197 letters. Coming down to 1866, he found that there was in Belgium one telegram to 37 letters; in Switzerland, one telegram to 69 letters; but in the United Kingdom there was only one telegram to 121 letters. The great increase in the proportion of telegrams to letters in Belgium, from one in 218 in the year 1860 to one in 114 in the year 1863, was traceable to the reduction of the tariff from 1½f. to 1f.; and the further increase to one in 37 in the year 1866 was due to the reduction of the charge from 1f. to half a franc. This, he thought, showed that we were suffering from too high a rate for telegraphic communications, and if we were equally favoured with those countries, the probability was that telegraphic communication would be largely increased. We in this country were more likely to use telegraphic communications, if within our reach, than they were in the countries he had named, and for this reason, that the United Kingdom being of a much greater extent, we should save more time by communicating by telegraph instead of by letter than they could in these small countries. He had shown, therefore, the backwardness of this country as regarded telegraphic communication, and he would now endeavour to show the House that the present system did not give satisfaction to the commercial world. Last year a deputation from the Associated Chambers of Commerce waited upon himself and the Postmaster General at the Treasury on this subject, and they presented a memorial, and also petitioned Parliament on it. They complained—first, of high rates; secondly, of vexatious delays; thirdly, of inaccurate rendering of messages; and fourthly, of the absence of telegraphic communication in whole districts. Now, with respect to rates—the rates for messages were as follow: In the United Kingdom, for 100 miles 1s. for twenty words; for over 100 miles and under 200 miles, 1s. 6d.; for over 200 miles, 2s.; and between Great Britain and Ireland, 4s. To show the relation of charges in foreign countries to those of the United Kingdom: France for a distance of 600 miles charges for twenty words 1s. 8d.—the charge in Great Britain was 2s.; in Prussia, for 500 miles the charge was 1s. 6d. against 2s. in England; in Belgium, for 160 miles, the charge was 5d., against 1s. 6d. in Great Britain; and Switzerland charged 5d. for 200 miles, against 1s. 6d. in Great Britain. He thought that under the present system of private telegraphic communication there was not much prospect of any great reduction of rates; because the companies now concerned in telegraphic business paid dividends to shareholders, and because the administration being divided between different companies—there being four companies, besides railway companies who sent messages—the cost of administration must be greater than if it were in the hands of one body—namely, the State. He believed, therefore, that if the business of telegraphy were a monopoly of the Postmaster General he would be able to work at much lower rates, and at the same time to make the thing pay. The shortness of the time at his disposal obliged him to go at once to the provisions of the Bill he proposed to introduce. The Bill was not compulsory in its terms. It proposed to give the Post-master General power to put chase the undertaking of any telegraph company in the United Kingdom. But as it was obvious that if the Postmaster General were to acquire one or two undertakings he would be able injuriously to affect the other companies not so purchased, it was proposed that in the case of his purchasing one undertaking, any or all of the other companies concerned in conveying telegraphic messages should be able to compel him to purchase their undertakings at a price arranged by arbitration. Then with regard to the railway companies. There had been some difficulty with respect to them. There were, as they knew, some railway companies which either themselves or by means of lessees, worked the telegraphic wires for their own business, and also conveyed messages for the public; and it was thought that some of these companies might be unwilling to relinquish the use of their wires for their own railway purposes; while at the same time, if a Government competition were established, they would lose that profit which they now-acquired from conveying messages for the public. A provision had therefore been made in the Bill, that, in the case of railway companies having wires used for that joint purpose, they should be able to compel the Postmaster General to purchase their right to convey messages for the public, so that those companies would be left in the same position, as regarded profit and loss, as they were in under existing arrangements. He would say that that power to compel the Postmaster General to acquire those works was limited to a period of twelve months from the passing of the Act, or from the acquisition of the first undertaking, he forgot which.

here called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that it was a quarter to six o'clock.

then moved that leave be given to introduce the Bill.

rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill sought to give exclusive power.

here intimated that the time during which any discussion could be taken had passed.