said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, in which they point out the serious evil caused by the present system of indiscriminate committals by magistrates of persons as dangerous lunatics, who do not properly come under that description; and to inquire, if it is the intention of the Government at once to provide a remedy for this serious and rapidly increasing evil?

said, in reply, that the subject had not escaped his attention. He agreed with the noble Lord that the matter had become a very serious evil, as the magistrates had unfortunately been in the habit of committing lunatics, under the character of dangerous, many who did not come under that description. He had prepared a Circular, which was about to be issued to all magistrates, on the subject, and he hoped that would go far to cure the evil.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will introduce a Bill next Session to extend, beyond the 1st of July 1870, such modications of the Factory and Workshops Acts of 1867, more especially those relating to male young persons above the age of sixteen, as have been proved to be necessary or advantageous, "but which would otherwise cease on that day; and, whether he will deal with the whole subject of the Laws relating to the employment of women, young persons, and children by a consolidating and amending Statute?

said, in reply, that the subject to which the Question of his hon. Friend referred was one which deserved most serious consideration, and very probably it would be expedient to extend the period for the modifications of the Factory and Workshops Acts of 1867. He could hardly venture to undertake to deal next Session with the whole subject of the laws relating to the employment of women, young persons, and children by a consolidating and amending statute; but he would carefully consider how the Workshops Regulation Act could be further assimilated to the factory legislation.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has any objection to state if the Irish Government in making appointments to the office of resident-medical officer of district asylums will give a preference to candidates who can show that they have acquired a practical knowledge of the treatment of insanity, provided that they are in other necessary respects as fully qualified as their competitors?

said, in reply, that he did not think it advisable to lay down any absolute and sweeping rules, which generally did more harm than good; but his hon. Friend might rest assured that the Irish Government, whenever there was occasion to make such appointments, would not lose sight of the fact that practical knowledge was of the greatest importance in such cases. He had certainly never contemplated the possibility of making any such appointment without reference to that consideration.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the Government have decided upon taking any, and if any, what steps for adopting an authorized organization for extending the system of military labour to military works to all stations of Her Majesty's Army; if he has any objection, in framing the Estimates for the ensuing year, to have a side-note attached to each item under Vote 14, to show whether the work is to be undertaken by military or civilian labour; and, if he has any objection, under Vote 14, to show by a foot-note what is the actual military superintendence required, in addition to the civilian superintendence at present inserted in the Estimates?

said, in reply, that he was anxious to extend the system of military labour as far as possible, and he was in communication with the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief with reference to the necessary details. He could only say that next year he would endeavour to give as much information as possible in the shape of foot-notes to the Estimates.

said, he would bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question, of which he had given him private notice. Some two years ago a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject of accidents in mines, and he presumed that it was in consequence of the Report of that Committee that Government this Session brought in a Bill consisting of two parts —the first intended to prevent accidents in mines; the other dealing with the question of education, and the age at which children should be admitted into the mines. A few days ago his right hon. Friend announced that he intended to drop this Bill, so that there would be no legislation on this subject. And yet it was only in the month of June last that sixty persons were killed; and only the other day any person who opened a newspaper must have been shocked to see that between fifty and sixty men were burnt, crushed, or choked to death in a mine. Now, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend, seeing that the number of accidents was so great, and it was admitted that they could be prevented by legislation, Whether it would not be possible during the present Session to pass, at least, the preventive part of the Bill; or, if that were not possible, whether it would not be within the power of the Government, even under existing Acts, to make the Inspection of Mines more complete and efficient by increasing the number of Inspectors? If this were not done then eighteen months would elapse without any legislation being possible. He also wished to ask whether any special inquiry would be instituted into the late accident, with a view to guard against similar accidents for the future?

said, in reply, that the part of the Bill to which his noble Friend referred—that relating to accidents—was by far the largest part of the measure, and that on which most Notices of Amendment had been given, so that he had no hope of passing such a Bill during the present Session. But, moreover, he must say that while he had seen with grief the accidents to which the noble Lord referred, he must remind him that it was not to any deficiency of legislation that those accidents were to be attributed. Those accidents arose from the neglect of proper ventilation, and if inspectors were to be appointed to see that the ventilation was efficient in all our mines—especially at this dangerous season of the year—an addition of 500 inspectors would be absolutely necessary. The Government had never undertaken to inspect collieries so as to put them in a state of security. What they did was to appoint inspectors to examine the mines when there was reason to suppose they were in a state of insecurity; and it was impossible that that duty could be efficiently performed unless there was regular communication between the workmen and the inspector. He regretted to say that the existing Act had failed mainly from this want of communication. Notice of the insecure state of a mine was not given to the inspector in proper time, so that an inspection might take place. He could not, therefore, give his noble Friend any hope of an increased number of inspectors to ascertain the state of all collieries. As to a special inquiry, he had to state that an inspector was always sent down to the place whore an accident happened, and if it was thought necessary that an additional inspector should be sent down in the present instance it would be done.

I desire to call attention to a matter personal to myself. On Saturday last there appeared in The Times newspaper a letter under the signature of the First Commissioner of Works in which allusion is made to me. If it was the letter of an ordinary individual I should have passed it by with- out notice; but coming as it does from a very high quarter, being a letter of a responsible Minister of the Crown, and of the Minister, moreover, responsible for the Department which is referred to in the letter, it is impossible for me to allow it to pass without comment. I am also guided in the course I now take by another consideration. Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have always conceived that when a question arose as to a Parliamentary matter between two Members of Parliament, it ought to be decided not in the columns of a newspaper, but in the House itself in which the question arose. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is an accomplished writer of letters to the newspapers, but I decline to follow him into that arena; I submit that the question ought to be determined here, where, if the conduct of a Member be reviewed or criticized, he would have an opportunity of reply—in short, that the question ought to have ended where it began. I hold in my hand a copy of this letter, which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have written in order to correct a misrepresentation of a statement that he made in the House in reference to the pictures of Sir Charles Eastlake. If the right hon. Gentleman had confined himself merely to a correction of a supposed inaccuracy in the report, that would have been perfectly legitimate. But he went altogether beyond that limit in the two paragraphs of the letter which I shall now proceed to read to the House. It is addressed to the editor of The Times, and begins—

"Sir,—The public probably do not take much interest in the periodical criticisms of the Member for Whitehaven upon the pictures in the National Gallery."

Passing by the question of taste whether it is a right thing or not for a responsible Minister of the Crown to speak thus of another Member of this House, and passing by the question also whether any Member has not a right to comment on the pictures in the National Gallery, I come to the question of fact; and I say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in substance from first to last. I am surprised, after what occurred on Thursday night, that the right hon. Gentleman did not consult Hansard on this point, or, at least, did not instruct somebody else to consult Hansard for Mm. Had he done so, he would have found that since I have had the honour of a seat in this House—now for eleven Sessions of Parliament—before Thursday last I had never but once made an observation upon the pictures in the National Gallery [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman smiles. The right hon. Gentleman is not remarkable in this House, or elsewhere, for very great accuracy of statement; but I apprehend that the records of the House are well known for their accuracy in this respect. The only previous occasion on which I have made a statement in this House on the subject of the pictures in the National Gallery was in 1863, six years ago, when I addressed a question to the then Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. F. Peel. My question and his answer will be found in the report. In the following year I made an observation upon the National Gallery Estimate, but that referred entirely to the site of the National Gallery, and had nothing to do with any criticism of the pictures. Having disposed of that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I go to the next. The right hon. Gentleman says—

"Mr. Bentinck has stated that the pictures which the late Sir Charles Eastlake requested might be offered to the nation for the sum which he paid for them were sold to the representatives of the National Gallery for a very much higher price."

That was not what I stated, and my assertion on this point will be confirmed not only by those hon. Members who were present at the time, but by such other means as we possess, although not formally recognized by the House, of verifying the statements made by hon. Members. My statement was to this effect—that whereas it was currently reported that Sir Charles Eastlake had left some directions that his pictures were to come to the nation at the prices which he had paid for them, I had discovered that two pictures which Sir Charles Eastlake had bought had been sold by his representatives to the nation for a sum upwards of £2,000 in excess of that paid for them to the original owners. That was the statement which I made, and it was so reported. I hold that it was a perfectly legitimate statement to make, and the question founded upon it was a proper and pertinent question for an independent Member to address to the Government. It was to that question that the right hon. Gen- tleman gave his reply, and I expressed my satisfaction with that reply. But the right hon. Gentleman did more; he charged me with having spoken in severe terms in this House against the representatives of Sir Charles Eastlake. I denied that charge at the time, and I defied the right hon. Gentlemen to produce his authorities. Under these circumstances I felt it my duty to call the attention of the House to this matter, in order that I might reiterate those denials, and to submit that the public newspapers are not the proper places for questions of this kind to be discussed. It is not fit that independent Members in this House should, be browbeaten and terrified by guerilla warfare in newspapers. If such a course is to be adopted by Ministers of the Crown, and hon. Members were to be afraid to get up in their places and express their true opinion upon matters under discussion, they would be unworthy of the confidence their constituents have reposed in them.

Sir, I really do not know of what the hon. Member has to complain. He has now stated in almost the identical words I used what I said the other night. On Thursday night I stated that the observations of the hon. Member had given considerable pain to the representatives of Sir Charles Eastlake, of whom I may, to a certain extent, consider myself one. The condensed report of my speech that appeared in The Times newspaper gave an entirely wrong' meaning to my answer to the hon. Member. The meaning attached to my answer in that report was that the pictures had been sold to the nation at an increased price over that given for them by Sir Charles Eastlake, and that I justified the transaction on the ground of the increased market value of the pictures. Being thus misreported, I thought it only just and right at once to write to The Times, and explain what I really did say upon that occasion. The hon. Member appears to be rather forgetful of what occurs in this House. Only last year he reminded us that the picture which he condemned, because it had been cleaned—

I was not present in this House last year during the discussion upon the Estimates for the National Gallery.

rose to move that the Vote for the Fishery Board be reduced by the sum of £5,766 13s. 5d. He did not think there was likely to be any opposition to his Motion on the ground of principle; for although he saw several Commissioners of the Board present in the House, he did not think they would come forward to uphold the Board. Anyone who had looked at the last Report of the Board could only wonder what these gentlemen could find to do. In that very Report the Commissioners speak strongly of the great benefit which the passing of the Sea Fisheries Act had conferred upon the country; and that very Act transferred the powers of the Fishery Board to the Board of Trade. Here he thought it ought to rest, and that the Board should no longer exist. A great deal had been done in the abolition of the brands that were formerly put upon fish. Long ago they had abandoned branding in the case of ling and codfish, but the branding of herrings was continued. It was thought by the fish-curers to be an advantage; and when in 1855 a Treasury Minute was passed declaring that the system of branding ought to be put an end to, the fish-curers made a stir about it, and the branding was continued on condition that the fishcurers should pay certain fees—4d. a barrel and 2d. a half-barrel—towards the expenditure. The sum received from branding and some other sources of income amounted to £4,500, and there was an annual grant of £3,000 in aid of piers and harbours; but as this rested on a statute of George IV. it was not competent for the Committee to deal with it. That grant, however, had been for some years, and would continue to be for some years more, applied to the works at Anstruther Harbour, where a great deal of last year's work had been destroyed by the severe storms of the winter. He did not see why all the harbours could not be managed like the Wick Harbour, which was supported and managed without any such external assistance at all. With, regard to the herring branding, not a single brand "was ever used or wanted on the West Coast of Scotland, and therefore he did not see why any officers should be kept there for branding purposes; and surely the income of £4,531 was quite sufficient to meet all the necessary expenditure on the East Coast. The Vote, therefore, might be usefully reduced by £5,766 13s. 5d., which sum might be applied to other and more important objects. The mea- sure of Scottish education which was now before Parliament, which he supposed would pass, would require some outlay, which, he was sorry to say, had been refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had dealt with the subject in a rather niggardly fashion; and the money taken from this Vote might be applied in carrying out that measure.

said, his constituents were deeply interested, in this subject, and he strongly opposed the reduction of the Vote in so far as it related to piers and harbours. In so far at least as the erection of those pier and harbour works was concerned, he contended that they were properly public works and ought not to be left in the hands of private parties. The fishermen were too poor to pay for these erections, which were the only security the State provided for the benefit of these industrious men, whose lives were frequently in great peril. He trusted, therefore, the House would pause before agreeing to the reduction of this part of the Vote—which, indeed, he thought ought to be doubled, or even trebled, rather than reduced.

reminded the House that on two occasions Royal Commissions, which had been appointed to inquire into this subject of piers and harbours, had recommended that the Votes, so far from being reduced, should be augmented. His impression was, that instead of £3,000 the sum ought to be £6,000. With regard to the question of branding, he had taken some trouble to ascertain the views of those concerned on the subject, and he found that they were pretty equally divided for and against the system. With respect, however, to the Vote for the piers and harbours, there could be no doubt whatever that it was more and more than ever required. It was impossible to exaggerate the loss of life which occurred every year on the East Coast of Scotland. Considering the very small amount of public money that was given to Scotland, he was astonished to find a Scotch Member proposing to withdraw this comparatively small sum—a sum which even now was quite inadequate for the purposes to which it was applied. He was aware that some persons desired the abolition of the Fishery Board; but he should be very sorry to see that course adopted.

complained that, while ample provision was made for the supervision and proper conducting of the Scotch fisheries, there was no such provision made for the Irish fisheries at all. In Ireland there was not a single vessel sent by the Admiralty to look after the fisheries, notwithstanding that the sending of such a vessel had been strongly recommended. When a deputation of Irish Members waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advocate the necessity of a loan for the Irish fisheries, one of the principal reasons for refusing the loan was that it would tend only to promote individual interests. Looking, however, to the Returns with respect to the Scotch fisheries, which were supposed to be maintained for the benefit of the public at large, he found that, in 1863, no less than 306,822 barrels of herrings were exported to foreign parts. He trusted there would be some "levelling up" in this matter, and that a little more justice would be done to Ireland with respect to her fisheries.

believed that with regard to the Fishery Board, it was the opinion of a large proportion of the Scotch Members that this institution was totally unnecessary. He certainly thought that £5,000 a year was too much to pay for mere supervision. He would beg to point out that the Vote in which the fate of the Fishery Board was involved did not affect the Vote for piers and harbours.

said, he entirely approved of the sentiments which had been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, and could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for the University of Edinburgh as to the necessity for a new inquiry, after the inquiries which had already taken place and the recommendations which previous Commissions had made on the subject. This was not an intricate matter. All that was required was to follow the principles of Free Trade—to leave the fishermen alone, as they left the ploughman alone, to do their work and sell as they pleased. The fact mentioned by the noble Lord (Viscount St. Lawrence) with respect to the amount of Scotch fish sent to foreign nations was one of the greatest compliments that could be paid to the industry of Scotland, and one of the best means of serving their common country. The main duty of the Board was to superintend the catching, picking, and branding of herrings; but surely that was not a duty to be undertaken by a Board sitting in Edinburgh. He thought the Fishery Board should be abolished root and branch, and that the duties of supervision should be left in the hands of the Board of Admiralty.

said, that whatever might be the merits or demerits of the Fishery Board, the Motion which had been made would only lead to confusion, and would not, if carried, really effect the object the hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd) had in view. The practical effect of carrying such a Motion would be to leave the Board without any money, and throw the whole machinery into confusion. It should not be forgotten that they were dealing with the most flourishing herring fishery in the world. Since the year 1810 it had grown in the most extraordinary manner — namely, from 90,000 barrels to 825,000 in the year 1867. During this time it had been under the management of the Fishery Board. The value of the property at stake was something over £1,000,000; and there could be no doubt that the fisheries afforded employment to large masses of the population. As regarded the matter of the brands, no doubt it was not defensible upon principles of political economy; but it should not be forgotten that this was one of the things which had grown up in the course of years, and was now so identified with the trade that the branded herring obtained the best price in the foreign market. He did not mean to say that if the system of branding was abolished the trade would not right itself in course of time. That might or might not be the case. But, in 1859, optional branding was substituted in lieu of compulsory branding, and the result was that the branding was as eagerly sought as it was before, and that the money derived from this source since the abolition had been during some years considerably in excess of what it was before. It should be remembered, too, that the services of the fishery officers were exceedingly valuable in the preservation of order among the fishermen; while, since the passing of the Sea Fisheries Act of last year, many duties had been imposed upon them which, if performed by others, would entail considerable expenditure. There could be no doubt that the harbour grant was bestowed upon works of great public utility. The small harbours of refuge along our coasts were far too few for our requirements, and indeed the subject was one which was well deserving the careful consideration of the Government. The number of lives annually lost, owing to the absence of these harbours, was not creditable either to the honour or the humanity of a great maritime country like this. But when it was said that the Board was unpopular, and that the attendance of the members was very lax, his hon. Friend would perhaps remember how totally a similar charge against the Board of Supervision of Sheriffs had collapsed. The Scotch people had a great objection to any system of centralization, and he doubted very much whether they would be content to see the duties at present performed by this Board intrusted to any body in England. He hoped, then, that the House would not consent to reduce the amount of this Vote.

said, that he was so convinced of the mismanagement of these Edinburgh Boards, that he would assert that if a Committee of the Treasury were to be sent to Edinburgh in the Recess to inquire into the mode in which Scotch affairs were managed, they would find that £12,000 a year could be saved by judicious management and economy. A good deal had been said about Anstruther Harbour. He had had nothing to do with the granting of any money for the purposes of the harbour; but he was far from admitting that the money so expended had been thrown, away. Indeed, he believed that the coasts of Scotland were lamentably in want of further expenditure of this nature. As to the question of branding, he did not desire do away with it if the fishermen preferred to continue the practice—what he objected to was that the public should be called on to pay for it. He thought, however, that they were better without it, and that the trade would have prospered if there had been no Fishery Board at all. Therefore, he quite supported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Ayr Burghs.

said, the fact was that the brand was paid for by those for whose benefit it had been established; when, many years ago, the branding was done at the public expense, the practice was objected to as being contrary to principle. Commissions were accordingly appointed to investigate the subject; and that of 1856 reported that although, the branding was indefensible in principle while paid for out of the public funds, it was desirable for the fishermen to have branding if they chose to pay for it out of their own pockets. Part of the Vote had no reference to branding at all, but to other duties imposed on the Board by Act of Parliament; and if they took away the money for paying engineers, inspectors, and other officers, the Board would be paralyzed for every purpose. If the Board was objected to, it might be abolished by Act of Parliament, but while it continued to exist and to act under the authority of Parliament, they could not consistently refuse to vote the money necessary to its existence.

said, he rose to call attention to the necessity for greater accuracy in the Statistical Returns for Trade and Navigation issued by the Board of Trade. His object was not to cast blame on individuals, but to improve the system. The purpose for which the Board of Trade Returns were compiled was to guide the commercial policy of the country, and to give information to those engaged in commercial transactions, and they ought, therefore, to be at least moderately accurate and speedy in their publication. It was because they were neither the one nor the other, but productive of positive mischief, that he desired to bring the matter under the notice of the House. He would first take the imports; and he would at once state that if the accuracy of his Returns were disputed he was prepared to give his authorities, and, if necessary, the names of the ships by which the articles were imported. The first article to which he would refer was that of rice. By the Board of Trade Returns for the month of January, 1868, the import was stated at 24,000cwt., while the quantity actually imported was 295,000cwt. In 1869 the Board of Trade gave the amount imported at 63,000cwt., while the actual import was 318,000cwt. He took these quantities from Messrs. Jackson and Till's circular. The next article to which he would refer was jute. In the months of January and February, 1868, the amount reported by the Board of Trade was 41,000cwt., while the actual quantity imported, according to Messrs. Barber's circular, was 248, 000cwt. In 1869, the Board of Trade gave 260,000 cwt., while the actual imports were 390,000cwt. He would now turn to an article of more interest connected with our home production—wool. It was essentially important, as far as possible, that accuracy should be observed in these Returns with reference to the interests of home producers and buyers. The wool imported from the East Indies in January, 1869, was stated by the Board of Trade to be 137,000 1b., whereas the actual import was 1,100,0001b. In February the import was stated by the Board of Trade at 1,500,000 1b., while the actual import was 800,0001b.; and in March the Board of Trade stated the import at 294,0001b., whereas the actual import was 641,0001b. Then, if he took Australian wool, which was a larger item of import, he found the quarterly returns gave this result—In the first quarter of 1868 the Board of Trade gave the import at 11,000,0001b., while the quantity actually imported was 36,000,0001b. In the second quarter the Board of Trade gave the import at 49,000,000lb., while the quantity imported was 78,000,000lb. In the third quarter the Board of Trade gave the import at 74,000,000 1b., while the actual import was only 37,000,0001b.; and in the fourth quarter the Board of Trade gave the import at 20,000,000lb., while the actual import was only 7,000,0001b., according to the authority of Messrs. Bowes Brothers, the well-known woolbrokers of Liverpool. To show the practical effect of these Returns, he would refer to the circular of Messrs. Simes and Co., wool-brokers, dated June 18. These gentlemen, relying on the Government Returns, gave the official tables of imports of Australian wool for four months ending on the 30th of April, 1869, at 52,000,000 1b., as against 24,000,0001b. in 1868, being an increase of 116 per cent, while the actual import was 77,000,000lb. in 1869 against 62,000,0001b. in 1868, during the same period, or only 25 per cent more. Now The Times of the 6th of May, referring to these Returns, said—

" The imports of Australian wool into the United Kingdom have made a great advance this year, having amounted to the 31st of March to 34,000,0001b. as compared with 11,000,0001b. in the corresponding three months of 1868."

No wonder the brokers added—" The market was depressed, and a reduction of Id.? to Id. per pound was submitted to." Here we have the foreign shipper and importer deceived, but the buyer is misled, and every producer of homegrown wool through the kingdom bases the value of his staple on imports which only exist in fancy. Glancing for a moment at cotton, the Board of Trade now issued two Returns—one, the Trade and Navigation Returns, the other under the Cotton Statistics Act. And what did he find? The import was 2,870,0001b. by the former, and 3,248,000lb. by the latter, or a difference of 378,000 lbs., more than one-fourth of the entire stock of the article held in this country; and this discrepancy between two official statements issued by the same Department! So much for the raw material. He would now touch on the manufactured article, and would compare the value of silk goods imported into the United Kingdom from France with the French Returns of silk goods exported from France into the United Kingdom during the three years 1865 to 1867 inclusive. The Board of Trade Returns gave the value of silk goods imported into the United Kingdom, during the three years 1865 to 1867 inclusive, at £21,355,000, while, by the French official Returns, £39,625,000, or nearly double, was given as the value of silk goods exported to the United Kingdom for the same period. The English Returns, however, did not include transhipment importations, which the French did. On the other hand, it was only fair to state that the French statistics were generally very accurate. Now, we hear much controversy about the working of the French Treaty; it is at this moment agitating the mind of the manufacturing interests of this country, and he would ask how was it possible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on such unreliable Returns as these? The Coventry Chamber of Commerce, writing recently to the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, made this remark—

"The Coventry Chamber of Commerce having reason to doubt the accuracy of the Board of Trade Returns of imports of foreign ribands, has made special inquiry into the matter, and find that the Returns are altogether unreliable. The Coventry Chamber of Commerce has reason to believe that the inaccuracy which has been found in the riband Returns exists also to a greater or less extent in the Returns of other imports not now subject to duty."

So much for the import tables. He had taken out but a few of the bulky articles, and he gave the House the result. Had time permitted him to have gone further, he had no doubt in every case the same inaccuracy would appear. He would now refer to exports, and he regretted that he could not deal so specifically with them as he could wish, owing to the unlimited character of the sources, and the difficulty of checking them without immense labour. He would therefore deal broadly with them. The Times of the 29th of June, in reviewing the last Returns, said—

" The Board of Trade Returns for the past month again entirely fail to harmonize with the current complaints of commercial stagnation. The declared value of our exportation shows an increase of £1,646,505, which is equal to an increase of 11 per cent on the total of the corresponding month of last year, and 2½ per cent on that of May, 1867. Of this augmentation nearly half arises from the cotton trade, and nearly half from the iron trade. Unless, therefore, the Manchester manufacturers are steadily shipping at a loss, the adverse accounts from that city must be deceptive, or the figures of these statistical Returns are not to be relied upon."

Now, all who were sufficiently conversant with the state of trade in the manufacturing districts must be aware that the doubts thrown on the accuracy of these figures afforded the proper solution of the matter, and that so far from shippers sending their goods to raise money, they were carrying on a most cautious trade. Probably at no recent period had there been a smaller trade in exports of manufactured goods than during the last six months, and it was preposterous to talk of increased exportation. There was a general feeling that the exports of this country were greatly exaggerated to a very large extent, especially in cotton goods. Those who had studied the subject believed that there had been an exaggeration of something like £20,000,000 in a single year. If he was rightly informed, the Board of Trade had at this moment the figures which support this statement under its consideration. The weight of cotton manufactured goods which must be sent out of the country, if the yearly values were correct, exceeded the total quantity of the raw material imported, leaving nothing for home consumption. It was, however, the system on which the exports were compiled to which he desired now to call attention. By the Trade and Navigation Returns it appeared that 113,000,000 yards of cotton goods were imported into Bombay in 1867, while the actual quantity was 316,000,000 yards, or a deficiency of no leas than 203,000,000 yards. Again, taking the first five months of this year, the Trade Returns gave 48,000,000 yards, while the actual shipment was 90,000,000 yards. The export of cotton cloth to Egypt in 1868 was put down at 223,000,000 yards, while the actual exports to that country were, according to the Liverpool Customs Returns, only 92.000,000 yards. He was so much puzzled by this discrepancy that he asked the two greatest shippers in the trade—Mr. Samuel Mendel and Messrs. John Pender & Co., for an explanation. The latter firm said—

" The important difference between the figures of the Board of Trade and our own arises from the circumstance that the former enters goods shipped via overland through Egypt as for that country, although the goods are intended for India. This makes it impossible to arrive at a correct estimate of the exports to Egypt and India respectively from the Board of Trade Returns, the former country being credited for a large importation of British goods which merely pass through on their way to India."

Mr. Mendel wrote on this point—

" For some three years I have not made use of the Board of Trade Returns, as I found them of little value for my purposes, it being necessary for me to keep up my figures of exports day by day as nearly as possible; and the Board of Trade Returns being issued about three weeks alter the end of each month, they are practically useless in respect of affording early information. For Bombay you will observe my statement of exports shows them to be much in excess of those set down in the Returns by the Board of Trade— say, 43,672,798 yards more. I can only explain this large difference by supposing that all the overland exports to Bombay being indirect are set down as shipments to Egypt, as the actual exports overland will nearly make up the large difference. In this instance, therefore, the Board of Trade Returns are calculated to mislead."

It was clear that parties interested must keep these Returns for themselves, and that the Returns of the Board of Trade were worse than useless. Another cause which diminished the utility of these Returns was the absence of anything like uniformity of weight and measure in stating the imports. Ashes were given in cwts., bones in tons, bristles in pounds, indigo in cwts., zinc in tons, and tin in cwts. The exports, on the contrary, were always rendered in yards and pounds. There should be but one standard, and perhaps the cental, or l00lbs weight, would be the best unit to adopt. Another point which struck him was that, while the monthly Returns of the Board of Trade were inaccurate, the yearly Returns were more or less accurate, which at all events showed that the Department could do much to do away with what he was complaining of; but as the annual Returns did not appear for ten or eleven months after the close of the year, they were for all practical purposes useless to the trading community, and only valuable to the Legislature in guiding the commercial policy of the country. The monthly Returns ought to be issued almost immediately after the expiration of the month, and there would be no difficulty in so doing. The cost of these Returns was not less than £50,000 a year, and sooner or later the question would arise whether the results were at all commensurate with the expenditure. The Board of Trade were mere compilers of these Returns, and the Customs, who really supplied them, had great difficulties to contend with in consequence of the loose and inaccurate statements made to them in regard to values by the clerks of the majority of the shippers. If a Return were made immediately on the arrival of a ship of the number of packages on board of about twenty or thirty leading articles, taken from the ship's manifest, as is done daily by the compilers of the bill of entry, the trade would soon convert the packages into quantities and measurements, and such a Return could be published two or three days after the close of the month, if not weekly, in the public newspapers, as is now done with the article of cotton. If the Returns wore made at all, there ought to be in each of the great ports an officer whose sole duty should be to look after them. His own belief was that the monthly Returns might very judiciously be abolished altogether, as all purposes of reference could be satisfied by the quarterly Returns or the annual Returns. They were far too complicated, far too minute, and, in his opinion, never could be collated with the accuracy and the promptitude which alone could make these Returns worth perusal. He had made these remarks in no spirit of fault-finding, but because he wished to assist the Board of Trade in any attempts they might make during the Recess to render these Returns more useful to the trade and commerce of the country.

said, that the subject had engaged the attention of the Board of Trade within the last few weeks, in consequence of complaints of the inaccuracy of the Returns, and especially of the monthly Returns. The Treasury, consequently, at the instance of the Board of Trade, directed an inquiry to be made, which was now going on, into the mode pursued by the Statistical Department of the Customs, by which the Returns were made. The Board of Trade did little more than edit these Returns and advise occasionally as to the particular articles to be included. The hon. Gentleman would not expect him to follow him into the various instances and items he had cited; but he must not be taken to assent to his figures or his method of comparison, because many of the complaints mixed up two things which were not the same. It was admitted that the annual accounts of the Board of Trade were in the main correct, and that the inaccuracy was principally in the monthly Returns. Last year a Bill was passed on the subject of agricultural statistics. One great reason for the apparent disparity in the Returns lay in the fact that the quantities of corn were frequently given, not according to the actual arrivals, but according to the final entries made by the importers some six weeks later. For the purposes of comparison, the difference in these two heads, taken in conjunction with the interval that elapsed, must obviously be productive of considerable difficulty. As to the importations of cotton, again; the Returns were compiled from the ship's manifest upon arrival, but the manifest did not give the actual weights; it merely gave the number of the bales which were then averaged according to the country from which they came. In comparing the Returns issued from the Customs with the Trade and Navigation Returns issued by the Board of Trade the most extraordinary variations presented themselves month by month; yet, if the aggregate Returns were compared, they would be found to correspond very closely. Thus, in the month of October, the Board of Trade Returns, as contrasted with the authorized Cotton Statistics, showed a divergence in the total quantities of over 300,000 cwt.; in the month of December of nearly 600,000 cwt.; and so on month after month; but taking an aggregate of eight months, and comparing the results of both systems at the ex- piration of that period, the difference in the total quantities was found to be only 68,000 cwt. or an error of less than 1 per cent. The House would probably ask why the method of calculation adopted in the case of cotton should not be generally applied? It was found, however, that although the method of obtaining information from the ship's manifest worked well in the case of certain bulky articles, it was not equally applicable to a variety of other matters, as to which the public equally desired information. The choice, therefore, lay in that case between sacrificing some convenience and advantage to the public, and incurring considerable expense in supplementing the existing Returns by other means of information. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had also dealt with the exportation of of manufactured articles; on that point, he was himself unable to go minutely into figures, and would admit that grounds for inquiry into the accuracy of the Returns might exist, for the Department had no very reliable source of information, except the merchants themselves, who, whether through negligence or from any other motive, did not always give true and accurate returns of the goods which they exported. At the same time, these errors were apt to correct themselves; for though, if the Returns were taken in single months, they were not perhaps as reliable as could be wished for, when taken over a series of months or compared with corresponding periods, they gave a reasonably fair idea of the progress of trade. Hence, though the Returns might not be of much use to merchants in guiding their operations for commercial purposes, they did give, for Imperial purposes, a tolerably accurate view of the trade of the country. This would be apparent on comparing our returns of exports and imports with those which were collected in France. Here, where he had expected to find the greatest discrepancy, there seemed to be a tolerably close parallel between the aggregate figures, though, in many of the subdivisions there were discrepancies of an extraordinary character. In 1864, the aggregate exports of British and foreign produce to France were, according to the British Returns, of the value of £24,000,000. The French accounts made the total £27,000,000. In 1865, the English accounts represented the total exports as £25,000,000; the French made them £28,000,000. In 1866, by the English accounts the exports were £27,000,000; and by the French accounts £30,000,000. The House therefore would perceive that as regarded exports from this country the rival figures did, to a great extent, afford materials for a satisfactory comparison. But, on looking at the imports into this country, and comparing them with the exports from France to this country, as given in the French Returns, there was a difference which he was altogether unable to account for. In 1864, the total imports as given in the English Returns, including imports for transhipment, were £29,000,000, while the French Returns made them no less than £46,000,000. In 1865, according to the English Returns they were £35,000,000, but according to the French £52,000,000; and in 1866 they were £40,000,000 according to the English Returns, but £60,000,000 according to the French. For these discrepancies he was, at present, wholly unable to account; but this would be one of the points which would form the subject of very careful investigation, and it must not be too hastily assumed that our own figures were erroneous. In the inquiry which would be instituted, and which he hoped would result in the attainment of greater accuracy in our published Returns, he should be glad to have the assistance of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, and of any other hon. Members who might feel interested in this matter.

said, he had taken some trouble in investigating the Board of Trade Returns himself, and had not been able to reconcile the discrepancies. It was certainly not creditable to this country that such a system should continue, and he hoped that means would be found to remedy the defects. Whatever inaccuracies, however, there were in the monthly Returns, he believed that the ultimate results were not so inaccurate. The country ought to be able to rely implicitly on the Government Returns, and these accordingly ought to be based upon facts and not on more imaginary conjectures.

said, the thanks of the country were due to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) for having brought forward the true state of the case in relation to these Returns. As far as trade was concerned they were totally valueless. What merchants really wanted to know was not the stock of cotton which was in the market last Friday, but what stock would be there on Friday next. Now that we were suffering as an industrial population in the North of England any fallacious statement would have a most prejudicial effect and would lead to misapprehension. No blame attached to the Board of Trade, but every week there were announcements in The Times, which were copied into all the other newspapers, respecting the enormous quantities of American cotton which were being sent to this country and to other parts from America. When people saw those accounts, which were never contradicted, they wondered how it was that the price of cotton could be 13d. a pound. The hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Returns of the Board of Trade were not useful to the commercial public, however convenient they might be for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, the yearly statistics of the Board of Trade, which were substantially accurate, were of great use as marking our national commercial progress; but he trusted that steps would be taken to have a prompt publication of the quantities indicated in ships' manifests, for otherwise the statistics would be useless for trade purposes.

said, he rose to draw attention to the practice of sending Naval Officers out to India via the Red Sea during the summer months, when the heat is so intense that it has been determined that Her Majesty's Military Forces shall not be subjected to it. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which sat in 1858, a service of magnificent transports had been established for the purpose of conveying our troops to India by the Red Sea route. That sea was 1,240 miles long, was of immense depth, and throughout the greater part of its length it ran between inaccessible mountains. He need scarcely say that the heat of this trough in the summer was almost unbearable. To make matters worse, the wind for nine months in the year blew down towards the ocean, and the result was that a vessel starting from Suez, keeping pace with the wind, found herself in a calm without having a single breath of air to blow the smoke from her deck, while the heat on her deck was usually 100 deg. From continual evaporation the density of the water in the sea was one-fourth more than that of the ocean, and consequently the speed of the vessels was impeded to a considerable extent, while the heat of the surface water was usually 3 deg. above that of the atmosphere, varying, according to Captain Engledue, who had been in the service of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, from 80 deg. to 106 deg. of heat. As might be imagined, the mortality attending a six days' voyage along this sea was very great, especially during the months of June, July, August, and September. In August, 1863, eight persons were struck down in this sea by apoplexy, of whom three died. Anyone who ordered an officer to go this voyage during those months incurred a very grave responsibility, which he should be sorry to take upon himself. An hon. Member of that House, who was connected with a large commercial firm in India, had authorized him to say that no mercantile firm in India would send out an assistant in those months, except upon the greatest possible emergency. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his earnest consideration, and endeavour to follow, as regarded the naval officers, the course that had been already taken with respect to the officers of the Army. He had no personal acquaintance with Sir Henry Kellett, and he had only brought the question forward in the general interests of the Navy.

said, that he had himself been three times through the Red Sea in the hot season, and once in the month of August, and he could, therefore testify to the accuracy of his hon. Friend's statement. The interesting remarks of his hon. Friend as to the density of the water of the Red Sea should, however, have been addressed to the Peninsular and Oriental Company rather than to any Member of the Government, inasmuch as the Government had no ships in the Red Sea at the present season of the year, while the Peninsular and Oriental Company had one each way in it every week. He had to inform his hon. Friend that no such practice as that of sending naval officers out to India via the. Red Sea during the summer months prevailed at the Admiralty. The custom of the Admiralty was to send naval officers out to China both in the summer and the winter months, by the long sea route. Three-fourths of the officers sent out during the last year had gone by that route. The Government transport ships between this country and India did not run in the summer months, but only during the eight cooler months, and as it was easy to manage that the reliefs should be sent out in these latter months, the Government avoided as much as possible sending out either officers or men during the four summer months. Directions had been sent to India that the authorities there should, as far as possible, avoid sending home men in the hot months. But when his hon. Friend asked him to give a pledge that under no circumstances whatever should an officer be sent by the Red Sea in the summer months he must decline to give any such pledge. It had been arranged that Sir Henry Kellett should go out by the Red Sea route and meet Sir Henry Keppel at Singapore. A departure from that arrangement would nave led to much inconvenience. During the last twenty years it had been the invariable custom for the officer appointed to Sir Henry Kellett's command to go by the Red Sea route.

Sir, I have not the slightest objection to the Committee for which the hon. Gentleman moves; on the contrary, I court the fullest inquiry, both with regard to the statements which the hon. Gentleman has made here and those which, according to what he has told the House, have been made elsewhere. But, in order to facilitate the inquiry which he proposes and to enable him to obtain the fullest information, I would suggest an alteration in the words of his Motion. As I have already stated to the House no contract or agreement whatever has been made with the Office of Works, and if the Committee were to confine itself to the Instruction that' it would receive, if the hon. Gentleman's Motion is worded as it is, they could only report that such was the case. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will strike out the words "Office of Works" he will gain his object and secure a full and searching investigation. The agreement for carrying out some of the architectural decorations of the central hall—the only agreement hitherto entered into—was made entirely without my knowledge. The execution of this part of the decoration was one of those matters of detail connected with the designs of the architect, which I left entirely to him, and which has always been settled without consultation with the First Commissioner. What I have done my predecessors did before me. In decorating the Queen's robing room, and the crypt with mosaic, Mr. Barry was desired to select the artists whom he considered best qualified to carry out his designs. I really feel ashamed to take up the time of the House with a matter personal to myself; but I equally regret that there should be found any Member of this House who could, without inquiry and without satisfying himself that there was some foundation for these accusations, rise in his place and make such a statement as we have heard from the hon. Gentleman this evening. At least he might have delayed that statement until evidence had been taken before the Committee for which he moves, and until that Committee had made its Report to the House. He would then have had the fullest opportunity for making a statement. But that would not have suited the hon. Gentleman's purpose. He wishes the accusations he has made to go forth to the world uncontradicted before the result of any inquiry can be known. Such being the case I am compelled, although I do so with great reluctance, to make my statement to the House, in order that what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman may not pass uncontradicted, I apologize to the House for detaining it from more important business, and I promise to say what I have to say in as few words as possible. At the same time the story Which I have to tell may have some little interest for the House. If any hon. Gentlemen who hear me have thought it worth while to follow my humble career they will know that I have had two passions in life—Italy and Art. Whilst Italy was struggling to conquer her independence, I spoke and worked for her in this House and elsewhere. Since she has achieved her independence I have done the little that was in my power—and it is very little —to assist in the development of her resources, and in making known the remarkable genius of her sons. With this object I have, for some years, spent the little I could spare out of my limited means in assisting struggling artists of genius and in making known their works. Some years ago I made the acquaintance of Dr. Salviati, a lawyer of Venice, and a man of great enterprise and ability. This gentleman, with the assistance of a common workman named Radi—one of those men of extraordinary artistic genius who are so frequently met with in Italy—had succeeded in restoring the art of working in enamel mosaic, which had been abandoned, if not entirely lost, for more than a century. I was greatly struck with the result of Dr. Salviati's labours, and I saw in his discoveries a source of employment for a number of poor artists of Venice, and of future wealth for their city. Moreover, I was convinced that if the art were brought to perfection it might be introduced with the greatest advantage into England. In Venice it had already been successfully employed in restoring the magnificent mosaics of St. Mark's. I did what I could to encourage Dr. Salviati, and to assist him with my advice. At the time of the Great Exhibition of 1862, Dr. Salviati came to England, in the hope of being able to introduce his mosaics into this country. The first person in England who perceived the value and importance of Dr. Salviati's discovery was the Queen, whose taste and knowledge of art are so well known to those who have had the privilege of having been brought into contact with Her Majesty. The Queen employed Dr. Salviati to decorate the groined roof and the walls of the Wolsey Chapel at Windsor, and subsequently Her Majesty approved of his mosaics for decorating the spandrils and pediments of the Memorial to the Prince Consort in Hyde Park. Dr. Salviati undertook these important commissions, and, in order to carry them out, established a school of young artists at Venice, bringing skilled workers in Roman mosaic from Rome to instruct them. Three years ago, when in Venice, I found that Dr. Salviati, although a man of genius, was, like most men of the same class, without the pecuniary means necessary to carry out his discoveries. He was in want of capital, and, having borrowed as much money as he was able, he had come to a stand-still, and was completely unable to carry out the commissions with which he had been entrusted. I was much distressed at the prospect of such great works falling through. I was distressed not only for the sake of Venice, of Italy, and of the artists who were being educated for the work, and who now depended for their livelihood upon it, but for the sake of my own country. I felt that if the magnificent decorations in mosaic of the Wolsey Chapel and the Albert Memorial were successfully carried out, a new era of art-decoration would be established in England by the introduction of a material of great beauty and durability, which would stand our climate, and would take the place, to a great extent, of fresco and wall painting, which, from various causes, does not appear to be able to resist the effects of our climate, and certainly not of the atmosphere of London. I attach probably more importance to such matters than many people, because I believe that wall decoration, properly employed, might not only tend to elevate the public taste, but might become a source of public enjoyment and public instruction. I would willingly have assisted Dr. Salviati with my purse, but my means were too limited to be of any real use to him in his difficulties; so I wrote to some friends in England who, like myself, loved Art and Italy, placed before them the circumstances of the case, and appealed to them not to allow Dr. Salviati's remarkable undertaking to fall through for want of a small sum of money. Amongst those to whom I appealed and who answered to my appeal, were, as the hon. Gentleman himself has stated, several distinguished Members of both Houses of Parliament. With their assistance the necessary funds were subscribed, and the good work was carried on. I need scarcely tell the House that these funds were furnished not with any prospect of or desire for gain, but out of a love of Art and for the sake of Venice and Italy. Owing to the assistance which he thus received Dr. Salviati was enabled to execute his commissions, with what result those who have seen the Wolsey Chapel, the mosaics of the Albert Memorial, and the beautiful reredos of Westminster Abbey, will be able to judge. Such is the history of my connection with Dr. Salviati and the company which bore his name. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the change of that name, as if there were some mystery involved in it. The simple fact is, I believe, that it was made on account of some requirements of the Italian law in regard to what are called "anonymous societies." Since the undertaking has thus been carried on, I have taken a very lively interest in it. Every year I have myself spent two or three months in Venice, encouraging and directing the artists employed as far as I was able, furnishing them with books, drawings, and models, and endeavouring to bring this important art to the perfection which it once attained in that illustrious city. But although feeling that, whether in Office or out, I might fairly and without exposing myself to attack, take a direct interest in an undertaking of a purely artistic character, yet I know also, from bitter experience, how ready men are, in order to injure a political opponent, to make use of any little tittle-tattle, and of any calumny, even in the House of Commons. I accordingly thought it best, as soon as I came into Office, to divest myself of every direct interest in the Salviati undertaking, and I transferred my shares to a gentleman who kindly offered to take them, and who, I can assure the hon. Member, is no connection whatever of mine. I can only repeat, what indeed the hon. Gentleman himself has admitted, that the names of those who are connected with this company is a sufficient guarantee that I had not entered into the undertaking as a speculation, but solely with an earnest desire to introduce into this country a beautiful and noble kind of decoration, which might prove eminently serviceable to British Art. Almost one of the first things that was brought under my notice, after I came into Office, was the usual estimates for the completion of the decoration of the Houses of Parliament; amongst which was one for decorating the central hall. This was no new scheme. The decoration of the Houses of Parliament has been going on for many years, and has been carried out according to a scheme recommended to the House by a Royal Commission com- posed of some of the most distinguished statesmen of our time. That scheme has been carried out in most parts of the building, but the great hall—the very centre of and key to the whole edifice— has not hitherto been touched, having been loft entirely unfinished; and yet it is the most important part of this great building, and is now in actual need of some decoration—the spaces reserved for decoration being covered with common paper, which is actually falling off the walls. Mr. Barry suggested to me that it was a proper place for the use of mosaic. The Royal Commission had recommended fresco paintings; but, after the result of the experiments in other parts of the building, I could not authorize its adoption in the central hall. I accordingly approved of Mr. Barry's suggestion. I made no secret of the matter. On the contrary, before coming to a decision I consulted several eminent artists, those who were best able to advise me in my own Department, and many Members of this House who are well known for their taste and knowledge of Art—amongst them my noble Friend opposite (Lord Elcho). The Treasury sanctioned the expenditure, and Mr. Barry—acting as he has always been accustomed to do under my predecessors in the Office of Works—whether the system is a good one or not, I will not stop now to inquire—made preparations to carry out the work. Mr. Barry did not consider it necessary to consult further with me but went to Mr. Salviati, the son of Dr. Salviati, and made an agreement with him for executing his, Mr. Barry's, architectural ornamental designs—not for executing the picture cartoons for the vacant spaces, let it be remembered. Mr. Barry went to the person who he believed could best and most economically execute the work. It was, of course, his desire to have his own designs executed in the best possible manner, and had there been anybody better able to execute them than Salviati, he would not have gone to him. But besides the mere architectural decorations, there are four great pictures to be executed in mosaic. As I have already informed the House, I have requested two very rising young artists, Mr. Poynter and Mr. Moore, to make designs, or cartoons, as they are called, for these pictures. When these designs are made they will be confided for execution in mosaic to the artists who are most competent to do justice to them, and who can unite the best work with the greatest economy. Dr. Salviati's establishment probably best furnishes the requisite means for doing this. We need feel no jealousy of employing foreign artists. Indeed, one of my objects in assisting to introduce mosaic decoration into England has been to form, if possible, a school of English artists in mosaic. I doubt not that if this mode of decoration is found to be suitable to our climate, and is approved of by the public, and generally adopted in our ecclesiastical and secular buildings, English artists will be formed whose work will bear comparison with the best work that even Venice can produce. I can only say in conclusion, that if the hon. Member will consent to strike out the words "Office of Works" from his Motion, I shall not only be most happy to grant him the Committee, but to give him every facility for carrying out to the fullest extent its investigations.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to feel glad that the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) had given him the opportunity to make a most statisfactory explanation, and to clear up a matter which, in the mind of the public had not assumed a pleasant aspect. Since the subject was last under discussion there had been rumours to the prejudice of the right hon. Gentleman, and the lion. Member for Chester was justified in alluding to those rumours and in stating the facts which gave rise to them. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had no cause to complain of any terms used by the hon. Member, for the hon. Member was careful not to assume that there was anything improper in the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, who had now given a most satisfactory explanation of all the circumstances of his connection with Dr. Salviati. It was most desirable that in matters like these the conduct of public men should not only be free from motives of private interest, but should also be free from all suspicion of interested motives; and, after the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, he recommended his hon. Friend not to press for the Committee.

said, he also hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. It was satisfactory to find that the amenities of public life were such as to satisfy the House that the Motion was brought forward only for the purpose of eliciting an explanation, and he was quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman had cleared himself from any aspersion that might have been cast on his conduct in the matter. It was well known that the right hon. Gentleman had devoted himself for many years to the promotion of art, and had taken a prominent part in the Arundel Society, the object of which was to prevent the ancient frescoes being lost to posterity. It was the right hon. Gentleman who suggested the use of chromo-lithography to give an accurate representation of these frescoes. Any idea of a job in connection with the right hon. Gentleman holding two shares in a society, the whole capital of which was only £16,000 was absurd. The amount of the estimate was only £5,000; he would leave the House to calculate whether the amount of profit would be such as to induce a Minister of the Crown to peril his reputation, even if he were so dishonest as to think of doing so. He (Lord Elcho), taking a deep interest in the matter, thanked the right hon. Gentleman most heartily for having proposed this system of decoration, which he was convinced was better suited than any other to this country, and he was perfectly certain that the unanimous feeling of the House was that it would be a waste of time to inquire any further into the matter.

said, he thought the discussion had been on the whole very useful and satisfactory, and that the House ought to be thankful to the hon. Gentleman who had introduced it. When rumours were afloat affecting the character of a Member of high position in the Government the sooner the matter was explained in the House and unfounded imputations repelled the better. Such rumours and insinuations ought not to be encouraged outside the House; but when they existed it was quite right to ask those whose conduct and honour were attacked to state what were the real facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the subject had been most careful not to make any attack on the right hon. Gentleman; and he considered it a happy thing for the new House of Commons to possess men who, when the conduct of a Minister of State was impugned, would not hesitate in a becoming spirit to ask for an explanation. When properly put to the test such mischievous rumours would not travel. The explanation appeared to be perfectly satisfactory, and therefore he felt confident that the hon. Member opposite would not press his Motion for a Committee.

said, he was perfectly well acquainted with the person to whom the shares of the right hon. Gentleman had been transferred. He was in no way connected with the right hon. Gentleman, and he was not a person likely to take shares in any [company, except in a bond fide way for the advancement of art.

begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works that if he had used any expression which was offensive or unfair he was exceedingly sorry for it. He thought, however, that the matter ought to be sifted because the rumours were very prevalent. He was quite satisfied with the explanation; and. he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not be sorry that the opportunity of making it had been afforded to him.

said, he rose to call attention to Major M'Guire's Camping System, and to move an Address for Copies of all Reports and Correspondence on the subject, from the first Report by Lord W. Paulett in 1864 to the present date. The blanket hammock consisted of a blanket hung upon two light sticks, which raised the man when sleeping in it 10 inches from the ground. It had been tried on campaign and favourable reports were made of it. He had seen a great many letters from commanding officers who spoke of it in the highest terms. Gentlemen high on the medical staff also spoke favourably of it. Lord William Paulett, when commanding at Portsmouth in 1864, made an exceedingly favourable report of the system; but they all knew how difficult it was to induce any public Department to move in a matter of this kind. He begged therefore to ask whether Government had any intention of adopting the system in the service, and if not, why not?

seconded the Motion. He was surprised that the system had not attracted more attention. Some of the best qualified judges had spoken highly of the merits of the invention. The chief diseases which were found to devastate a camp were camp fever, dysentery and diarrhœa, and pulmonary affections; most of them were actually generated by the continued exposure of sleeping on the ground, and all were undoubtedly greatly aggravated by that hitherto inevitable evil. In July, August, and September, 1854, the British Army in the Crimea lost at the rate of 293 men out of every 1,000 per annum—96 per cent of this loss was from disease. During the next three months—October, November, and December, 1854—their loss was at the rate of 511 out of every 1,000, seven-eighths of which loss was by disease. In January, 1855, it was at the rate of 1,174 per 1,000 per annum, 97 percent of this loss being due to disease. During the first three months of that year it was at the rate of 912 per 1,000, and 98 per cent of this loss was due to disease. These figures were quite appalling, and if any of the men thus lost could have been saved by such an invention as this it was surely the interest of the War Office to adopt it. It was perfectly well understood what was the great cause of this enormous mortality. A letter from Captain Gordon, dated Balaklava, December 3, 1855, stated that every exertion was made during the Crimean War to obtain straw and other material for filling the palliasses, but nothing suitable to the wants of the whole Army could be found. He would also read an extract from The Times' Correspondent's letters—

"Before Sebastopol, Jan. 2, 1855.

"I cannot conceive much greater hardships than those to which men in the trenches are subject when, at the end of twelve hours' watch, they return half-cramped and frozen to their damp, cheerless tents.… It is an actual truth that our force is deprived day by day of the services of 100 men in every twenty-four hours." Again—

"Jan. 19, 1855.

"… I know of regimental hospitals in the front, where the sick men, in wet marquees, have now only one blanket to lie upon—on the ground —at this very date."

He wished to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India to the question. The Secretary of State for India had estimated the expense of the Army of India at £16,000,000 per annum, and there was a loss per annum of £388,000 attributable to diseases which were preventible. Colonel Hort, of the 36th Regiment, wrote to Captain M'Guire as follows:—

" As I have been upwards of five-and-twenty years in the service, and was all through the Eastern Expedition — besides having knocked about a great deal under canvass in India—I ought to have a certain amount of experience in camping, and I have no hesitation in saying that keeping the body free from contact with the ground is one of the most important considerations in preserving health during service in the field. I hope to see every soldier ordered under canvass provided with one of your blanket hammocks—which he can perfectly easily carry on his pack—feeling satisfied that it will save many a fine fellow from hospital, invaliding, and even the grave. I believe lying on the damp ground has done more to fill our hospitals, when on service, than probably any other cause."

Colonel Valentine Baker, commanding the 10th Hussars, an officer twenty years in the service, whom he had himself met at the Cape, during the Caffre War of 1851, reported that—

"September 27, 1865.

"An experimental tent, with ten hammocks complete, was received from Captain M'Guire on the 2nd instant, and ten old soldiers of the regiment were detailed to occupy it, and have done so up to the present period."

Colonel Baker added—

"I beg to say that I consider the hammock a great improvement, being conducive to the health and comfort of the men; and the occupants of the tent, who are old soldiers, accustomed to tent life in India and the Crimea, are unanimous in their approval."

The next testimony in their favour was from Lieutenant General Sir James York Scarlett, commanding the division at Aldershot, who said—

"I have the honour to attach true extracts from the reports of commanding and other officers who have had under trial the hammocks and tents of Captain M'Guire's pattern, for the information of his Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, from which it will be seen that both officers and men are unanimous in their approval of the invention. I have myself inspected and tried these hammocks, and I fully concur in the opinions expressed in the accompanying reports. The difficulty appears to be the additional weight to be carried, as the field blanket weighs 31b. 12oz., while the hammock, staves, and pins weigh 61b. 8oz. In standing camps, or when transport was available, these hammocks could not fail to be beneficial to the health of the troops, as the men would never be required to sleep on the ground, and the issue of straw would be done away with."

He showed the hammock and tent to a medical officer of his own regiment—Mr. Turner, assistant surgeon to the Scots Fusilier Guards—who had been in the Crimea, and he said—

" Had this invention been discovered before the troops landed in the Crimea, what a boon it would have been, not only to the men, but also, I might say, to the surgeons, who might have then looked for some good results to remedies which, for a patient lying on wet soil, could have very little effect."

Lord Napier of Magdala was strongly in its favour, and telegraphed for 1,500 hammocks for the Abyssinian Epedition. Mr. Fawcett, Deputy Assistant Quartermaster General, Abyssinian Expedition, reported—

" From its lightness and portability it makes an excellent sick carriage, and was almost the only one in use for the sick and wounded on our return from Magdala, many of whom I heard speak in high terms of its ease and comfort."

The Times' Correspondent, writing from Senafé, and describing the vigorous measures taken to reduce the baggage, &c, to the minimum, said—

" After a hard morning's work, the carriage was cut down to the extent mentioned By substituting M'Guire's hammocks, which weigh only 81b. each, for the heavy 'dhoolie' (hospital bed) ordinarily used, two ' dhoolie wallahs ' were given the work of six. This shows a saving of 300 per cent in an item of land carriage in one of the most difficult countries ever traversed by British troops."

As we had 64,000 British troops in India, many of whom necessarily often camped out, the matter was one of great importance. He thought that, after these reports, the military authorities and the War Office would be blameable if they sent out any field force in future without at least hospital marquees supplied with this camping system.

said, the Government would produce the Papers on this subject with pleasure. They had not formed any intention of adopting this particular method of curing or attempting to cure the evils which the hon. and gallant Member had referred to. The Papers would show that the balance of authoritative testimony was rather against than for the particular system which the hon. and gallant Member advocated. It was true that Lord Napier of Magdala had expressed himself in its favour, but the Commander-in-Chief in India, Sir William Mansfield, was against it, and the Government of India had not seen its way to adopting it.

regretted the very unsatisfactory character of the reply made by the Under Secretary of State for India, and said, that if the Government waited until every officer in the service agreed in the merits of an invention of this kind, they might wait till the day of judgment before any improvement was adopted. When a soldier like Lord Napier of Magdala spoke so highly of this invention, and when the Governments of Madras and Bombay were favourable to it, the Home Government should not allow the service to lose the benefit because one officer in high command was not quite satisfied about its merits, and because the Government of Bengal was jealous of the Governments of Madras and Bombay. The want which this invention supplied was one of the greatest experienced by an army in the field. In ordinary cases, in India, mattresses stuffed with cotton were carried for the troops, and when the ground was damp, these mattresses became saturated with moisture. The only objection to this invention was that it was a little heavier than the blanket which the men ordinarily carried on their shoulders in European warfare. But in many cases, the troops were encamped in one place for long periods, and in these cases the weight was of little or no consequence. In the Crimea the men had to wade for a long time ankle-deep in half-frozen mud, upon which they had to put their blankets. Of course, they died in great numbers, and as one of the doctors said —"What was the use of medicines, when the men had to sleep on such beds? "The Government sent out plank floors for the tents, but it was difficult to get them up to the troops, on account of their weight and cumbrousness; and, when they did, some of the soldiers used them for firewood. The practical difficulty of getting men to sleep off the ground when encamped had been got over more successfully by this invention than by anything that had over before been offered to the service. The opinion of those who had seen it in operation was almost overwhelming in its favour. The practice among European armies was to supply them with straw, which the men plaited into mats. The expense and difficulty of collecting the straw for this purpose was enormous. Lord Panmure sent a telegram to the Crimea, directing the Commissariat to supply the whole army with straw, to keep the men off the ground. Captain Gordon thereupon represented that the quantity of straw necessary to supply the troops with palliasses once a month would exceed all that the tonnage of the vessels in the Black Sea could supply. He trusted that the Government would re-consider their decision on the subject.

said, that from time to time he had been brought into contact with hundreds of soldiers discharged, on account of disease, who attributed the commencement of it to the fact that they had been obliged to sleep upon the ground at night. He hoped the matter would now be thoroughly looked into and investigated.

said, his object in pressing the Question, of which he had given notice to the President of the Board of Trade, was to bring before the House and the public in a prominent manner the names of those railway companies who had treated with indifference or contempt the circular recently issued by the Board of Trade, in consequence: of the large number of accidents which had occurred. The history of a period of four months during the present year, covered by the last Report from the Board of Trade, would alone justify very stringent measures. That Report showed that 10 out of 15 accidents had arisen from collisions. The Government Inspector, Colonel Yolland, had reported that the managers of railway companies were perfectly aware that the public were subjected under the present system to risks which were capable of being very greatly reduced; yet, lacking either the will or the power to adopt the necessary precautions, they allowed matters to continue in the same way. Since the official Report was issued a collision occurred on the the of June, which it was distinctly shown would not have occurred had the line been worked on the telegraph and block system. In other cases railway companies were shown to have abandoned the attempt to enforce an interval of time between trains, and had not substituted any interval of distance. The collision at New Cross, where 100 persons were injured, and one death happened, had occurred since the official Report was issued, as had also the collision with an excursion train near Castle Howard, and a further collision on the 6th of July, only four miles from the scene of the awful Abergele accident. In the hope that Government would persevere in the effort to enforce upon railway companies a due regard of human life, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If he has taken any further steps with regard to his Circular to the Railway Companies upon the block system, in consequence of the accidents which have occurred within the last few weeks; if any Answers have been received from the different Railway Companies to that Circular; and whether, if he has received such Answers, he will lay them upon the Table of the House?

said, that with the permission of the House, he would answer the Question. To the circular sent out by the Board of Trade replies had been received from about three-fifths of the railway companies. These detailed the various systems in use upon their lines, and in cases where the block and telegraph system was not used the reasons for adopting a different course were stated. About two-fifths of the railway companies, however, had not complied with the circular at all, and to these, in consequence of recent reports which had reached that Department, he had felt it Ms duty to issue another circular, calling attention to the circular previously forwarded, and begging that the information required might at once be supplied. He hoped to receive answers from these different companies before the end of the Session, and in that case he should lay upon the table of the House a selection from those answers, so that hon. Members and the public might be able to judge of the validity of the reasons which were advanced.

Sir, I did expect that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have made a statement to the Committee, and that the usual annual Report would have been issued ere this. But as that Report has not been laid on the table, I must, of necessity, rely on the facts and figures of previous Reports in support of the appeal which I now have to make in behalf of one of the most useful and important bodies of men in Ireland, the teachers of the national system of education. I can assure you, Sir, that the condition of the national teachers has excited the deepest sympathy of the Irish Members — of Members not only from all parts of Ireland, but of all parties. I am personally aware, from having my name placed on the Paper in connection with this question, that many hon. Friends of mine, not here at present, watched the progress of the Estimates with the greatest anxiety, to see when this Vote would come on; and being compelled to leave for home, they authorized me to speak in their name in behalf of the object I have in view. Happily, Sir, the question of the condition of the teachers is one which does not involve or provoke the least controversy or dispute; it does not, above all, involve any question as to the principle on which the system is based. Hon. Gentlemen who hold the most extreme views on the two opposite systems—that of mixed and that of denominational education — join harmoniously in the desire to improve the education given, whatever may be its principle, and thus render it as advantageous as possible to the country. Sir, whatever the educational system may be — be it mixed or be it denominational — it is impossible that it can be successful in its objects if the teaching staff be not thoroughly efficient, and therefore thoroughly contented. The working of any system does not depend so much upon its administration, or on its principal officials, however able the one or however intelligent and zealous the other may be; its main success depends upon its teaching staff — the rank and file of its organization. Then the question directly comes, in what condition do we find the national teachers of Ireland? In what state is that vast army of progress on which depends the teaching and improvement of the youth of the Irish nation? I regret to say that that condition is miserable in the extreme, such as to excite the deepest compassion in the minds of those who are familiar with it, and even to inspire no little alarm for the consequences to which, if not altered for the better, it must inevitably lead. The condition of teachers of the youth of Ireland may be summed up in a few simple words—they are badly paid, badly clad, badly housed, badly fed, with no comfort in the present, and no prospect for the future. That is their position at this moment; that has been their position for many years. And, Sir, it is with the object of improving that condition, that now, at this late period of the Session, I bring their case before the House of Commons. I do so not so much for their sake— though no one feels their miserable plight more keenly than I do—I do it mainly on national grounds, and for the benefit of the people for whom this system of education was intended. In order to understand their position at the present moment, I go back a little, and show what was the notion formed some four-and-thirty years since as to what ought to be the remuneration of the teacher under the National Board. In the year 1835 the Commissioners were of opinion that the minimum salary of the teacher ought to be £30 a year, with free apartments. Remember, that was their idea some four - and - thirty years since — when provisions were cheaper, when every necessary of life was cheaper than at the present day— that £30 a year with free apartments, was the lowest provision that should be made for the instructor of youth. The object of the Commissioners was a wise one — to ensure the respectability and comfort of the teacher—to raise him in the estimation not only of his pupils, but their parents—to give him influence in the circle in which he moved — and, above all, to render him contented with his position, and on that account more efficient in the discharge of his duty. Here is an extract from what was written in 1835 by the guardians of a then infant institution—

" It is only through such persons that we can hope to render the national system successful in improving the general condition of the people. It is not, however, merely through the schools committed to their charge that the beneficial effects of their influence would he felt. Living in friendly habits with the people; not greatly elevated above them, but so provided for as to be able to maintain a respectable station; trained to good habits; identified in interest with the State, and therefore anxious to promote a spirit of obedience to lawful authority, we are confident that they would prove a body of the utmost value and importance in promoting civilization and peace."

Let us now see in what manner this idea has been realized. In the year 1867, the remuneration of the teacher was as I shall state. The average salary of the ordinary national school teachers of Ireland, excluding model school teachers, work mistresses, and paid monitors, was as follows:—From the State a little over £26 per annum, and from all other school sources a little under £7, making a grand total of £33 a year, or 12s. 8d. a week. This may be called the maximum average. But there is something much worse. There were then about 5,000 national teachers, whose income from all sources was at the rate of 8s. 5d. a week. Take the two sums, and strike an average, and what have we as the average salary of the teachers of the youth of Ireland? Something more than 10s. a week, or less than Is. 8d. a day. 10s. a week and no free apartments—no house—no cottage—no accommodation of any kind. This matter of house accommodation involves a very great grievance, to which special notice ought to be directed. As a rule, there is no house attached to the national schools, and the teacher has to find such accommodation as the district and his means can furnish him; thus he has to rent a house or apartments at a terrible sacrifice of his scanty means, or he has to put up with the most miserable accommodation in a peasant's cabin, much to his own discomfort, and to the loss of that influence which a person in his position and holding his office ought to exercise. We know how wretched is the accommodation in the cabins of the Irish peasantry—two rooms at most, and one of those the sleeping chamber of the entire family. And here, with the entire family, the poor teacher is often found, sharing in their wretched accommodation. It frequently happens that the teacher has to walk two or three miles to and from his school every day in the week. I myself know instances where the distance each way is four miles, five miles, six miles, and even seven miles. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derry (Mr. Serjeant Dowse) told me of a case in his part of the country where a teacher walked six miles to his school and six miles from it. An hon. Friend near me the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), has just informed me of an exactly similar case. My hon. Friend the Member for my own county (Mr. Downing) has a similar one to tell; and I know of a still stronger one—that of a teacher who belongs to the city of Cork, from which he walks every morning to the national school of Cloghroe, a distance of seven miles, and to which he returns every evening. Only imagine, fourteen miles a day, almost sufficient labour of itself! But what a preparation for his important duties in the morning; what a fearful addition to the wearying drudgery of the day! Suppose an unfortunate teacher drenched to the skin during his walk of two or three miles, and in what humour can he be for undertaking his onerous duties to his pupils? Now, Sir, not only do I desire to see the teacher properly paid and properly housed, but I am most anxious that, at least in rural districts, he should have a garden, say of an acre in extent; and I am anxious for this arrangement for several reasons. Ours is an agricultural country; and, in my judgment, elementary teaching of the great industry of the country is a matter of primary and even essential importance. I would have this garden not only for the exercise and recreation of the teacher, and for the supply of necessary vegetables, but for the teaching of his pupils the rudimentary principles of agriculture. A house and garden in every rural parish might be had at a cost of from £100 and £120; and I am strongly of opinion no more useful outlay could be made for the practical advantage of Ireland. Then, Sir, we have the teachers of the youth of the Irish nation in this miserable plight, without house accommodation, such as was originally contemplated, and with a pittance in many instances little above the ordinary wages of an agricultural labourer, and in many instances below what the man receives who merely toils with the spade or the shovel. Surely such a state of things ought not to be allowed to endure a year longer. Its toleration is cruel to the individual, injurious to the community, and fatal to the system. As a simple fact, and in no spirit of exaggeration, I assert that there is no people in Europe who exceed the Irish in their love of learning, and in their respect for the possessor of knowledge. But how is it possible that this feeling can withstand the influence of poverty and misery, when associated with this learning and knowledge, in the person of a badly clad and badly fed national teacher? Raised above the people intellectually, he is degraded below them socially by his poverty and privation. On this shamefully inadequate income he has to keep up an appearance of decency becoming his position as a teacher of youth; but there are not a few instances in which the dress of the unhappy man is an object of pity or of ridicule. It may be thought that the amount supplied from local or voluntary sources is smaller than it should be. But I warn the Government on this head. The amount from all local sources, whether in the shape of endowment or school fees, was £52,000 in 1867. Possibly it was somewhat higher than this in 1868. I warn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department against straining these voluntary resources, especially the school fees, and for a very obvious reason. If you do so, you run the chance of diminishing the attendance of children whose parents are very poor. As it is, the attendance is not satisfactory, and requires to be explained. There were on the roll, in 1867, some 900,000 pupils; but of this number only about 330,000 were in actual daily attendance — little more than 35 per cent, or one-third of the whole. If you compel the children in the poorer districts to pay even the smallest sum, you risk this attendance, small as it undoubtedly is. In the schools of the Christian Brothers in my city the attendance is about 80 or 85 per cent, while in the national schools it is but 35. This is a very serious matter, and requires caution in its treatment. What will hon. Gentlemen think when I tell them that it frequently happens that the teacher is asked, is even compelled, to pay the rent of the school-house? In the Report, I believe, of 1867, there are 294 cases of this kind admitted. The average payment is a little over £2; and I have heard of an instance of so much as £6 a year being paid by a teacher in the shape of rent; this was for the school at O'Brien's Bridge, county Clare. Teachers are likewise compelled, in many instances, to provide furniture and apparatus for their schools out of their wretched salaries. Of course, this is not the rule but the exception; still such a state of things should never be suffered to exist. There is then another, and, in my mind, a very serious grievance, which demands redress. I refer to the arbitrary power of removal or dismissal on the part of the managers. I know this power is exercised on the whole with clemency and prudence—nay, with consideration and generosity; but I have heard of instances in which it has been exercised harshly and capriciously. As matters now stand the manager can dismiss the teacher at a moment's notice. I had almost said with a moment's notice. I know of cases where teachers have been re-placed without notice; for instance, of a teacher coming to his school on the Monday morning and finding his successor in his place. I have known this happen to female as well as male teachers. Now, what I would suggest would be that fair notice of the cause of complaint should be given to the teacher, and that an investigation should be held, so that an end might be put to arbitrary dismissal—in other words, the power of flinging a teacher helpless and destitute on the world. And as to a matter of the very last importance — there should be some provision for the teacher in his old. age. According to the existing rules, this just principle is admitted, but is most inadequately carried out. Suppose a teacher has spent twenty-four years in the service of the Board, is broken down through old age and infirmity, and is compelled to give up his occupation, the Commissioners may afford him a gratuity at the rate of a month's pay for every year, or a total of two years' pay for twenty-four years' service. Now a man may be unfit for work, especially the work of teaching and conducting a school, but he may linger on for ten years, or even longer; and after this pittance is exhausted, what resource has he but the charity of his friends or the refuge of the workhouse? And, as one of the Board's Inspectors remarks, the workhouse is a poor prospect for any man. It is a cheerless prospect for a man who has led a life of hard privation; and this is the life which, the great body of the national teachers of Ireland have hitherto led. What the teachers justly demand is a pension, to be obtained after fair service to the public. Now, the giving of this pension would not involve any serious cost. With £9,000, in addition to the sum granted annually in the shape of retiring gratuities — a sum equal to £4,500 —pensions might be provided for deserving teachers. The certainty of having this provision in old age or infirmity would be of enormous service to the system as well as to individuals. It is true all are not paid in the miserable manner to which I have referred; but those who are better circumstanced are but a small minority. About 400 have the advantage of good service salaries, and some enjoy a higher average than the £33, which is the average of the salary of the ordinary teacher; but the average pay of the great body of classed teachers—now about 8,500 — is little more than 10s. a week, and that is scandalously insufficient. It drags down the unhappy man, whose mind should be free from sordid care, by the heavy pressure of daily and hourly want;. Let us now see how this state of things operates. It drives a certain class from the public service, and it renders the rest discontented. The ambitious are ever on the look out for a change, to be had in other occupations, or in emigration to the States or our own colonies. But bear in mind that the most efficient leave—those whom the State has trained at great cost—those whose retirement is a grievous loss to the education of the country. This annual desertion, equal to 11 per cent, is a loss which no amount of false economy can compensate for. Better to pay these men well, and secure to them the certainty of pensions in their declining years, than to train them at great cost and trouble, and lose them afterwards when they are trained and serviceable. This is a proposition which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who can appreciate its force. This evil strikes at the very life of the system, robs the State of its best servants, and enormously deteriorates the character of the general education of the country. I am happy to say none have been more earnest in their sympathy, or more urgent in their remonstrances, than the officers of the Board, its head Inspectors and district Inspectors. To fortify my statement, it is absolutely necessary that I should quote a few passages from the Reports of gentlemen who speak with such authority. Now, Sir, I will bring down the proof to the present hour, even to this month of July, to show how this evil is practically working. At a meeting of the Ballina Board of Guardians, held on the 5th of July, 1869, the following letter was received from the district Inspector, who had been asked to recommend a competent teacher, the guardians being willing to give an increased scale of remuneration:—

"Francis Street, Ballina, 2nd July, 1869.

"Sir,—Replying to your letter of the 1st instant, in which, on the part of the Guardians of the Ballina Poor Law Union, you request me to recommend a classed male teacher for the vacant workhouse school, I regret to be under the necessity of informing you that, so far as I am aware, no such teacher is to be had in my district. Very many schools are closed for want of teachers, and many more are in charge of unclassed, or in other words incompetent teachers. I beg to suggest that you should advertise in other than local newspapers.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

"JOHN E. WOOD, District Inspector, N.S."

The Tyrawley Herald of the 8th remarks—

"It is not difficult to account for this state of things. The teacher's profession has ceased to be attractive to any considerable number of the population. Under the National Board it no longer holds out an inducement to persons of information and talents in any walk of life to enter it. The truth is, the rewards it offers are scarcely superior to those lying before the day labourer, while the toil is as great, and the anxiety and the wear and tear bear no comparison. In a pecuniary point of view the position of the mechanic is far superior to that of the national schoolmaster."

The evil fruit of this miserable payment to the most important of your public servants — the teachers of the youth of a nation — these who are powerful for good, and could be potent for mischief— is manifold desertion, loss, inferior teaching, and deep-seated, discontent. As a body, the national teachers of Ireland, men and women, are entitled to the greatest admiration; for, notwithstanding their temptations, the temptations of poverty and discontent, they are the advocates of law and order, and the promoters of ideas of industry, and progress, and morality. The Commissioners, who appreciate the importance of the rank and file being contented, desire to pay them well, and are anxious that Parliament should enable them to do so. This is what I desire of Parliament. It is true a Royal Commission is sitting in Dublin; but that does not lessen or take away the duty of the representatives of the Irish people to say what they know to be right, and just, and wise, in a matter of grave public moment. This is a question which does not brook delay—it cannot with safety be delayed a year longer. I know that it is too late to do anything practical this year; but I call on the Government to be prepared to deal with this one branch of the question in their Estimates next year. I am far from saying that the officers of the Board are overpaid. Far from it. I believe the salary of the Resident Commissioner — one of the most accomplished men in Europe —to be unequal to his position. Neither are the Inspectors overpaid; but the teachers are badly paid out of all proportion. There are two gatekeepers in Marlborough Street, in Dublin, paid 16s. 6d. a week each. They only open a mere gate of timber or iron; but the teacher, who opens the door of the human mind to the light of knowledge, would esteem himself happy had he been paid at the same rate. Sir, I make my appeal to Parliament, not merely in the name and on behalf of some 12,000 teachers, the very life of the educational system of my country, but in the name of the best interests of that country, which may be retarded or promoted according to the character of its education, and the efficiency and success of its teachers.

observed that the grievances of the teachers referred to by his hon. Friend were four-fold. They complained, first, of their salaries, next, that they had no residences, thirdly, that they had no pensions or superannuation allowances, and fourthly, that the managers had an arbitrary power. This latter point would require delicate handling; but it could not be doubted that the teachers were miserably paid. About 3,000 of those teachers, men and women, were paid on an average £18 a year each, which was supplemented by school fees amounting to £4, so that their entire remuneration was £22 a year, out of which many of them had to support families. The salaries received by the teachers were not higher than the wages of common labourers, and it was this that was striking at the root of the system; for the number of teachers fell off so largely in 1862 that £300,000, which had been expended in training them, was lost to the State. Of course, people in England who dealt with the Consolidated Fund spoke of the enormous sum voted for Irish education; but let it be remembered that a Bill had just passed by means of which the Consolidated Fund would be relieved of the payment of £70,000 a year for the Regium Donum and the grant to Maynooth. He would suggest that this money, gained by the Treasury at the expense of Ireland, should be applied in supplementing the salaries of Irish teachers and raising them, as it would do, from £33 to £50 a year, an advance which would satisfy the teachers themselves. The want of residences compelled teachers to walk six or seven miles to school, and the same distance back; and it ought to be made obligatory in lay patrons of non-vested schools to provide residences as a condition of their receiving assistance. But nearly all the schools were in the hands of clerical managers, who had not houses for themselves, and could not be expected to provide them for teachers. If the Government would aid the clerical patrons, he believed the people would do their part in remedying the grievance. The absence of any provision for superannuation involved melancholy results. A gratuity equal to a year's salary was given for every twelve years' service. In his own county a teacher was invalided and received £35; he recovered, and the Commissioners, when asked to put him at the head of a school, declined to do so unless he would re-fund the gratuity. The man was almost a fit subject for a work- house, and might as well have been asked to pay the National Debt. If the Government would give £70,000 to supplement the salaries, he believed the people would tax themselves to provide superannuation allowances. As to the power of dismissal, nearly all these schools were in the hands of clerical managers, who had popularized the system in the country, and, if they were arrayed against the system, by being deprived of the power of dismissal, that would prevent the system being established. If, however, the other grievance were remedied, he believed this of dismissal, which was a sentimental one, would not occasion any serious difficulty, because cases of dismissal were not of frequent occurrence.

said, he had pleasure in confirming what the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) had said, and in supporting the appeal he had made on behalf of a deserving class of men. What they had to consider was whether the payment of the teachers was in proportion to the payment of all other classes. Irish Members must have been struck with the numbers of applications made to them for their patronage on behalf of Irish teachers who wished to leave the duties for which they had been trained for the excise, the customs, or the constabulary. During the short time the late Government was in power he was overwhelmed with such applications. All this indicated how inadequate the payments of the teachers were. Looking at the increased cost of living, the advanced pay of the constabulary, and the contiguity of Ireland to this country, there was no doubt that great injustice was done to the teachers. It was true that the Consolidated Fund had been relieved of £80,000 or perhaps nearly £100,000 a year, and it would simply be doing justice to a deserving class, and not merely making a gift to Ireland, to apply the money in raising these salaries. Wet or dry they had to go, and their labour was unceasing. He thought, therefore, that the least they could, do was to increase their small pittance and give them a fair and equitable scale of salary. Again, they were almost the only class of public servants in Ireland who were not entitled to superannuation allowances. He trusted that the Government would remember that England and Ireland were not separated now as they used to be; that they would bear in mind that those in one country were perfectly aware of the rates of payment made in the other, and that they would take this case into consideration. If nothing were done, he should himself next Session bring forward a Motion on the subject.

said, he wished to add that a great source of complaint was the fact that the payments were made every three months instead of every month, the adoption of that course frequently leading to serious embarrassment.

said, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) began his statement by something like a complaint that he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had not made a general statement in respect to the present condition of Irish education. [Mr. MAGUIRE: No, no !] No change had taken place that year in the working of that system. The whole system of primary education in Ireland was under inquiry by a Royal Commission. He acknowledged that both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion had done real service, not only to the national school teachers and national school system of Ireland, but to the people of that country generally. He was quite prepared to admit that the national school teachers of Ireland were underpaid. Considering the vast influence these men exercised—all the greater on account of the absence from many parts of Ireland of men of education—considering the amount of good they did, and considering the amount of evil they could and he was afraid sometimes did do, it was of enormous importance that the House should take care these men had reason to be contented with their position, and well-affected towards that which was best for the interests of the country. Having, however, admitted that these men were not paid as they ought to be, he felt bound to point out one peculiarity in their position and in the position of the system of national education in Ireland which it was impossible to overlook in considering this question, and that was the inadequate amount derived in Ireland from local support and local contributions. He knew that Ireland was a poor country, and he was not one of those who felt disposed to exact from Ireland more than the country was capa- ble of performing, but still the contrast between the local support given to education in Ireland and in the other parts of Great Britain was in itself sufficient to excite the deepest regret. In this country of the whole amount of the emoluments of the school teachers two thirds were contributed from local sources, the State furnishing only one-third. In Ireland, however, the support of the school teachers was almost entirely defrayed by the State—the whole amount of local subscriptions not rising above some £12,000 a year, and the whole amount of the school pence not exceeding £45,000 a year. The number of pounds subscribed in Ireland towards this great object did not much exceed the number of masters required to support it. Having said that, with the hope that the local proprietors might be induced to contribute more largely, he was quite prepared to admit that the amount of contributions furnished by the State had not reached its full extent. The allusion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) to the Irish Church Bill was not the first as it probably would not be the last of its kind. He was not prepared to deny the soundness of the plea for liberality to the national school teachers of Ireland, and there was no doubt that the subject was one for future consideration. But he would remind the Committee that the national schools of Ireland were not schools of the State. Schools like these, the teachers of which were locally governed, locally appointed, and locally dismissed, had strong claims upon that local support which was so willingly extended in the case of the schools in this country. Having, however, admitted the claim of these teachers to increased support, both from local sources and from the State, respecting not only their salaries but the improvement of their residences, it only remained for him to point out that at that moment nothing could be done by the Government beyond recognizing the necessity of improvement. His hon. Friend had said he did not know whether the Royal Commissioners would investigate that particular branch of the subject. All he could say was that if they did not they would, in his opinion, fail in duly performing their duty. But in any case the Government would deem it their duty, whether assisted by the Commission or not, to look closely into the matter, and he earnestly trusted that no great length of time would elapse before some means were devised for improving the condition of this important and valuable class of men.

said, that they could never expect to get teachers of a high character as long as the business of teaching was made a sort of refuge for the destitute.

said, he thought that, as a Royal Commission composed of men of great weight and authority had been appointed to investigate not only the abstract question of the mode of national education to be adopted, but the position of the teachers, it was premature to discuss their claims at present. He, for one, was not disposed to take for certain statements made with respect to that position, even when made in speeches in that House, and it was, in his opinion, far preferable that the Government should defer coming to any conclusion on the subject until they had the facts of the case before them in a shape which would scarcely admit of doubt. It was impossible that the whole question should not engage their attention after the Report of the Commission had been received. If the Commission had not been issued he should, probably, support the view taken by those who contended that the pay of the teachers should be raised.

said, he thought the statement of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was satisfactory, so far as the inadequacy of the pay of the teachers was concerned; but, when he stated that the local contributions in aid of the national school system were very inadequate, he seemed to forget that that system was one which the Irish people disapproved. It followed almost as a corollary from that fact that the Government had to support it themselves.

said, the simple fact that there were 5,000 teachers in Ireland receiving only 8s. 6d. a week in the shape of remuneration, or less than the wages of an unskilled labourer, was quite sufficient to justify the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) in calling the attention of the House to the subject.

said, he could fully corroborate the statements of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), as to the position in which the national school teachers in Ireland were placed. There was no question, he would add, on which the Irish Members were so fully agreed as the necessity of bettering that position. He was glad to hear from the Chief Secretary for Ireland the admission that the school teachers were illpaid, and that their case would be inquired into.

said, if his right hon. Friend and Colleague (Dr. Ball) had as much experience in the House as many of the hon. Gentlemen who had now addressed it, he would know how vain it was to protest against the discussion of any subject because it had been committed to a Royal Commission. He agreed it might be better to wait for their Report. At the same time he would not object to the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork, provided the masters were well-conducted and qualified for their situations; but it should not be forgotten, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had admitted, that some of them had acted most discreditably. His chief object in rising was to observe upon the marked difference between the debate that evening and those that had been held in former years, when the discussion was not as to a few shillings more or less to a good schoolmaster, but upon the principles of the education which was supported by the grant given by this House. On this night all appeared to agree, as on a late more important and, he would add, more unfortunate occasion. Nevertheless, he felt it his duty to interrupt that unanimity of opinion, so far as to express the hope which he had never failed to express when that Estimate had been brought forward; and he trusted that the Royal Commission would recommend that the Protestant laymen and clergymen of Ireland should have assistance in teaching on those principles which they considered the only sound and safe foundation for any useful national instruction. He would not hesitate to state his opinion that the Holy Scriptures alone were that sound basis. The exclusion of them by that House had been the cause of that limited local subscription to education which the right hon. Gentleman had truly said existed in Ireland. Such was not the case in the Church Education Society, where the Scriptures were taught; it was that want that had made our national system so defective and, while he admitted the display of great numbers on the list, rendered the benefits derived by those numbers very limited. Holy Scriptures were admitted by our greatest public men to be all important for sound teaching, and he again hoped the Royal Commission would recommend a greater support and encouragement to that system the most becoming a Christian legislation. If so, he should not object to see some of the large sums now at the disposal of the House devoted to this object.

said, that the Report of the Commission would embrace a very wide subject, of which the payment of teachers formed only a part; and while the general question of Irish education might be postponed for a time, the point now under discussion must be settled at once. With reference to the statement that the local contributions had been very small, it ought not to be forgotten that the Catholics had built many of the schools, and thus furnished a gigantic contribution to the gross amount raised. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman expressed himself quite satisfied with the statement of the Chief Secretary.

said, he wished to call attention to the enormous sum of £23,246 required to pay the salaries of the Officers of the Board of Works in Ireland, and the imperfect state in which the accounts must be kept, notwithstanding the expenditure of £5,624 per annum on the Accountant's branch alone, proved, amongst other things, by the fact that a Return for the expenditure on the small Department of the Sea Fisheries was not furnished for a fortnight after it was ordered by the House, and the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act 5 & 6 Vic., c. 106, s. 112, which direct account of receipts and expenditure in each, year to be furnished with the Annual Report on the Fisheries to the Lord Lieutenant. He could point out certain discrepancies and inaccuracies in the accounts of the Irish Board of Works, in one item of which there was a mistake of £27,000; there was also great waste of public money for the salaries and expenses of that Department. Although there was little or no work for a solicitor, the Board charged £1,500 per annum for a solicitor and £400 for his clerks, while he (Mr. Blake) believed that any attorney in Dublin would be glad to perform all the work that had to be done for £200 a year. In the architect's branch there was now very little to be done beyond the erection of lunatic asylums, but the charge was £800 a year for an architect, and £300 for an assistant architect and draftsman. There was also £600 a year for an engineer and £300 for an assistant; but their work was almost confined to the erection of fishery weirs and harbours—the work of the Board in reference to arterial drainage being now performed by other bodies—and he knew from his own experience that the work was very inadequately performed. People who called at the office of the Board were treated with the greatest hauteur. Another instance of the extravagant management of the Board was connected with the late visit to Ireland of the Prince of Wales. On the occasion of the Prince's investiture with the order of St. Patrick, £6,400 was expended in temporarily fitting up St. Patrick's Cathedral for the ceremony, but of that large sum the amount returned for materials afterwards sold was only £250. In conclusion, he contended that £20,000 of that Vote might be easily saved, and the work of the Department more satisfactorily performed. The hon. Member then moved that the Vote be reduced by £3,587, being the salaries of the chairman, commissioner, the accountant, and the chief book-keeper.

said, he concurred generally in what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Blake), except as to the alleged want of courtesy on the part of the officials of the Board. He had himself last Session expressed his objection to the government of Ireland being placed in the hands of irresponsible Boards, and had called attention to certain advances made by the Irish Board of Works upon insufficient security. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer took the matter into consideration, and was obliged to admit that the security on which the money had been lent was totally inadequate to pay either principal or interest. He was anxious not to trespass further on the time of the Committee than was absolutely necessary to show that the Government ought not to trust any further business to the Commissioners of Public Works, considering what had happened since the original formation of that Board. It must be recollected that though there was some communication between the Treasury and the Board of Works, there was no appeal from the latter. The Board of Works had been twice brought under the notice of Parliament—once upon a Motion by Lord Monteagle in the House of Lords, and a second time before a Committee of the House of Commons, of which he had the honour to be Chairman. It appeared when the matter was brought before the House of Lords that the Board of Works could give no satisfactory account of the arterial drainage which had been executed by their officers. They had themselves made the plans and drawn up the estimates, and all the works had been executed by their own officers. In most cases they had to ask for an additional sum of money very nearly equal to the original estimate of the cost. The House of Lords reported to the effect that they could not admit against the resources of Ireland the sum claimed by the Board of Works; and that the arterial drainage which had been so mismanaged should be executed according to the original plan, and at an expense not exceeding the original estimate. The Board of Works undertook to carry out the award of the House of Lords, but they did not do so; they merely skinned over the matter. Then in their Annual Report they stated that a sum of money which could not be recovered under their management had been forgiven by the people of England. But that was unfair and untrue. The Irish counties had paid everything, and more than they ought to have paid. He did not see on what grounds the Board of Public Works was entitled to the confidence of the public or the people of Ireland. They had been employed also on certain lunatic asylums, and the manner in which they had executed the work had given ground for serious complaint. They ran up the expenditure to something close on the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer derived from Ireland in the shape of income tax, and the asylums were badly built after all. Under all the circumstances, it was not unreasonable to ask the Government to consider this matter with a view to retrenchment.

said, that a more important question than the reduction of the Estimate was the charge preferred against the Treasury by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), of having made false Returns to the House. If the printed statements of the Government were not to be trusted, by what were Members to be guided. He insisted it was the duty of the Government to dismiss from the public service those clerks with whom the faulty Returns originated.

said, he was extremely obliged to the hon. Members for Waterford (Mr. Blake) and Roscommon (Colonel French) for having set so good and novel an example in the way of economy as they had done, in asking for the reduction of an Irish Vote. But he was bound to say that the Board of Works in Ireland had most important duties to discharge; it had to look over a very large amount of expenditure of varied character throughout the country, and it consequently required a large establishment. No increase had been made in the charges for that establishment, beyond what length of service justified; and not to vote the salaries of the heads of the Department would be to put an end to the Board altogether, and render many Acts of Parliament, —which could only operate through the heads of the Board—entirely useless for the time being. He did not suppose his hon. Friend meant more by this Motion than to call the attention of the Government to what appeared to be an excessive expenditure. He would be glad to go through the details of the Vote with the hon. Member, and be thankful for any suggestions offered by Irish Members. The head of the Board he knew to be a gentleman of considerable ability and discretion, certainty worthy of the confidence reposed in him: but it, of course, did not follow that a Board long established would not be the better for review. The remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon had reference to everything done in the House during the last thirty years, with regard to works in Ireland. The Board of Works could not be responsible for the things he complained of, because, in every case, it was but the instrument of the Government of the day.

observed that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) had not alluded to the erroneous Returns.

stated that the Returns were framed on figures calculated from a certain basis: the hon. Member (Mr. Blake) made his calculations on another basis—hence the discrepancy.

submitted that the hon. Gentleman should inquire into the subject.

Certainly.

said, he would gladly accept the offer of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) to go over the accounts with him; and he believed he could show that a saving of £20,000 a year might be made. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow him, out of every £10,000 saved, £1,000 for the Irish sea fisheries. The Board cost the country 3s. 4d. for every 20s. it spent in public works—a state of things without parallel in England.

said, he rose to call attention to the terms of the agreements made with the telegraph companies, and to the sums proposed to be given to the companies in pursuance of those agreements. The noble Marquess the Postmaster General thought this a more convenient opportunity than the second reading to go into the agreements, and that was the reason why he made no observations on the occasion of the second reading. As the House knew, by the Act of last Session, it was left with Parliament in this Session to vote or not vote the money required to purchase the telegraphs. On this point it was worth while reading a section of the Preamble of the present Bill, which was as follows:—

"And whereas by the said Act it is provided that in case no Act be passed in that or the next Session of Parliament, putting at the disposal of the Postmaster General such monies as may be requisite for carrying into effect the objects and purposes of the said Act, the provisions contained therein or in the agreements thereby confirmed relating to the arrangements with railways and telegraph companies, and all proceedings there under, should become void; and the Postmaster General is required in that event to pay to the several companies therein mentioned all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by them in relation to any proceedings under the said Act."

He therefore maintained that there would be no breach of the contract with the telegraph companies or the railway companies if the House came to the conclusion that it would not vote any money on this occasion. He objected to the arrangements made, because the basis of the agreements with the telegraph companies was a wrong and improvident one, that basis being that the Government was to give the companies twenty years' purchase for their business; and he was able to quote the authority of Members of the Government for that proposition. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) said—

"Putting aside the admission of the proprietors themselves—that telegraph property was liable to constant depreciation—there was not a business of any kind in the country yielding a profit of 15 per cent that was worth twenty years' purchase. A business that yielded only 5 or 6 per cent might command twenty-five years' purchase; but to give twenty years' purchase for a business that yielded 15 per cent was most improvident."—[3 Hansard, exciii. 1575.]

And the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers) said last year—

"There really was no evidence that twenty years' purchase was a fair price, and the mode in which the price had been fixed in this case would be a bad precedent. The Government should not have fixed upon any number of years' purchase, but should have inserted in the Bill the usual compensation clause, and allowed the price to be fixed as it was in all analogous cases,"— [Ibid. 1597.]

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board also said last year—

"He would ask, was it a proper way to go about the purchase—that they were content to give any amount that could be afforded without actual loss irrespective of the actual value? He knew it might be said that the property was worth holding, and that if we got what we wanted we need not mind the terms. Why should we begrudge the giving a handsome sum to the telegraph companies, if we were to do so without loss to the country? But, he would ask, was that the proper thing for Parliament to do?"—[Ibid. 1574.]

He would answer that it was not; and, if it was not a proper thing for Parliament to do, two things would naturally happen—we should find that the sums to be given to the companies in arbitration, on the basis fixed by the Act of last year, would appear to be very large, having regard to the paid capital of those companies, and we should also find that the shares would rise in the market to an extent unprecedented in the history of any ordinary speculation. He was prepared to show that both these things had happened. The amounts awarded were so preposterously large, and the rise in the value of the shares had been so enormous, that the House would allow him to quote the figures. In January, 1867, the £100 shares of the Electric and International Telegraph Company stood at 132; in January, 1868, they were worth 153; the intentions of the Government were known in November, 1867, the agreement was signed in July, 1868, and in July, 1869, the shares had risen to 255. In January, 867, the £5 shares of the United Kingdom Company stood at 1½ in January, 1868, they were at 2¾ and in July, 1869, they were quoted at 6½ to 7. At the same periods the £5 shares of the London and Provincial Telegraph Company were quoted at l½ 2¼ and 3¼and the £100 shares of the British and Irish Magnetic Company had risen from 90 to 115 and upwards. The most remarkable instance of all was furnished by Reuter's Telegraph Company. In April, 1868, £25 shares were at 9 to 7 dis count; in July, 1868, at the time of the agreement, they stood at 5 to 6 premium; after the agreement was signed they were at 31 premium; and in July, 1869, they were at 45 premium, so that £25 shares had risen from being worth £16 to he worth £70. These figures showed that the market value of shares had risen in a most remarkable manner. What was the effect upon the valuations arrived at by arbitration? The Electric and International Company was to receive £2,900,000, although the whole amount of the capital and debenture debt of the company was £ 1,240,000. The capital of the British and Irish Magnetic Company was £534,000, and it was to receive £1,243,000. The capital of Reuter's Company was £266,000, and it was to receive £726,000. The capital of the United Kingdom Company was £350,000, and it was to receive £562,000; and the unfortunate London and Provincial Company was to receive £60,000 for £65,000. These figures in. themselves furnished sufficient reason for bringing the matter before the House. He did not say they were conclusive; but they called for some explanation from the Government. As a loyal supporter of the Government, he wished to vote for the Bill if he could; but he must ask the House whether the agreements were such that they should be allowed to become precedents. The Water Supply Commission suggested that the Government would have to buy up all the water companies; and, if so, the companies would be anxious to use this case as a precedent. Therefore, it was important the House should express an opinion as to these improvident agreements. He did not concur with those who objected to monopoly, for he thought the Government might rightly perform a function; but they ought not to enter into business, and, therefore, it was right and proper they should have full control as they had in the case of letters. It did not follow from that that it was right to give anything that anybody chose to ask. He understood the Electric Company had not power to pay more than 10 per cent without reducing its charges, and he could not conceive how a concern could be entitled to twenty years' purchase, when there was an actual limit to the amount of dividend which it could divide. The noble Marquess had stated that he had settled with the railway companies; but he understood on good authority that there were large bills in reserve. Some of the most important agreements were short in duration; that with the Midland Company would expire in five years, and it was said that at the end of the five years all the posts and wires on the line of the Midland Company would be the property of that company. Therefore, for what the House knew there might be contingent liabilities for hundreds of thousands or millions more. What would it have cost to have started with a bran-new set of wires and posts? The right hon. Member for the City of London cross-examined the witnesses on the subject last year; and as the result he said in the debate—

"The witnesses estimated their assets at £2,200,000, and it was admitted that if the Government were able to start fair, and begin the system for themselves, the wires could be constructed for less than £2,000,000. They were, therefore, about to pay £4,000,000 more for the good-will, for the buying-up of interests, and he might say, for the eagerness to do the thing in a hurry."

That was the language of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would pause before taking what might justly be called "a leap in the dark." He admitted that, with fairer terms of purchase, the Government had facilities for conducting this business, but, as it was, he had far rather that the whole thing should come to an end than make such a bargain as was proposed. No doubt the present Government were placed in a difficult position by the conditional arrangement entered into by their predecessors in Office, and if the late Government had made it known that they would only give what the business was worth they might have made a better bargain. If a railway company wanted to take a piece of land, they took it at its market value, with 10 or 20 per cent added for compulsory purchase; and it was upon that basis that the business of the telegraph companies should have been valued. Now, what was the business of such a company worth? An hon. Member on the opposite side told him he should be glad to sell his business at five years' purchase; the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) said he should be glad to sell his for ten years' purchase; and the firm with which he (Mr. W. Fowler) was connected would be glad to get ten years' purchase. A telegraphic business was peculiarly hazardous and speculative and he did not believe it was worth more than ten years' purchase. With 25 per cent added for compulsory sale this would make 12½ years' purchase, and, therefore, the country was losing 7½ years' purchase, or £2,000,000 upon the bargain made. Why should this amount be taken out of the pockets of tax-payers to enrich people who were well able to take care of themselves? He hoped the House would not give the extravagant and outrageous amount which was proposed in the Bill, but even supposing that the Bill passed, it should not be regarded as a precedent for future legislation.

said, he thought that the Bill should be referred back to the Select Committee, whose Report had only been published that morning. That might be regarded as tantamount to the rejection of the Bill, and he was prepared to accept that position, feeling that it was better to reject the Bill than squander so much public money. Should the Bill fall to the ground a large sum must, no doubt, be paid to the companies with which contracts had been made; but this compensation could not, upon any reasonable estimate, exceed £500,000, and it would be better to suffer this loss than give £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 at the outset and incur a heavy annual loss besides, as he felt sure would be the result of this measure. It must be remembered that when the subject was introduced late last Session, it was on the distinct understanding that the question was to be left wholly open for the future consideration of Parliament. The Government were not pledged, and no person was in any way, either legally or morally, fettered in dealing with the question. Now, the original estimate of Mr. Scudamore was that the plant and good-will of the telegraphs could be purchased, at the outside, for £2,400,000, and he proposed that another £100,000 should be laid out in extensions, making the total £2,500,000. His calculation of profits, even upon that fair and reasonable outlay, was based on the supposition that 11,200,000 telegrams would be annually sent. But how did he arrive at that supposition? By taking the example of Belgium and Switzerland, and arguing that the proportion existing in those countries between the number of letters and telegrams annually sent might be made to exist here. In England the postage was a Id., and the proposed rate for telegrams Is., so that as 2 were to 5 in Belgium, I was to 12 in England. That was the method by which the number of 11,000,000 telegrams to produce 11,000,000 shillings was arrived at. The estimate, however, both with regard to income and expenditure, was altogether untenable, and other calculations had been made which would bear the test of examination even less. Mr. Scudamore estimated the cost of maintaining and repairing the lines at £130,000 a year, and the expense of management at £326,000 a year. The £130,000 a year would give about 3d. for each telegram, and with 7d. for management, the total would amount to 10d., which added to 6d. for the proportion of interest on the £7,000,000 which each telegram would have to bear, made 1s. 4d. Mr. Scudamore, in the more favourable estimates which he brought forward, gave a profit of £100,000 a year to the Government; but it must be remembered that instead of £2,500,000 being paid for the good-will and plant of the telegraph and railway companies, £6,000,000 odd was to be paid, and the total amount to be raised for the expenditure was £7,000,000, instead of the £3,000,000 originally proposed. It was now estimated that instead, of 11,000,000 telegrams there would be only 8,000,000, so that while the expenditure had been trebled, the source of income had been diminished by one-fourth; and still the noble Marquess (the Postmaster General) estimated the Government profit at £82,000 a year, or only £20,000 a year less than was given by Mr. Scudamore's calculation. The estimates, which were so contradictory as to be absolutely irreconcilable, ought to be investigated by a Select Committee before Parliament was called upon to sanction so great an outlay. Mr. Scudamore stated that the £130,000 for the maintenance and repair of the lines was not an estimate at all, but the actual cost incurred by the four companies which it was first proposed to buy up. Now, however, there were not four but six companies to be bought up, and yet the estimate for maintenance and repairs was reduced to £103,000. That might be easily accounted for by the fact that the companies, expecting to be bought up, had lately abstained from making any such outlay, and they would have a strong inducement to apply to capital what ought to have been taken out of income to keep the lines in proper order. Previous to the prospect of being bought up, four companies spent £130,000 a year in maintenance and repairs; but since the prospect had arisen, six companies had only paid at the rate of £103,000 a year. It was said that the estimate of income and expenditure had been verified by the experience of the Electric and International Company; but it was not taken into consideration that the Electric and International Company had not reduced their charges to Is., and had not extended their lines into unprofitable districts as the Government proposed to do, in order to give the best accommodation to the public. Then there were some great omissions from the items of expenditure as now set forth. In the Act of last Session there was an extraordinary clause, which provided that compensation in the shape of pension or retiring allowance should be paid to all the servants of the companies. Mr. Scudamore stated very distinctly that the compensation to be paid to officers of the company should not be made by the buyers, but by the sellers; but in this Bill it was provided that that compensation should not be paid by those who got these enormous sums out of the public purse, but by the Government, and the additional charge created in that way had not been taken into account by the noble Marquess. The working expenses put down by Mr. Scudamore at 7d. for each telegram, were put down by the noble Marquess at £191,000 on 8,800,000 telegrams, or at 5d. on each; but when it was considered that the cost of each Savings Bank transaction was exactly 7d., it was not unreasonable to suppose that Mr. Scudamore's calculation was much nearer the mark than that of the noble Marquess. But the estimate of 8,800,000 telegrams would not bear any examination whatever. The estimate was arrived at in this way—It was said that, according to the rate at which the telegraphic business had been increasing for the last few years, the number of telegrams, by the time the Government took up the business, would amount to 6,240,000 and an increase of 40 per cent was then added to that, on the ground of the extra accommodation which would be afforded to the public, and on the ground of the increased cheapness in the price of the message. But on examination it would be found that the 6d. messages in the metropolitan district would be raised to Is., or just doubled in price, and that a falling off of only 25 per cent was allowed for it, while the 1s. 6d. messages would be lowered to 1s., or reduced by only one-third in price, and that an increase of 30 per cent was estimated upon that. He believed that the most sanguine calculations that could be made in this matter would be that 7,000,000 telegrams, at the very outside, might be anticipated at the uniform rate of Is., involving a charge of 8d. on each telegram. The working expenses being 7d., and the cost of maintenance 4d., the whole would be 1s.7d.; but it was proposed to work for 1s. 2d. There would, therefore, certainly be a loss on each telegram of 5d., instead of a gain to meet contingencies. If he did not fear to weary the House he could show many more cases in which the estimate was entirely erroneous. He would only mention that there was an item in the accounts relating to the Atlantic and European Telegraph passing through this country. That charge was 1s. 6d., and it was proposed to reduce it to Is., although the French cable would be brought into competition, and would cut off a source of the present revenue. He regretted that he could not afford the Government his support in this measure. He hoped that the whole subject would be referred to the Select 'Committee. ["Move!"] Well, he would move that the Bill be referred back to the Committee, with a view to the further examination of the Estimates.

seconded the Amendment.

did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down into the various statements he had made; but being a director of one of the telegraph companies he could give some information to the House on the subject of telegraphs which it was desirable hon. Members should possess. In 1868 the companies were by no means desirous to part with their property, but the question whether the Government should be in possession of the telegraphs having been forced on their consideration, the three principal companies very reluctantly came to an arrangement with the Government of the day. He did not wish to express any opinion on the bargain which had been made, and would only say for himself and those with whom he was associated that they very deeply regretted to be obliged to part with property which had been profitable, and which they had great pleasure in managing. In 1862 the net earnings or profit of the Electric and International Telegraph Company were £67,363; in 1863, £89,630; in 1864, £102,906; in 1865, £127,075; in 1866, £133,502; in 1867, £145,725; and in 1868, £171,843. In consequence of the increase of revenue the Government would only pay sixteen instead of twenty years' purchase. He had only, therefore, to repeat that so far as his company were concerned they were extremely sorry to part with their property, which had been so productive, and which they had reason to believe had been conducted with some advantage to the public. Exception had been taken to the figures of the Postmaster General as to the expenditure of telegraph companies. The present receipts of the three principal companies amounted to £585,127, and their expenditure to £343,260, leaving a net profit of £240,000. By amalgamation there would be an economy of at least 40 per cent on the actual working expenses of the companies, so that of the present expenditure, £343,260, for maintenance and cost of clerks, it would not be an excessive estimate to say that the Post Office would save £137,000. No doubt there must be some deductions from this on account of wires carried into places where they did not now exist; but still there would be great economy from the fact that the Post Office and. the Post Office clerks would in these cases be used. He wished to express no opinion on the general subject; he only wished to state to the House facts which it was well they should know with regard to the value of the large property in question.

said, he did not wish to interpose for any long time between the House and the Bill, but as the bargain made by the late Government had been criticized it might be considered hardly respectful to the House if he did not say a few words. The question of the bargain made had been very fully discussed last year, but the two hon. Gentlemen who had to-night spoken against the Bill were not then Members of the House, and he was only afraid he might repeat what he then said. The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. R. Torrens) had stated that the Bill of last year was brought in at a late period of the Session; but that was not an accurate statement. The Bill had been introduced on the 1st of April. It was true it had not been discussed till a late period of the Session but it was laid on the table to give Members a full opportunity of making up their minds and also on account of the negotiations which were going on a long time with the different telegraphic companies. Subsequently, when the discussion came on, great obstruction was made to the passing of the Bill—not on account of any strong objection to the principle of the Bill, but because Members then on the Opposition side of the House were not desirous that the late Government should pass it. ["No, no!"] He believed that this was the state of the case, but he, for one, was willing to let bygones be bygones. Objection was now taken to the term of twenty years' purchase being adopted as the basis of the agreement, and it was said that this was extravagant. By the Act of 1844, which gave the Government the option of purchasing the railways after a certain interval, it was provided that the Government should give them twenty five years' purchase of the profits. So that the agreement of last year with the telegraph, companies gave them five years' purchase less than the sum which Parliament thought fit to provide should be given by the Government for the railways. The question then was, whether the terms should be left to arbitration or whether they should be based on so many years' purchase of the property. The original proposal was by arbitration, and as soon as that was known the shares began to rise immediately. It was not difficult to account for this rise in price. In the first place, this was the first time the business of the telegraph companies had been subject to Government investigation, and after this investigation the holders of shares became more satisfied in regard to the values of their property, and therefore the price to purchasers was considerably enhanced. In the next place the proposal was to buy up the whole of these undertakings, and this raised the price far more than if a few haphazard purchasers had gone into the market to buy only a few shares. It was not until very late in the Session that the late Government agreed to purchase the telegraphs on the terms then agreed upon. The first calculation of the Government was that they ought to take eighteen years' profits as the basis of purchase. The companies, on the other hand, stood out for twenty-five years; but eventually a compromise was come to, and it was agreed to take twenty years. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) said that he should be glad to sell his business for ten years' purchase of profits; but in this case the Government bought the plant of the companies as well as their good-will, and he did not know whether there was any great value in the hon. Member's plant. The companies not only sold their business, but they gave up the hope of carrying it on in any other form or direction. The late Government had to consider whether the companies were not carrying on business at an increasing rate of profit. The time of the year was one considerable element in the calculation, because it was clear that if the Government and the companies did not come to an agreement the Bill must be dropped for the Session. It was said —"Well, let it drop, and if a satisfactory arrangement is come to another Bill can be carried next Session." The Government had to consider whether it was more economical to agree to the terms proposed or to drop the Bill. He came to the conclusion, for which he was responsible, that if the Bill were postponed the Government would have to give this Session a far larger sum than that which they would give on the then basis of twenty years. This view of the question was confirmed by the noble Marquess the other night, when he said that although the Government agreed to give twenty years' purchase last year, they were now really buying the telegraphs at seventeen and a-half years' purchase, on account of the increase in the profits during the last year. This probability was brought under his consideration, and had very considerably influenced him in the course he adopted. He admitted that the Government were about to give very liberal terms to the companies, but they were bound to do so. The sale was a compulsory one. The companies did not want to part with their property, while the Government and the public very much desired to buy it. He believed that the undertaking would answer in the hands of the Government, and they now heard that the telegraphs would bring in a net profit of £77,000 a year to the Post Office—a sum which would be largely increased every year, according to the increase of business. Last year the Government made the best bargain they could for the public, being convinced from what was said, both in the Press and in Parliament, that it was desired the telegraphs should be transferred to the Post Office. He believed that if the House now assented to the agreement they would be making a very good investment on the part of the public.

denied that Members sitting on his side of the House, who had opposed the arrangement last year, had been actuated by any feeling of jealousy. The late Government should have the credit of carrying the measure. He had not the good fortune to be a shareholder in any of the telegraph companies, but the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had given the House some useful information in regard to the company with which he was honourably connected as a director, and if they had been supplied with similar information from each of the other companies the House would have been in a better position to form an accurate judgment on this subject. The magnitude of the sums to be given for profit had hardly been fully realized. The Electric and International were to receive as profit £1,200,827; the British and Irish Magnetic, £277,596; and the United Kingdom, £370,000— the profit being calculated as the difference between the sum given by the Government and the shares and stock valued at the market prices of June, 1868. But the sum given to Renter's Company as profits far exceeded these. The capital of that company was £250,000, and the shares of £25 each, upon which £24 had been paid, were quoted at £22 10s. The sum given to that company as profit was £501,000, or 200 per cent., and he found it impossible to understand the process by which that sum was arrived at. The matter was referred for arbitration to the Recorder of London, in whom he felt the greatest confidence, nor did he doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had done justice between the parties. He confessed the terms now proposed to be given to the companies were, in his opinion, exorbitant and preposterous beyond all reason. Still he thought that the House was bound by its bargain. Parliament undertook last year to pay these companies twenty years' purchase, and if it could be shown that the profits amounted to the sum set down the House could not help itself without breaking faith with the companies. He thought the bargain a very bad one, but he was afraid it must be carried out.

said, that however interesting might be the subject raised by the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler and Mr. R. Torrens) he should not be justified in going very largely into it, seeing that it was not exactly a practical question. At the same time he did not know that he could quite go the length of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), who said that they were bound by the bargain of last year, and that to depart from it would be a breach of good faith. He thought, on the contrary, that the House were quite competent to repudiate the bargain if they thought it a bad one. The House, no doubt, did decide last year to acquire possession of this property. They thought that its acquisition would be a great public convenience and advantage, and there was no reason to think other- wise now. The question was, if the House still thought it desirable to acquire this property at all, whether the sum now proposed to be given for it was too much. He did not think he need go into the vexed question of whether twenty years' purchase was too large an amount or not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) as, indeed, was his duty, had defended the course which he thought it right last year to take upon that subject; and he himself was, in fairness, bound to repeat what he had said on the last occasion when this subject was under discussion, that, although twenty years was the term fixed for the purchase of the profits up to June of last year, the business which the Government was going to buy was not up to June of last year, but up to next January. Hence, upon that calculation, the business would not be taken at twenty years purchase, but considerably under seventeen. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), in the discussion which was held last year, insisted that seventeen years' purchase would have been the proper price to pay; hence, the difference was reduced to something very small indeed. Having given the subject his best consideration, he must say, without expressing any opinion as to the terms of the bargain, that if they were to begin afresh he did not think they could get the property on better terms. The question was not whether lower terms might have been had last year, but whether the House were justified in giving this price now. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) had impugned the estimate laid upon the table of the House, and he felt bound to answer one or two of the remarks which had been made. The hon. Member compared, as it was very easy to do, the estimate made by Mr. Scudamore last year and the year before with that made by the same gentleman in the present year, and it was not extraordinary that he had been able to find out some discrepancies arising from the additional information which had been acquired. Estimates, at first, were necessarily vague; they subsequently became more precise, and must, of course, show some variation in detail. The hon. Member, however, could not complain that the recent estimate of revenue to be expected was unduly magnified to meet the emergency; for the estimate laid be- fore the House the other day was much more moderate than the one previously presented. At first, Mr. Scudamore had before him only the information which could be obtained with regard to certain foreign countries, whereas the estimate presented the other day was based entirely on the experience of our own country, upon the number of telegrams sent last year, and upon an anticipated increase corresponding to the increase which had been found in practice to follow the reductions of tariff similar to that which the Government were about to make. Nothing, he believed, could be more moderate than that estimate of probable revenue, and he should be very much disappointed if it were not considerably exceeded. The hon. Member had also passed some criticisms upon the last estimate of expenditure compared with the former estimate made by Mr. Scudamore. As he had explained to the House the other day, the last estimate of expenditure was made upon a careful computation and consideration of the actual number of posts and wires that would have to be maintained, of the number of electric machines that would be in operation, of the staff at each electric station; in fact, upon a detailed estimate of the whole expenditure. This was obviously very different from the former estimates, which could only be prepared on general data. The hon. Member had also criticized some minor points; he said, for instance, that the item of compensation was entirely omitted. In that he was quite mistaken—it was not considered desirable to put down every separate item, as the exact amount which would have to be paid by way of compensation, as that might have excited undue expectation in particular quarters, as well as have raised up claims that it might be inconvenient to deal with. But in the item of £191,000 for salaries, &c, a sum had been inserted which would be quite sufficient to cover everything required for compensation. The hon. Member also compared the estimate given of 7d. as the expenditure for each message with this item of £191,000. But the estimate of 7d. a message had reference to a great many other items besides this £191,000, as he could show if time permitted. With a view of showing that the estimates were inaccurate, the hon. Member had asserted that the Government only allowed for a reduction of 25 per cent in the number of messages, the tariff of which would be raised from 6d. to Is. The Government began by estimating that these messages would be reduced 50 per cent, but against this they held that they were entitled to set off the 15 per cent general increase which was looked for all over the country on account of the increased facilities for telegraphic communication which would be afforded. Deducting the 15 from the 50 per cent, there remained a balance of 35 per cent, which the Government recognized as the probable loss on this class of messages. As to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge, he sincerely hoped it would not be pressed. The hon. Member, no doubt, entertained a strong opinion upon the question; but it was certainly remarkable that he should have postponed his Motion till after the Bill had been considered by the Select Committee, and by them reported to the House. Even if the Bill could now be re-committed to the same Committee, the House would see that the object which the hon. Member contemplated would not be accomplished. As to the Resolution of the 20th July, 1860, to which he referred, that was altogether a misconception on the part of the hon. Member. In the first place, that Resolution no longer existed, for upon his own Motion, the other day, that Resolution had been repealed and another substituted for it. It related, moreover, to quite a different sort of contract from those now under consideration—that was to say, to contracts entered into by the Government on their own responsibility, and which, till the passing of that Resolution, had never been submitted to the House in any shape. Here, on the contrary, contracts had not only been submitted to the House, but embodied in a Bill, which, after consideration by a Select Committee and by the House in all its stages, received the sanction of the House and became law. What possible analogy could there be between contracts such as these, and contracts entered into by the Government on their own responsibility, which very properly were required to be submitted for the consideration of the House? Had there been time he should have been delighted to submit the estimates that had been laid upon the table for examination by a Select Committee; but the House would perceive that a period of the Session had now arrived when the re-committal of the Bill and the submission of the estimates to a Committee would be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. It was for the House to consider whether the terms proposed to be given, high as they undoubtedly were, were so high as to justify the setting aside of what he believed to be the almost unanimous desire of the country that the Government should go on with this undertaking, and whether they would accept the responsibility of postponing this measure for several years, with the risk meanwhile—for there was a risk—that ultitimately they might have to pay a much larger sum for the purchase than was at present proposed. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

said, he wished to draw attention to the extension of the definition of the word "telegraph" under this clause, which defined that word as including all modes of sending messages by means of signals, while a subsequent clause proposed to give the Government a monopoly of all telegraphic business. The Bill as it stood, therefore, would prevent any private person from conveying messages by signals of whatever nature they might be, and would have the effect, therefore, of putting a stop to all projects for improving the existing system of carrying messages by signal. In the Act of 1863 the word "telegraph" was defined as meaning wires used for the purpose of telegraphic communication, and that appeared to him to be amply sufficient for the purpose of the Government. During the last two or three years a very ingenious system of conveying messages by means of flashing lights had been invented, and the clause as it stood would prevent any extension of that system.

said, he thought the Committee would do well to give their attention to the remarks which had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie). The subject was one to which he had intended to direct the notice of the Committee himself. It was a very serious thing to propose that the Government should have a monopoly not only in the existing process, but also in any process which might be hereafter discovered. If the Committee examined the clause they would find that it would give the Government a monopoly of every means of communicating by signals. The words of the clause were sufficiently wide to embrace speaking by the fingers, and it appeared to him that spirit-rapping might also be held to be included, because, according to what its professors stated, spirit-rapping was a system of transmitting messages by means of signals. The monopoly enjoyed by the Post Office was something of a totally different character from that which the Government were going to claim under this Bill. The monopoly of the Post Office gave that Department the exclusive right of conveying letters and messages by means of railways, mail-coaches, dog-carts, and so forth; but the monoply which the Government were going to claim under this Bill would give them the exclusive right of conveying messages of an incorporeal character, not only by wires, but by any other means which the ingenuity of mankind might hereafter devise. In the Report of the evidence taken before the Committee it was said that somebody had taken out a patent for transmitting messages without the medium of a wire. That notion seemed to be ridiculous, but it was 300 years old. Hon. Members would find in the Spectator reference made to an account given by an Italian author, 300 years ago, of an imaginary mode of correspondence, which, with the exception of the wire, exactly corresponded to the telegraph of the present day. There was no wire, but the dial plate and the characters were accurately described. If the Government were to have a monopoly it ought to be limited to the existing process. Certainly they ought not to have a monopoly of a science which was now only in its infancy and of which we could not foresee the future development.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper before "signals" to insert the word "telegraphic."

said, he would suggest that the words '' magnetic, electric, and voltaic "should be inserted before the word "signals."

thought that the word "electric" would be sufficient.

said he had no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) or of the word "electric" only.

rose to move an Amendment. He said that in the opinion of the Government it was necessary to give the Government a monopoly. By the clause as it stood a monopoly would only be given to them for seven years, but if it were given at all there was no reason why it should not be given permanently. The reasons in favour of a monopoly were so obvious that had such a proposal not been summarily rejected by the Committee of last year he should hardly have thought it necessary to bring forward any arguments to show its necessity. The taking up of the telegraphs would cost the Government £7,000,000. A complete system could be constructed for less than that; but Parliament—and he thought very wisely—would never have consented to any attempt on the part of the Government to supplant the existing companies without paying them. At the same time if the Government took up the telegraphs with the object of developing the system for the benefit of the public at large, it would never do to allow them to be opposed in particular places where messages would pay at a very cheap rate. For instance, he had no doubt that between the Stock Exchanges of some of our great towns it might be found profitable to send messages for 6d. or some such sum. If an opposition of that kind were commenced against a company they would meet it by reducing the scale of charge in the particular places where the opposition was offered, but the Government could not do so. They must have a uniform tariff, and if they reduced it to 6d. or 3d. in one place they must reduce it over the whole country. He thought, therefore, a monopoly was necessary. If it were not a proper thing to grant, it ought not to be granted, but if it were he thought it ought to be granted permanently. Of course Parliament would always have power to take it away again. Of course, as far as the Post Office was concerned, he highly approved the proviso proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), limiting the monopoly therein to seven years. It certainly made the clause more innocuous than it otherwise would be. But he would ask whether the proviso, after all, was a right one. If any company or individual was entitled to compensation, was it right to debar him from the opportunity of being heard in support of his claim? If he was not entitled to compensation, was it likely that he would succeed in getting it? He would therefore move, in lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words "for the period of seven years and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament."

said, that the Committee by whom this subject was considered last year came to the conclusion, on a division by 6 to 1, that no monopoly ought to be granted to the Government at all, and the Bill of last year was, he believed, adopted with so much readiness by the House chiefly on that account. The change of Government occurred, and in the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred this year, a decided preference was evinced for restricted as against complete monopoly. These two facts he therefore maintained were sufficient to show that the Bill ought not now to be lightly disturbed. The evidence given before the Committee last year went to show that as long as they conducted their business properly the Post Office would have a practical monopoly, if not a legal one, for Parliament no doubt would readily assent to a renewal of the monopoly. But it was, in his opinion, most important that Parliament should keep a check in its hands over the working of this system, so that new inventions might be taken advantage of, and the public should have the power, under favourable circumstances, of demanding a reduction of rates. He thought that the clause in its present state, which was a sort of compromise between the advocates and the opponents of monopoly, should be allowed to remain.

observed that the arguments advanced by the noble Marquess the Postmaster General had not been answered. The country was buying not merely the plant connected with these telegraphs, but the whole of the business, and why were they not to get that for which they paid? They paid, and dearly too, for the whole of the business, and those engaged in it now ought not to be allowed at any future time to re-commence operations. If the monopoly was not to be given, the money ought not to be paid; if the money ought to be paid, the monopoly ought to be granted. The proviso advocated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) contemplated the possibility of the Post Office losing the monopoly at some future time. The result of that would be that the Post Office would have a complete monopoly over those districts where there was a loss, and be exposed to a ruinous competition when there was any success. If the House thought they were not to be trusted, it would be better not to accede to the proposal before the House; but unless they had this monopoly the purchase of these telegraphs would be a waste of money at the immense price the Government was called upon to pay —a price of which he, at all events, washed his hands altogether. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) had accused them of appropriating the honour of this measure. He had not the slightest desire to contest the point with the right hon. Gentleman, who was welcome to it all. The matter was found by the present Government in so complicated a state that it was impossible for them to recede; but unless the House was prepared to grant them that without which they believed it would be impossible to carry on the business effectively, it would be better that they should reject the Bill altogether.

said, he had always felt that if the messages were delivered at a low rate they would be exposed to a loss, and if at a high rate they would be exposed to unpopularity, and he certainly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better not to carry the Bill unless the Government obtained a monopoly. He was reminded of an old observation that there were always people to be found who were getting in the way merely for the purpose of being paid to get out of it.

said, he thought it was a most unreasonable thing to ask the Government to give the telegraph companies seventeen years' purchase for their property, and to only take a monopoly for seven years. He wished, however, to have some information as to the accommodation which the public were to receive. It might, for instance, be desirable to have two telegraphs to a town, and that it should not be excluded from telegraphic communication on a Sunday.

said, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed in his speech to lose sight of the fact that the present transaction, though a costly one, still must be regarded simply in the light of an experiment. The Government were about to undertake an entirely new service for the public. The Committee must not forget that a service might be dear and yet be bad, and he, for one, was of opinion that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) to afford Parliament, after a certain number of years' experience of the system, an opportunity of inquiring into the working of the monopoly was very fair. The effect of that proposal would, not necessarily be, as was argued, to terminate the monopoly at the end of seven years. The way in which it would operate would probably be that at the expiration of five or six years an inquiry would be instituted into the working of the Act, when, if there were any complaints made of the badness or the dearness of the service, some means of meeting them might be devised. For his own part, he looked upon the proposal as by no means unreasonable.

said, it was quite clear from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as from other speeches which had been addressed to the Committee, that the monopoly clauses were regarded by some hon. Members as a kind of compensation for a bad bargain. Now, no mention Was made in that House of monopoly last year, and the first inkling of it was contained in a speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the elections. But whatever other arguments there might be—and that there were arguments he did not mean to deny — in favour of giving the Government a monopoly in telegraphic communication, he did not think the argument of his right hon. Friend was a valid one. If the Government had made a bad bargain with the telegraph companies, that was no good reason why they should saddle the country with all the disadvantages of a monopoly system for eternity. "But," said the right hon. Gentleman, "we paid for these rights, and why should we not have them?" The Government, however, could not have purchased, that which the companies had no power to sell. The companies did not possess a monopoly, and how, under those circumstances, was it open to the Government to come down to that House and lay claim to it on the ground that they had paid a high price for the business of those companies? There was, he might add, a great distinction between the Post Office monopoly and that of the telegraph. The Post Office monopoly conferred on the Post Office the exclusive right of carrying parcels and letters by the ordinary means of conveyance; but anybody else might make use of those modes of conveyance. In the case of the telegraph, however, the public could not have a second string to their bow, for the Government claimed not only the exclusive right of sending telegraphic messages, but exclusive control over the instrument by which they were sent. The two cases were therefore by no means parallel. He should like to read to the Committee what was the opinion on the subject of some of the really working men of the Post Office, especially of Mr. Scudamore, who, having been asked whether he thought a monopoly necessary, replied—

" We neither ask for it, nor do I think we ought to ask for it."

Again, he said—

" As long as we do the work well, with such an organization as we have, we can defy competition."

He added—

" There is no protection given in the ease of the Money Order Office. Anybody could set one up to compete with us. … On the whole, I am inclined to think that a legal monopoly would be a disadvantage instead of an advantage to us, because it would compel all inventors and patentees to look to us only for the use of their inventions, and would often compel us to try worthless ones."

Professor Jevons said—

" I should be against a legal monopoly; I think there is no need for it, and there are many reasons against it. The practical monopoly which the Government will enjoy will only arise from their doing the work better and cheaper than private companies."

He could only find one witness who was in favour of giving the Government a monopoly, and that gentleman, he had been informed, was not a very successful inventor in connection with the electric telegraph himself. The title which the Post Office had to a monopoly depended, he might add, on its cheapness and regularity, and not on any legal power. The Government, too, had bought the way leaves of the existing railway companies, and how, under these circumstances, he should like to know, was any telegraph company to set up in opposition to them, except along the turnpike roads? And how was it to get the turnpike roads? For his own part he was of opinion that the House ought not to tie its hands in the matter, so that it should be free to act in the event of the Government not performing the work satisfactorily.

said, he thought that Parliament would always have the right and the power of preventing the continuance of an improper exercise of the monopoly.

said, that before he heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was inclined to think favourably of the Amendment of his Colleague the noble Marquess who sat beside him. That speech, however, disclosed such an uneasy state of mind as to the price which had been paid to the telegraph companies that he was afraid the public would be made to suffer severely if the monopoly asked for were granted.

said, this clause enacted that private messages might be sent by private lines of telegraph. There was some uncertainty, however, whether the clause would extend to private lines of telegraph which might be constructed after the Bill became law. He hoped the noble Marquess would explain the matter.

wished to know whether the telegraph offices would be open on Sundays?

said, he believed there could be no doubt that the clause would be applicable to telegraphs hereafter to be established, as well as to those already existing. There would be no diminution of the accommodation now afforded to the public. On the contrary, the various offices, when placed under the control of the Government, would be open a greater number of hours day and night than they now were. On Sundays the telegraph offices would be open, at all events, wherever they were now.

moved the insertion of words to exempt from the operation of the Bill telegrams transmitted by telegraphs maintained by corporations, companies, or persons, when such telegrams were not transmitted for any valuable consideration.

proposed to insert the word "may" instead of "shall."

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would give the Government a power of choosing what foreign Government or company should communicate with America or other nations through our system. What would happen in case of two companies in Russia should wish to communicate with America by joining a submarine cable with our system? "Would the Government exercise a power of choice as between the two?

said, that no such consideration influenced the Government in framing this clause.

also thought that the power should be compulsory.

asked if messages could be passed through in cypher if required?

said, they could be so passed if required.

expressed a hope that telegrams would be sent at such a price that the poor would have the advantage which was now confined to the rich.

said, as soon as the tariff could be reduced below Is. with safety to the Revenue and convenience to the Post Office, it would be.

asked whether a telegram sent during election times would be regarded as a post letter, and be incapable of being produced as evidence in a court of justice?

said, this Bill would make no difference whatever, as he understood the matter, in the existing law in regard to the inviolability of telegrams.

said, this was an important question, and he would like to know whether the information which may come into the possession of the Government would be liable to be used in a court of law?

said, as he understood it, a telegram was just as much privileged as a letter. It would be producible as evidence in a court of justice, according to a principle of law that was acted upon every day. Nothing would be more pernicious than to make the Government the recipient of confidential messages which must remain in its hands. A letter was not privileged against production, and neither should a telegram be.

entirely agreed with his right hon. and learned. Friend, who, he believed, had correctly stated the law; and it would be very in expedient that it should be altered. At present the telegraph company could be compelled under the rules of a court of justice to produce the papers placed in their hands containing the messages to be transmitted by them.