asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a coroner's inquest held in Salford, on Monday the 9th instant, on the body of a boy named Patrick Slane, aged nine years, who had been confined in the Roman Catholic Industrial School at Ashton under Lyne, and at which inquest the jury, whilst finding a verdict of death from natural causes, added that they were of opinion that the officers of the institution have not had sufficient experience to qualify them for the duties they have to perform, that they believe there has been considerable neglect in the domestic arrangements of the school, and that the deceased boy had not had either the kind attention or suitable nourishment required by a boy of his tender age and weakly constitution, and that in their opinion an inquiry by magistrates of the county, or some other duly authorised authority should be instituted into the whole discipline of the school; and, whether he is prepared to order such an inquiry; and, if so, whether it will be conducted in public?

Sir, the Question of the hon. Member divides itself into two parts. First, the circumstances of the boy's death; and, secondly, the condition of the Industrial School. As to the first point, it appears that the boy was admitted in December last in delicate health, and suffering from the disease of which he died, and was placed under the care of the house surgeon. It is asserted by the managers, but was not satisfactorily proved to the coroner's jury, that the boy received every care and attention from the matron and officers. On the 26th of May he was, by the surgeon's advice, allowed to go home to his mother, where he died in a few days. His death ought to have been reported to the Home Office, but was not. The Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools has applied for fall information to the manager who is in temporary charge of the school, but has not yet received it. Now as to the second point. The state of the school has been the subject of inquiry and correspondence for three or four weeks past on the part of Mr. Turner, the Inspector. The school was set on foot in 1869 by the then Roman Catholic priest of Ashton-under-Lyne. He was assisted by Mr. Aspland, a Protestant magistrate, and latterly by a small committee of Roman Catholic gentlemen of Manchester and the vicinity. The school was carried on with fair average success for the first two or three years; but on the inspection for last year it was found necessary to represent very strongly the want of cleanliness and effective teaching, and to threaten the suspension of the certificate. Unfortunately, in consequence of Mr. Aspland's illness and other circumstances, the management of the school and the receipt and control of the money paid by the Government and by local authorities for the maintenance of the boys committed to it were left without any interference in the hands of the priest, and the result is that the school is now involved heavily in debt, and that for some months past the discipline and treatment of the inmates have been very unsatisfactory. The late manager was removed by the Roman Catholic Bishop and another priest appointed in his place. Mr. Rogers, the Assistant Inspector, has visited the school, and conferred with the Committee. He will meet them again in a few days, and after receiving his Report, I shall be in a position to decide whether it will be necessary to revoke the certificate and discontinue the school, or whether such improvements in its future management will be guaranteed as will justify me in sanctioning its continuance.

asked the. Secretary of State for War, If he can give any reason why the claims for compensation for damages in the Autumn Manœuvres last year have not been all settled in Wiltshire; and, if he can state any time before which all such claims shall be paid?

Sir, all the claims except one have been amicably settled, and that one remains at present unsettled, because it is greatly in excess of any other similar claim, and the Compensation officer, not being satisfied as to its amount, is still in correspondence with those by whom it has been preferred.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the sum expended or to be expended in the purchase of land and purchase and erection of buildings for depôt centres throughout the United Kingdom?

The sums, Sir, are stated in the Schedule of the Act of last year. The sum for the purchase of land at depôt centres is £204,000, and that for the purchase and erection of buildings at those centres £1,627,000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the case of Samuel Mays, lately sentenced by the Halstead Magistrates to one month's imprisonment on the charge of deserting his wife and family, and leaving them on the parish; the statement on his behalf being that the man had gone to Durham to find work, had remitted some of his earnings to his wife, had spoken to his employer for a house, and was preparing to send for his family; and, whether he will make an inquiry into the matter?

Sir, I have inquired into this case, the facts of which are as follows:—Samuel Mays was apprehended on a warrant for leaving his wife and six children chargeable to the parish. It appeared that he had left his parish in Essex some nine weeks before his apprehension, and had gone to Durham in search of employment. This he obtained after the lapse of a week, and had during his absence sent his wife £1 16s., his wages being £1 a-week. He had, however, lost a week's work from no fault of his own, and his earnings had amounted to £7; he stated that he was in treaty for a house, but no evidence of this was offered. The offence of leaving a wife and children chargeable to the poor rate is punishable by three months' imprisonment; the magistrates sentenced him to one month's imprisonment, observing that the prisoner was quite right to go away if he could better himself, but if he did so he was bound to make arrangement for the support of his family in his absence. It is not easy to decide these cases satisfactorily. It would be a most dangerous position to assume that a man might leave his family to be supported by the poor rates on the chance of his obtaining employment elsewhere at some indefinite time. On the other hand, in cases where a man, as in the present instance, was unable to obtain a sufficient livelihood at home, and sought and obtained employment elsewhere, making remittances to his family, it was obviously desirable that the law should be leniently applied. I think that a less severe punishment would have satisfied the justice of the case. At the same time, I am satisfied that the imputation made elsewhere on the magistrate of personal feeling against the prisoner is unfounded. I have no doubt he did his duty impartially and according to the best of his judgment. The sentence has expired, and there does not appear to be any necessity for further inquiry.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is intended to remunerate the Clerks of Unions in Ireland for the additional duty imposed upon them in making out Lists of Jurors?

in reply, said, that these expenses would be dealt with under the Act of 1871. Probably his hon. Friend had in his mind the various Petitions which had been presented by Boards of Guardians, praying that the expenses under the Juries Act should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. That, however, was a question which would have to be considered separately both as regarded England and Ireland, and he could not hold out any hope that the course proposed would be adopted.

asked the Postmaster General, When the Return, ordered by the House on the 1st May last, regarding outstanding claims of Railway Companies for the purchase or rent of their telegraphs will be laid upon the Table; and, if all claims from the United Kingdom have been received and registered?

Sir, Mr. Chetwynd expresses a confident expectation that the Return, so far as it can be given, will be ready by the 10th of July. We have received and recorded all the notices from Railway Companies requiring the Postmaster General to purchase their telegraph undertakings, which, within the time prescribed by the Telegraphs Acts, 1868–9, can be given. In the great majority of cases, however, the amount to be claimed has not yet been specified.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether the Troops taking part in the coming Manœuvres will, both Regulars and Militia, be supplied with the new valise equipment; and, whether it is in contemplation to adopt a new pattern legging, or laced boot, and water bottle?

Sir, the new valise equipment will not be supplied to troops taking part in the coming Manœuvres who are not already provided with it. An alteration has been made in the pattern of leggings to be issued next year; but trials are being made in order to ascertain whether a boot could not be introduced which would combine the advantages of boot and legging. A water bottle of the Italian pattern is being introduced into the service.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether he has made further inquiry into the allegation that the Commanding Officer of a Cavalry Regiment had misappropriated the lodging allowance of the riding master, and for that purpose had falsified a War Office Return; whether the allegation was substantially true; whether, in order to exculpate other regiments, he is prepared to name the regiment in which this irregularity took place, and to explain what steps have been or will be taken by the authorities; and, whether the officer has been or will be shortly promoted to a high office?

Sir, assisted by the information which has been furnished to me by the hon. Gentleman, I have made further inquiry into the charge that has been preferred against a cavalry officer by calling on that officer for an explanation. The officer referred to is the late lieutenant-colonel of the 4th Dragoon Guards, now Major General Shute, and the transaction occurred so long ago as 1871. On calling on the Major General for an explanation that officer responded in the frankest manner. It appears that in 1871 the lieutenant-colonel of the 4th Dragoon Guards, having a number of recruits and young horses, thought it absolutely necessary for the good of the service that the riding-master should live in the barracks, and as that officer had a family he gave up his quarters to him, drawing when the barracks were not fully occupied the consolidated allowance of fuel and light himself. When the barracks were quite full the riding-master was placed on the lodging list, and the commanding officer, instead of drawing the consolidated allowance of fuel and light, received the lodging allowance of the riding-master, amounting to £7 12s. There has been no loss to the public by this transaction; but the commanding officer ought to have represented the circumstances of the case, and it would not have been at variance with precedent for permission to have been given to him to proceed as regards the quarters as he did on his own responsibility. It cannot, however, be denied that the Return which he signed was not in literal accordance with the circumstances as they actually occurred. Major General Shute excuses this on the ground that he did so through inadvertence, and without properly examining the Return and satisfying himself of its correctness; but he has been informed by the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, that the Secretary of State cannot excuse the signature by an officer, for whatever reason, of a Return not true in fact, and His Royal Highness has been requested to convey to him an expression of the Secretary of State's displeasure on this account. With reference to the last portion of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I find on inquiry that Major General Shute has not been promoted to any other office, if office it can be called, than that of honorary colonel of Volunteers, and I do not know of his being promoted shortly to any high office. I do not, however, wish this answer to be interpreted as conveying the impression that this error is to be regarded as a disqualification to all future time for employment suitable to his rank.

said, that, in explanation of the Question he was about to put, he begged leave to state that the previous day the Lord Chief Justice of England charged the Attorney General with the responsibility of protecting the administration of justice by bringing before the Court all persons whom he might consider guilty of contempt of Court in reference to the present case. He would now ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the prosecutions for contempt of Court in reference to the Tichborne case, Whether on the part of the Government he is prepared to pay such costs; and, if so, whether he so acts by the advice of the Attorney General, or on what other legal advice; and also, as to the general expenses of this prosecution, whether he is prepared to state the amount already paid or incurred, and to what extent the Government are pledged to provide funds for this purpose?

Sir, the costs which have been incurred by anything that has been done under the direction of the Chief Justice in this matter are already provided for, under the head of "Law Charges," by the Vote of this House; and therefore I have no duty to discharge with regard to asking the Attorney General's or anyone else's opinion on the subject. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, which asks as to the amount of the costs already paid or incurred in the prosecution now pending, that Question appears to me an improper one. It can only—I will not say that it is intended to have such an effect—but it can only serve to prejudice the case which is now pending.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the rumour that the pay of Colonels of Cavalry Regiments of the Line has been reduced to that of Colonels of Infantry Regiments; if so, by what authority such change has been effected; and, upon what terms the two last appointments to Colonelcies of Cavalry Regiments were made?

in reply, said, the price of cavalry commissions having been reduced to the infantry rate, there appears no longer any reason why the general officers of cavalry should receive, when appointed to regiments, a larger sum than officers of infantry; and, as it was in contemplation to submit to Her Majesty a Regulation on the subject, the officers who had lately been appointed to cavalry regiments had accepted the appointments subject to such a reduction, should it be approved by Her Majesty.

gave Notice that he would put a Question as to the legality of the step taken by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true that the Royal Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 have offered to lease for building purposes certain pieces of land fronting Kensington Gardens, and lying between Queen's Gate and the Albert Hall, forming a portion of the site originally selected by them to be devoted specially to purposes connected with science and art; and, whether tenders for the same were not to be sent in on the 18th instant?

, in reply, said, that being an ex officio Commissioner of the Exhibition of 1851 he had made inquiries to enable him to answer the Question of his hon. Friend; but as there were other Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial bench who were also Commissioners, and would, no doubt, like to answer all questions relating to that Commission, he hoped the putting of a Question on this subject would not be drawn into a precedent. The Commission was constituted by two Royal Charters, the second of which conferred upon the Commissioners licence and authority to purchase and hold lands and hereditaments in any part of the Queen's dominions, and provided that such lands and hereditaments might from time to time be applied to such purposes as might be deemed fit. Thus an absolute discretion was vested in the Commissioners to buy and sell land. The Commissioners having from time to time purchased a large extent of land in the neighbourhood of the Exhibition, had, in the exercise of their power, sold some and let other portions of the property they had so acquired, with the object of raising funds for carrying out the purposes they had in view. The lands, with the houses standing upon them, to which the hon. Baronet's Question particularly referred, had been let upon lease as private residences by the Commissioners, and when the leases fell in the Commissioners would deal with those lands and houses in a manner which they considered would be the best for the interests intrusted to them. In dealing with the property to which the Question of the hon. Baronet referred, therefore, the Commissioners had acted entirely within their authority, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that the lands they held had been especially dedicated to purposes connected with science and art, or any other public purpose. They had let land for the Albert Hall, for the Horticultural Gardens, and for Government purposes; and in doing so they had not exceeded their authority.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, if the above circumstances are correctly stated, such a proceeding is not distinctly contrary to the spirit and provisions of the Act 21 and 22 Vic. c. 36, under which the Commissioners of 1851 hold their charters, and under which they have only power to sell off for purposes other than those of science and art, detached blocks of the land vested in them?

, in reply, said, that the hon. Baronet, on looking at the Act, would see that the proper answer to his Question would depend upon a number of facts with which he was not at present acquainted. He was entirely ignorant of the contents of the Charters under which the Commissioners were appointed. It was his duty to have a knowledge of the Act of Parliament, and he had accordingly looked at it carefully, and the hon. Baronet would see from its terms that whether the Commissioners had or had not acted within their authority depended upon whether they had discharged certain liabilities enumerated by the Act of Parliament, as to which he really had no knowledge.

gave Notice that he should take the opinion of the House upon the subject, by moving for a Return relating to the question on some early day.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of the Subaltern of Militia recommended, by the Officer commanding, for a Commission in the Line not passing the qualifying examination, he will allow another Officer of the same Corps to be examined, so that the advantage may not be lost to that Regiment?

The case supposed, Sir, has been provided for in the War Office Circular of the 21st of April, 1871, Clause 31, Art. 8, which is in the following words:—

"In the event of a Militia Regiment, when a Commission is offered, having no candidate for it, or in the event of the candidate nominated failing after a second trial to pass the required examination, the Commission will he offered to the Regiment next on the roster which is not included in the number detailed for the current year."

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true that it is intended to construct the floors of the new buildings of the National Gallery of wood; whether the Director and the Architect of the Gallery have been respectively consulted on the subject; and, whether he will be willing to consider the propriety of substituting fireproof materials in lieu thereof?

, in reply, said, that the flooring of the National Gallery consisted of two things; in the first place, of that which upheld the surface, and in the second place of the surface itself. The solid part of the flooring was built of iron and of brickwork, and was therefore to a certain extent fireproof; but some disagreement had arisen between the trustees and the architect of the building as to the nature of the material that should form the surface of the flooring, the trustees preferring a wooden flooring, while the architect recommended a tile flooring. Perhaps there was not much to choose between the two materials, on the ground that one was less likely to take fire than the other; because having in view the fact that many of those who were likely to frequent the Gallery would be shod, not only with leather, but with iron, it would be absolutely necessary, in the event of the tile flooring being selected, to cover it with some material that would be equally liable to take fire with wood flooring. As the trustees were of opinon that wood flooring was for all purposes of convenient use better than tile, the former would be adopted.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, To what extent the Government are prepared to comply with the request recently made by the visitors of the Royal Observatory, and by the Astronomer Royal, that the means of organizing parties of Observers in the Southern Ocean may be afforded, with the view of finding additional localities in the sub-antarctic regions for observing the whole duration of the Transit of Venus in 1874?

in reply, said, that the requests made by the officers of the Royal Observatory and the Astronomer Royal only reached the Admiralty yesterday, and he should therefore feel obliged if the hon. Baronet would renew his Question on a future occasion. He might add that the requests referred to would receive every attention.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the inquiry respecting the employment of certain funds under the control of the Post Office Department for extensions of the Telegraph system, which on the 21st of last March he promised should be instituted, has yet been concluded; and, if so, when its result will be laid before the House?

in reply, said, that the inquiry to which the hon. Member's Question referred had been concluded, and the proceedings having been transmitted to the Committee on Public Accounts, it would rest with them to decide in what form the matter should be submitted to the House.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will move the Second Reading of the Education Act Amendment Bill on Monday next; and, if so, whether he will place that Bill on the Paper as the first Order of the Day, in order that there may be time for a full discussion of the measure?

in reply, said, that, as the Question related to the general Business of the House, he should prefer answering it in place of his right hon. Friend. It was not the intention of the Government to bring forward this measure on Monday night in consequence of its being doubtful whether the necessary attendance of hon. Members for discussing the Bill fully could be secured. It was proposed to take the remaining Votes in the Army Estimates, and subsequently, if time permitted, to take the Education Vote. The Education Act Amendment Bill would be brought forward again as soon as possible, but just at present it was necessary that some further progress should be made with the business in hand. Care would be taken to fix a convenient day for taking the Bill.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it be true that the sum of thirty pounds has been charged by the Customs for Duty on prizes won by English Volunteers at the "Belgian Tir National" in September last, and recently distributed to the successful competitors by the Right honourable the Lord Mayor of London; and if, under the circumstances, an order will be issued from the Treasury to remit the Duty?

in reply, said, the duty had been collected. He could not state the amount, but it was at the rate of 1s. 6d. per ounce on the silver plate. In 1871 it was resolved that for the future no exception should be made in favour of presentations, and it was under that rule the collection had been made.

said, many hon. Members would desire to see the great Review of Artillery at Woolwich, and he wished to know whether a part of the ground might not be reserved for the accommodation of Members?

, in reply, said, that no doubt interest would be felt by hon. Members in the Review, in which 13 or 14 batteries of the Royal Artillery would take part. But there would be no stands, and the space for carriages was very limited. If any Members of the House desired a portion of that space and would communicate with him, he would endeavour to secure it for them.

I wish, Sir, to make a short explanation of a statement made, on my authority, by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in reference to the cases for contempt of Court. My right hon. Friend was speaking from information which I had placed at his disposal, and in the course of his statement he said that the Attorney General had not been concerned in any of the cases connected with Members of this House. At the time I furnished him with that infor- mation I was not aware that Mr. Carter, whom I brought before the Queen's Bench at the direction of the Lord Chief Justice, was the hon. Member for Leeds. I was thinking only of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow).

, in moving—

"That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill should be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relative to the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar Mail Contract,"

said, he wished to take that opportunity of referring to the course of Business for to-morrow. At the morning sitting it was proposed by the Government to proceed with the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill; and with regard to the evening sitting, the Government would be very glad, if it were possible, to turn it to account by putting forward the Public Business. But the Government was given to understand that as there was an entertainment to be given by the Lord Mayor to-morrow evening in the City, it would be difficult to obtain the necessary attendance of Members. That being so, it would be desirable to settle the question beforehand rather than trust to the chapter of accidents, because great inconveniences arose from the lapsing of the Order of Supply, and the arrangements made for Monday were thereby deranged. Unless, therefore, he had reason for supposing that he was under-estimating the desire of Members to attend in this House tomorrow, he should propose that, at the end of the day Sitting, the House should adjourn till Monday.

, who had an Amendment on the Papers, to move in line 6, after "1869," to insert—

"and the provisions of the thirty-second and and thirty-third Victoria, chapter forty, shall be construed to extend to all public elementary schools,"

said, the Committee had decided that Sunday and ragged schools should be exempt, but a still stronger claim might be made out for public elementary schools, because they were a necessity which the law required to be supplied in every parish, and when such schools were supplied by others the pockets of the ratepayers were thereby saved. He should, however, propose his Amendment when the question of exemptions was considered generally. On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

said, that for three years or more the House had been assured by the Government that a great principle was involved in the subject of exemptions; but the moment the matter touched the question of expediency they shrank from their own declaration. The fact was no country could be governed upon abstract principles. The Committee had decided by an immense majority that the exemption should be continued to ragged schools; but the clause now before the House was nothing else than a proposal to repeal an Act which was passed after careful consideration, and which exempted from rates and taxes literary and scientific institutions supported by voluntary contributions, and by repealing the Act as proposed, the Legislature would be guilty of a breach of good faith. There was a literary institution in Birmingham, whose income was only £500 a-year, and if the exemption was removed it would be taxed to the amount of £150. He hoped the Committee would not throw over such institutions for the sake of what was not even an abstract theory, for the principle had been departed from in other cases. The best thing to do would be to reject the clause, and to have the question decided upon the Amendment which would be moved by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins).

remarked that it was desirable the matter should be decided upon an uniform principle. If ragged schools were to be exempted, public elementary schools ought to be placed in a similar position. When the whole question was raised they ought to catalogue the institutions which should be brought under the operation of the clause.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) was under some misapprehension, for he dealt with the exemption of literary and scientific institutions as if it were one with the claim for exemption on the part of hospitals and charities. But the only question was whether they should repeal the Act 6 & 7 Vict., which provided a positive exemption for literary and scientific institutions. The main object of the Bill was the repeal of all exemptions, and the clause had been framed in accordance with that view. The Act exempted literary and scientific institutions not only from the payment of poor rates, but from the payment of county rates, borough rates, and local rates of every description. Under what conditions? The societies must be for the promotion of science and art. The Act which exempted them was, in fact, an aristocratic Act. They were not all of them supported by voluntary subscriptions; in fact, some of them obtained Government grants, and it was only the wealthiest of these societies that were exempted, which occupied the whole of their premises, without being obliged to make up part of their income by letting any portion of them. They must also be certified by the certifying barrister under the Friendly Societies Act. Societies to promote education of the poor by providing training schools were not exempted. But among the societies for science and art he found two rather curious instances of exemption. The Popular Conservative Association was exempted; and, to show the impartiality of the certifying barrister, the Ribble Working Men's Liberal Association was also exempted. The societies benefited by the positive exemption of the Act were not such as brought education and useful knowledge within the reach of the great mass of the community, but the aristocracy of literature and the fine arts. He did not, therefore, see that they should come under the exemption granted to industrial and ragged schools by this clause.

said, he was not prepared to assist the literary and scientific institutions in claiming an exemption against all the world. They obtained their exemption because it was supposed to have been the law acted on for generations that the want of beneficial interest in some particular person was a ground for exemption. For instance, the Mersey Docks were exempted. In consequence of hospitals and other institutions being exempted, a Bill was brought in by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Sir William Hutt) for the exemption of literary and scientific institutions, which had occasioned much litigation, under the direction of parish officers. The exemption of the Mersey Docks had been repealed; and he would rather have allowed the matter to rest on the old basis—namely, that where there was no beneficial interest there should be no rate, or that none should be exempted. They exempted Sunday schools and ragged schools, which, however excellent, were not better than hundreds of other institutions which were not exempted. In his opinion the Government, by the exemptions they had made, had, in fact, given up the principle, of the Bill.

said, that with regard to the exemption of the ragged schools the matter stood upon a totally different ground from the other cases. That exemption was not absolute, because it was in the power of the local authorities either to rate or to exempt them. It was an entirely different thing to give an exemption to these literary societies which did not depend upon the local bodies at all.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) was quite mistaken with regard to the real character of a large body of these institutions. They were not of an aristocratic character. Most of them were mechanics' institutions, and were established by Lord Brougham and Mr. Birkbeck for the purpose of giving scientific instruction to those who were engaged in the pursuits of industry, and it was working men who were chiefly benefited by such institutions. They had been exempt from rates for a period of 30 years, and the repeal of that exemption would be a great blow to their prosperity. If, by an ex post facto law, these institutions were now to be rated, many would find it difficult to pay the rates, because they subsisted mainly on the benevolent charity of the upper classes; and if he crippled them we should strike a fatal blow at our industrial supremacy.

said, the Solicitor General had pointed out that, while the exemption of Sunday and ragged schools was optional with the local authorities, that of scientific and literary institutions was absolute; and the question therefore arose whether all hospitals and charities, literary and scientific institutions were to be put on the footing which the Government had now constituted. He wished to know whether the suggestion of the Solicitor General would be carried out in the subsequent clauses of the Bill.

said, he had not admitted that the exemption of Sunday and ragged schools was sound in principle, but he had pointed out that there was a distinction in their favour which did not exist in this case, and therefore left hon. Members free to vote differently now. In the former case the Government could only bow to the will of the majority.

said, it could hardly be urged that the Government gave way on a former occasion, with regard to this matter of the Sunday and the ragged schools, to the general wish of the House, because when the proposal was challenged by hon. Members opposite, Her Majesty's Ministry voted with, and, in fact, constituted a considerable part of the majority on the division. He still thought, therefore, that, having supported the exemption of schools, they could not consistently withdraw that of literary and scientific societies. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board speak of these societies as rich and aristocratic bodies; on the contrary, they were all more or less in want of funds and struggling for existence. He admitted that, in respect of some of them, the benefits which they conferred upon the country were not confined to the poor, but he thought it was an advantage rather than an objection that they benefited all classes of the community. The right hon. Gentleman said that Government already contributed to the maintenance of many of these societies. As regarded scientific societies, that was surely not the case; but even if it were so, surely that was no reason for subjecting them to rates, but rather the reverse. The Midland Institute, already referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was, he feared, a typical case. Our metropolitan societies might survive the imposition of rates, though they would be seriously interfered with in many important researches which they were now conducting; but as regarded provincial associations, it was clear that if this clause was passed all would be seriously crippled and many entirely closed.

said, he wished to correct a misapprehension of the hon. Member who had just sat down. His hon. Friend had stated that it was not right to say the Government gave way on this subject of the Sunday and ragged schools to the general wish of the House, because they constituted a great part of the majority; but the hon. Member had forgotten that this very question was fought out rather sharply between the Government and the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Reed) in former years. The Government thought it was an exception for which much might be said; but they foresaw that it would be made an apology for attempting to introduce other exemptions, and therefore they opposed it as resolutely as they could; and the fact was that they divided with the minority of 70 against a majority of 220 on the occasion. Having thus given way to the wish of the House, it was necessary to adhere to the concession; and that was the reason why the Government voted with the majority the other day. With regard to the ragged schools, there was this to be said for the exemption—that the desire of the local authorities was generally to exempt them. He believed the cases were very few indeed—about nine—in which the local authorities had declined to grant the exemption. But what was the case at the present moment with regard to the literary and scientific institutions? His right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) had justly said that this was a law which, as it existed, was in favour of the aristocratic or wealthy portion of these institutions which did not stoop to let out any part of their buildings. The humble mechanics' institutions, however, could not afford to keep the whole of their buildings in their own hands, and in letting off a portion they came within the law which made them liable to rates. But suppose an institution could let a room for £9, and that would involve the payment of the £10 in rates, the room would not be let, and the £9 would be wasted. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) had suggested that they might make this an optional system for literary and philosophical institutions; but what would be the consequence? The result would be to introduce battle into every rating body in the country. They knew that the parochial and other local authorities frequently regarded with jealousy many of these institutions, and considered they were not entitled to exemption, and that they consequently struggled against the law as it now was, and raised all manner of litigation to show that such institutions were not so entitled. He hoped the Committee would not allow a public principle of great importance to be pulled to pieces in detail. The Government were laying the foundation for a new system of local taxation, and in the performance of that duty they were about to bring the property of the Government under taxation. The property of the Government was the property of the people, and, as such, might have strong claims to exemption; but he was afraid that if, in a case like that now before the Committee, they were to perpetuate an exemption so exceptional, there was great fear that they would fail in the main purposes of the work they were about. If philanthropic sentiments were applied in detail they would come to this—that everything that was considered useful or philanthropic ought to be exempted—a man and wife serving the State were most useful and therefore should be exempted. That was the true end of all these benevolent gushes of hon. Members. In 1858 a Select Committee, composed of Members of great authority, investigated the subject, and they reported in favour of all places occupied for charitable, scholastic, or scientific purposes, whether beneficially occupied or not, being rated. He therefore hoped the Committee would turn a deaf ear to the seductive eloquence of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) and maintain a clause which was consistent with the general principles of the Bill.

said, that it was one thing to lay down the principle that these institutions should be rated, and quite another to say how they were to be rated. There might be a provision that they should be subject to a mere nominal rating. As to there simply being power to exempt ragged and Sunday schools from rating, he could assure the Committee that there was good legal opinion in support of the theory that they could not be rated, but were absolutely exempt. The Preamble of the Act asserted that it was expedient that these schools should be exempt, and the enacting part enabled the overseers to do that which the Preamble recited should be done.

said, a great number of these institutions were perfectly able to pay rates. Among those which had claimed exemption under the Act were the Preston Law Library, the Birmingham Philosophical Institution, the Royal Academy of Music, the London Royal College of Chemistry, the Manchester Royal Institution, the Manchester Society for the Promotion of Natural History, the London Philological Society, the Statistical Society, the Society of Arts, and the Royal Society at Burlington House. None of these could be called institutions for the poorer classes. It was said it would be impossible to rate such institutions, but they could be rated without any difficulty.

saw no reason why the same principle should not be applied to those institutions which were of great value and had a tendency to keep men out of the public-house, as had been applied to the question of education by the Government.

said, the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was under the impression that all mechanics' institutions were exempted, but that was not the case. The Act said that no place should be rated which was exclusively devoted to the purposes of science, literature, and the Fine Arts; but, according to judicial interpretations of the words employed, if any part of the premises was used as a library, or room for the reading of newspapers and periodicals, &c., the exemption did not apply. He believed there were very few good mechanics' institutions without a library and news-room.

remarked that many of the institutions which it was sought to exempt were not local institutions, but belonged to wealthy bodies, and had ramifications all over the country. He wished to ask whether it would be fair, when they were rating national property, that such institutions should be exempt from rating? If they were exempted, then societies which were really national would be supported out of local rates. It would be better that there should be an advance out of the rates for such institutions than that they should continue the mischievous system of exemptions. If it were right that the local rates should contribute towards the support of Sunday and ragged schools, and literary and scientific institutions, the contribution should take the direct form of a rate-in-aid, and not the circuitous form of an exemption.

remarked that the conduct of the Prime Minister and of the Government in allowing themselves to be seduced by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Reed) into exempting Sunday and ragged schools had placed those who honestly and consistently supported the abolition of all exemptions in a position of considerable difficulty. He had never been more surprised than when on Tuesday last the Government surrendered at discretion on the question of the exemption of Sunday and ragged schools without uttering a word of protest. He had just been reading the most remarkable speech that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had ever made, in which he proposed to tax charities, and it presented a strange contrast to the present proposal to exempt Sunday and ragged schools and literary and scientific institutions from rates. The Prime Minister had assigned as a reason for his having surrendered at discretion on the present occasion the fact that he had been beaten by a great majority on the subject three or four years ago. Since that time, however, a very considerable change had occurred. At that time Government property was exempted from the payment of rates, and the necessity for Sunday and ragged schools had not been removed by the establishment of Public Elementary Schools. For his part he could not understand why Sunday and ragged schools should be exempted while voluntary elementary schools were to be rated. Now that the principle that every child was to have education brought home to it had been adopted, they would be acting not with wisdom but with cruelty in encouraging parents to send their children to ragged schools, by which a stigma would naturally be fixed on them. He regarded the principle of permissive exemptions as most dangerous, and therefore he should vote for retaining the clause.

said, he thought the clause was a most irrational one, inasmuch as while it proposed to abolish the old exemption which had been enjoyed by literary and scientific institutions since the sixth year of the present reign, it proposed to retain the modern exemption enjoyed by Sunday and ragged schools. He had voted for the exemption of Sunday schools, in the hope that similar institutions would also be exempt. It would be unfair and illogical to exempt Sunday schools and not to exempt public elementary schools.

in reply, said, that the only argument used upon the Treasury bench was the argument ad misericordiam, and that was not worthy of much attention.

said, he wished to make a short statement explanatory of some clauses which he had put on the Paper, and which he believed embodied a preferable scheme to that comprised in the Bill. On the second reading of the Bill he stated that he believed the House was acting hastily in coming to the conclusion that it was for the interest of the community at large that the exemption of Government property should be repealed in so wide and sweeping a manner as was proposed, and that the Government was a little hasty in supposing that the House and the country had brought to bear any serious pressure in favour of so important a change. Some 12 or 15 years ago there were some endeavours on the part of the representatives of boroughs or localities in which Government property was situated to secure the repeal of the exemption of that property; but of late years the House had not heard much on the subject, the fact having been that the action taken by the Government in distributing year by year a sum of money amongst those localities had given a great amount of satisfaction. He thought that in any plan for the settlement of this question they should proceed upon that principle, instead of adopting the objectionable plan now proposed by the Government. He did not see how Government property could be assessed in the ordinary sense of the term, and thought it would be far better to lay down a plan by which Government might make contributions towards the rates. With regard to the question of rating important buildings such as the Houses of Parliament and the Horse Guards, they never were intended to be rated; but he thought that a sum might be set out by the Treasury and the Local Government Board. Any large contribution towards the rates would be adding so much to the value of private property, and he trusted the Committee would pause before assenting to the proposition of the Government.

denied that the existing system gave satisfaction.

moved, in line 37, to leave out—"Where at" and insert—"From," in order to give him an opportunity of stating his objections to the whole of this portion of the Government scheme. In respect of this part of the Bill the Government had placed upon the Paper an entirely new proposition; but neither in this nor in their former proposal did the Government state how the different classes of Government property ought to be rated. The first proposition was to leave it to Government to prepare a scheme which they were to lay on the Table in the next Session and ask Parliament to affirm, giving an opportunity to the parishes interested to oppose the scheme as a Private Bill, and to incur all the expense and trouble which that step involved. The scheme now on the Paper was little better, and had been suggested by the proposition of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Stone). It was proposed that the different classes of Government property should be rated upon principles agreed on between the Treasury and the assessment committee of the particular parish, and that failing that agreement the matter should be settled by arbitration. But he ventured to say that the arbitration provided by the Bill was simply a delusion, or in plain English, a sham. Arbitration properly so called must be decided by independent parties acting upon principles which were laid down to guide the arbitrators, whose decision should be final. But in each of these essentials the Government proposal failed. In the first place, there were no principles laid down to guide the arbitrators; and in the next place, there was no independence, for the Government retained all the power in their own hands. As to the appointment of an umpire the Government proposition was that, not only when the arbitrators disagree, but at the request of either party the umpire should be nominated absolutely by the Lord Chancellor. That simply amounted to this—the Government said they would go to arbitration, but that the umpire must be their nominee. And further, they might object to the umpire's decision. What value could there be in such a proposition? The Amendment which he had to propose was that the Bill should do nothing more than enunciate the principle that Government property should be rated, and that the Treasury should bring in a Bill which should lay down the method upon which the various classes of Government property should be rated. That, he believed, was the only thing that could be done satisfactorily at present. The simple course for the present was to confine legislation to enacting that Government property should be liable to rates, leaving the Government to bring forward in another Session a measure laying down the principles upon which the valuation should be made.

said, there were no fewer than five proposals on this subject before the Committee—the original proposition of the Government, the series of Amendments which he ventured to place on the Paper, the somewhat similar series of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley), and that of the hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth). Of these the proposition of the hon. Member for Salford would be the least acceptable to those whom he had consulted. It would be equivalent to an indefinite postponement of the question; or, at all events, till the fresh Act of Parliament to which he referred had been brought in. The proposal besides was of a most unusual kind. It was that the Treasury should cause to be prepared—by some means he did not specify—a measure laying down the principle on which Government property should be rated without the smallest indication of what that principle should be. It was almost impossible to devise a general principle applicable to the great variety of hereditaments now proposed to be brought within rateability. The system which prevailed was entirely destitute of principle. The Government now made a proposal practically identical with one he had himself suggested—namely, that the assessment committee and the Government should each appoint an assessor, and some independent person—say the Lord Chancellor—should appoint an umpire. The decision of the umpire was to be final; except in so far as that Parliament was to have an ultimate voice in the matter; because the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring in each year, or from time to time, a Bill containing the values arrived at by the umpire, which the House, it was to be presumed, would at once sanction. He must say that in this matter he thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted with great candour and liberality.

expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) would not press the Amendments of which he had given Notice, as the propositions of the Government seemed to be generally satisfactory. He wished, however, to know what the Government proposed to do in one respect. At present there was an arrangement with respect to the Parks under which the Government contributed a sum of money to the paving rate, though the Parks were not liable for poor rates. He apprehended that there would be no desire in rating Government property to the poor to withdraw from that other arrangement as to the paving rate; but he should like to hear from the Go- vernment what view they took of the matter.

said, the Government certainly had no intention of reducing any contribution which they already made to the rates of the metropolis, and the Bill would not interfere with any existing statutory bargains as to contributions towards rates, whether in respect of Government property or of various other public institutions. The proposal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) would amount to the postponement of the whole subject of the liability of Government property to rates for another year without any certainty that it would be dealt with next year, and he supposed it would not be pressed. The remarks and suggestions of the hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) deserved the respectful consideration of the Committee. Having himself followed that hon. Gentleman at the Treasury a few years ago he had found there many records and traces of his able, vigorous, and critical supervision of expenditure. He would, however, submit to that hon. Member that Parliament and the country, and certainly the localities interested, would not be content with the simple continuance of the existing state of things, but would expect legislation to be adopted creating a positive legal right on the part of the local communities to rate Government property, whatever method of assessing it might be determined upon. His own original suggestion was that the Government should institute an exhaustive local inquiry into the particulars and conditions of each case, and propound a scheme and place on the Table a Bill on its own responsibility, with schedules containing a list of Government property in the various rating areas, with the assessable value at which it was proposed to rate them. He had also proposed that any assessment committee objecting to a valuation should have a right to appeal to a Select Committee of that House. It was urged that that would put the assessment committee to an expense which they would not be likely to undertake; but he believed, from his official experience, that in almost all cases there would be no practical difficulty in coming to a reasonable and amicable conclusion between the Treasury on the one hand and the local bodies on the other. He had no objec- tion to the principle of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Stone's) proposal of arbitration except one which the hon. Gentleman had himself fairly stated; and if they started the scheme which his Amendments would bring into operation, he thought in the great majority of instances the Treasury and the assessment committee would agree without any reference to arbitration. He proposed that the valuation of the umpire should not be a final valuation, but that it should be inserted in the Bill which the Government was bound to lay upon the Table of the House, and that it should be open either to the Government or to the assessment committee to object to the valuation. In that way he thought a satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at.

said, he had not much confidence in the appeal to Parliament in reference to the decision of arbitrators, because Parliament would not be inclined to take trouble in the matter; but on the whole, he considered the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) a fair one, and should support it.

said, he was glad that after many years agitation and remonstrance Government property was to be rated to the relief of the poor. The plan hitherto pursued of making charitable contributions was objectionable, and he was also of opinion that the principle of rating in respect of such property should be that adopted for private buildings and institutions. In that way all complication would be got rid of. With regard to the appointment of an umpire by the Lord Chancellor, he thought that so far as his personal knowledge of a fit person was concerned, they might just as well go into the street and appoint a crossing-sweeper. He must act upon the suggestion of others, and although intentional partiality could not be assumed, it was not reasonable that as a leading Member of the Government he should have this nomination. The first principle of arbitration was that it should be conclusive and final; but here the proposition was that after the matter was submitted to arbitration, after it was agreed that an umpire should be appointed, and after a decision was given, if that decision happened to be against the Government everything went for nothing, and the matter was to be brought before the House of Commons. Nothing could be imagined more complicated and unsatisfactory than such a proposition, while, with regard to the expense, it would be next to terrific. He represented what was called a dockyard constituency, but he spoke for the inhabitants and ratepayers of the parishes. They were not satisfied with the compromise now proposed. They wanted to know why the Government establishments should be placed on a different footing from those of ordinary manufacturers. It professed to be a Bill to abolish exemptions, while the Government exemption was not abolished at all.

said, he was unwilling to throw any obstacle in the way of the new proposal of the Government, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment. The Government, however, by placing the appointment of the arbitrator in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, were retaining in their hands the power of appointing both arbitrator and umpire. Such a provision appeared to give a character of unfairness to the whole transaction. He should have preferred to give the appointment of umpire to the Lord Chief Justice and the Courts.

also thought it would be better to give the appointment of umpire to the Lord Chief Justice.

moved, in line 17, to leave out from "of the," to "A scheme," in line 29, and insert—

"Same, and where the gross or rateable value has been fixed by an umpire, shall state whether the Treasury assent to or dissent from such value.

"The Treasury shall cause a Bill to be introduced into the House of Commons for confirming every such scheme, and such Bill shall be deemed to be a Public Bill."

said, he wished to call attention to a little matter affecting Scotland. Under the Lindsay General Police Act, all persons holding property in burghs were bound to maintain footpaths along their premises, and if footpaths do not exist, to make them. In one or two burghs, and especially in Leith, the question had arisen as to the liability of Government property. At Leith there was a fort belonging to the Government. There was no footpath, although one was needed, and the result was that pedestrians were subjected to great danger. Besides, large pools were formed which caused much unhealthiness. The Corporation had pointed this out to the Government, and had asked them to repair the road in accordance with the Act of Parliament, but the answer was that they were not liable in the same way as other owners. He never thought that interpretation of the law correct, and it certainly was opposed to the spirit of the legislation in which they were now engaged. He would like to ask his right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Storks) whether it was necessary for him to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice?—for his impression was that he would at once say that the refusal had resulted from a misunderstanding, and give an assurance that the necessary work would be done forthwith.

said, the attention of the War Office had been called to this complaint in regard to Leith Fort. They had inquired fully into the circumstances, and the opinion was that the Government were not liable as to this footpath, and that the repairs should be carried out by the municipal authorities.

moved, in line 7, after "and," to insert—

"If any differences arise between the Treasury and any Assessment Committee as to the preparation of a new scheme for altering the gross and rateable value of any Government hereditament, or with respect to the gross and rateable value of any Government hereditament specified in any new scheme prepared or proposed to be prepared by the Treasury, such difference shall be referred to arbitration, and all the provisions of this Act with respect to the original scheme and to arbitrations shall apply to such new scheme, and the Treasury shall, if necessary, frame and lay before the House of Commons a scheme in accordance with any award made upon arbitration."

moved, at end, to add—

"And the words 'stock in trade' shall be deemed to include all machines and machinery other than such as are built in the freehold, and that no machinery shall be liable to be rated beyond what is technically called the first motion."

The hon. Member said, that at present assessment committees adopted different systems of valuation. It was difficult to say what was attached to the freehold. In some parishes that which was nailed was considered to be attached to the freehold, and that which was screwed was not, while in other parishes just the reverse system prevailed. Then, again, some machinery and lathes were very valuable, and some were not. He maintained that everything which was attached to the freehold and engines built into manufactories should be assessed as from what was called the first motion, which was perfectly well understood in all places of business. If there were not some such definition as that which he proposed assessment committees would still be perplexed, and questions would be raised for the Court of Queen's Bench to determine. He proposed this Amendment to prevent litigation and unfair assessments, and he hoped the Committee would agree to it. He was sorry that there was not a larger number of Members present to consider this important subject.

said, that the present indefinite state of the law with regard to the rating of machinery had given rise to great perplexity and misunderstanding, and thought that it was absolutely necessary that something should be done in this Bill to define the duties of assessment committees and to enable small owners of machinery to understand more clearly the footing on which they stood. If moveable machines, though attached to the freehold, were to be rated, they would have to rate thrashing machines, steam-ploughs, and even sewing machines.

said, he thought the line of demarcation should be this—what belonged to the landlord and was fixed to the soil should be rated; what was moveable and belonged to the tenant ought not to be rated.

said, he did not think this line of demarcation would be a satisfactory one, nor did he agree with the definition suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). He thought that machinery ought to be excluded as machinery, and that the line must be drawn so as not to extend beyond the moving power and the main shafting. He would insert in the Amendment the words—" All machines and machinery other than that by which the motive power is generated or transmitted."

said, the difficulty was not in the law, but in the nature of things. The question was one frequently litigated, and one likely to be litigated in the future. The question always was whether the attachment of the object to the freehold was sufficient for a lawyer to say that it was affixed to the freehold. The answer to the question must depend on the nature of the object, the nature of the attachment, and the nature of the freehold; and it was impossible to say beforehand what for this purpose was fixed and what was not fixed. The question could not be answered in the abstract, and was essentially one for experts and one of minute detail. It was a mistake to attempt any definition. At all events, the definition now suggested would fail to work satisfactorily. The object of the clause in exempting stock in trade was to exempt that which it was difficult to rate; but there was no difficulty whatever in rating fixtures.

said, the question of what constituted fixtures, which had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, had nothing to do with the matter immediately under consideration. For his own part, he challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to do what he had thrown out, and tax all machinery, whether attached to the freehold or moveable. The Government, however, he knew, did not dare to do that. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, and which, though having the same object, was, he conceived, better calculated to secure the object of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) aimed at ascertaining what machinery or moving power was attached to the freehold, and to tax that only. He was aware that no form of words could absolutely prevent litigation.

said, if an attempt were made to rate machinery in mills it would be loosened from the freehold in a week.

withdrew his Amendment in favour of that suggested by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley).

moved to add these words—

"and all machines and machinery, whether attached to the freehold or not other than that by means of which motive power is generated or transmitted, shall be deemed to be stock in trade and included in the provisions of the said Act."

though sympathizing with the object of the Amendment, thought it would produce very grave alterations in the law. Many kinds of property which were now rateable would not be rateable if the Amendment were carried. Moreover, the Amendment would give rise to many difficult questions. For instance, a vat did not generate or transmit motive power, and therefore it would scarcely come under the Amendment.

said, a vat was not machinery.

thought, however, a question might be raised on this point. The Amendment would upset the decisions arrived at by the Courts of Law during the last 100 years, and, besides, its terms were so indefinite, that it would produce a numerous batch of cases involving the question as to what was motive power.

said, that by the ancient law of this country, the tools by which a man earned his living were exempted from taxation. The Amendment ran counter to that principle by taxing machinery, and would be as impracticable as it was unjust.

said, he should vote with Her Majesty's Government. He had only risen to express his astonishment at the extraordinary audacity of the proposal.

contended that furnaces could not properly be called machinery, and that machinery was stock in trade.

said, the object of the Bill was not to increase exemptions, but to withdraw exemption from property which at present escaped taxation. The Government stated at an early period that they had no intention to alter the law of rating, for if once they attempted it they could not finish the Bill this Session. The present section would not alter the law; but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) would do so very seriously by exempting a large portion of property which was now liable. [Mr. CAWLEY: No!] Well, then, if it was not now liable what was the use of the Amendment?

said, he thought it was reasonable that they should take this opportunity of defining the law somewhat more clearly than it was at present. He would suggest to the Mover of the Amendment the introduction of these words—" All machines and machinery other than that by which motive power is generated and transmitted and attached to the freehold."

supported the Amendment. The practice of rating in manufacturing districts hitherto had been to rate the steam power and first motive power, and not to rate the running machinery in the mills.

observed that this Bill, the longer it was discussed appeared more and more like a compact between the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) and the Solicitor General for the benefit of the lawyers. The owners of machinery were pressed between assessment committees on the one hand, and the right hon. Gentleman on the other, and there would be no resource but the Courts of Law.

denied that any purpose existed to create legal difficulties. All the Bill proposed to do was to abolish certain exemptions from rating, and to extend the Act of Elizabeth to certain hereditaments which had hitherto escaped rating. But those who were interested in machinery wanted practically to create a new exemption in its favour. The Amendment if adopted by the Committee, would not, he felt sure, be agreed to by the House on the Report of Amendments. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw it, and reserve the question for consideration until some more fitting time.

said, the Government were bound to state whether it was intended to rate all machinery or not.

said, he did not intend to touch the present law.

said, that the Courts of Law had given conflicting decisions upon the law, and if it were not intended by this Bill to tax machinery, there should be no objection by the Government to the Amendment. It seemed that the Government intended to put the manufacturers of this country at a disadvantage compared with those of other countries.

observed that all that our manufacturers desired was that their liability in respect of their machinery should be distinctly defined. As the time had arrived which the Prime Minister had fixed for bringing on another subject, he begged to move that progress be reported.

said, that the proposition of the Government was that because they had only thought proper to introduce a certain extension of taxation the Committee had no right to enter into the question whether certain things should be rateable or not. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that whereas under the Irish Act only that portion of the machinery was rateable which was used for the production of the motive power, the Bill to amend that Act proposed to render all machinery in a mill rateable, whether used in the production of motive power or not.

said, that if the Amendment were adopted there would be no limit to which it might not be applied. He opposed the Amendment.

said, he thought that the best course would be to report Progress at once.

who had given Notice that he would move "that the Contract for the conveyance of Mails between the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar with the Union Steam Ship Company be ap- proved," said, that he observed that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had proposed that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee, and to the adoption of that course, as far as he was concerned, he had no objection. He was satisfied that the more this matter was investigated, the more carefully it was looked into and sifted, the more the prejudices which appeared to have collected round it would disappear. But, although he had no objection to the subject being referred to a Select Committee, he did not conceive that the adoption of that course would relieve him from the duty of saying something in support of the proposal he was now making to the House. He would endeavour to compress what he had to say into the narrowest compass; but, as it was in his power to remove some prejudice and misconstruction, he conceived that he was only doing justice to the cause he undertook to advocate in attempting to do that, even although they might not go to a division that night on the subject, but send it to a Select Committee. Those who might form that Committee, if it were appointed, would not, he thought, object to receive from him, who must and ought to know something about the matter, some little information which might be of use in guiding their deliberations and investigations. He would not go again over the ground he travelled the other night, but briefly state that the Government determined, for reasons which he stated the other evening, that it was desirable to establish steam communication between Aden and the Cape of Good Hope. Having so determined, they, after a certain time, received tenders for that service. They also received another offer of a new proposal for decreasing the period of time for the service which he would call the Western line, between the Cape of Good Hope and England; and in negotiating these matters with the Union Steamship Company they treated the two services as substantially one question, and mixed them up together, believing that they would get the best terms for this country, and also at the same time obtain very good terms for the Cape of Good Hope. The result was that a contract was entered into with the Union Steamship Company, the details of which he stated the other night, and would not repeat, but which he believed would be very beneficial to the Cape and exceedingly economical to this country as regarded the Zanzibar service. Having done that, the Government met with a very considerable disappointment. They found that that which they thought would be so beneficial to the Cape of Good Hope did not meet with the approval of the Cape colonists; and they decided very properly—as an old colonist himself he was the last man to say anything against it—that the true meaning of self-government for the colonies was not to govern the colonies for the colonists, but by the colonists, and that if they objected to the measure as being against them, although not approving their arguments, yet the wisest and most constitutional course was to yield to their wishes; and finding that the contract—which was not now in question—did not meet the views of those for whose benefit it was designed, the Government withdrew it. Still, the main object with the Government was that contract for the service between Zanzibar and the Cape, and the withdrawal of the other contract only threw that question into difficulty. The question arose how they were to deal with the Company which entered into the contract between Zanzibar and the Cape. It was easy, no doubt, to criticize any course the Government might adopt under such circumstances; but some course had to be adopted, and what was it to be? He did not believe the House would think they would have done rightly if they had used the legal power they had, owing to the fact of the two contracts, the Eastern one and the Western one, although both negotiated together, being drawn up separately, and had insisted on the Company performing the one when they had taken away the other. Because it was obvious that the terms they obtained were grounded on two considerations—namely, the one the annual payment of £15,000 to the Union Steamship Company, and the other the extension of their contract to the Western service; and if they took away from it one of those things it would have been inequitable and unjust to hold the Company to the other. Were they, then, to discard the contract altogether, to call for fresh competition and start anew? That, also, would seem to have been exceedingly harsh and unfair. The Union Company had been put to great expense through our failure to carry out the extension of the contract between England and the Cape. They had invested about £350,000 in providing new ships for carrying out the contract. They had been doing the Zanzibar service without any equivalent, but only paving the way or advertizing the future success of the line. And now, when some slight germs of improvement and commerce there were just beginning to show themselves, it would have been most deplorable, in the interest of the suppression of the slave trade, and also a most harsh and cruel thing, if that contract was to be taken away from them altogether. ["Oh, oh!"] Moreover, it would have been very bad policy, because when companies were entering into contracts with the Government, and the Government were not able to answer with certainty as to the decision of that House upon them, that decision, if it were adverse, would leave the companies saddled with a heavy loss; and the result would be that in the end the country would have to pay an increased rate for those contracts. So that a liberal policy was their wisest and truest policy. Once let the companies get the notion that Governments were unsafe parties to deal with, and there would be no limit to extortion. ["Oh!"] The Government would never be certain that Parliament would ratify what it did; and if the burden was thrown on the Company which contracted, the necessary consequence would be that large demands would be made in the shape of insurance to cover that risk. The only other course which seemed to be open to the Government was to go on with the contract, but to make some compensation to the Company for the failure and loss of the Western contract. So far, he could not help hoping that when hon. Gentlemen looked fairly at the matter in Committee there would not be any great difference of opinion. But then there came the question—a most difficult one, on which there arose much difference of opinion—namely, what guide were they to take under those circumstances? If they could not be guided by the old contract, part of the consideration having failed, and if the consideration which remained was obviously inadequate, of what principle were they to take hold as their clue in that matter? On the best consideration they could give, the Government thought the proper principle was to take an offer that had been made by the Company independently of any collateral consideration or any other contract, and make it the basis for obtaining the most moderate terms they could secure. But the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) said, that was not the right course to pursue; that they had a tender from the British India Steam Company, not for £29,000 as was the tender of the Union Steamship Company, but for £16,300, which was made to them; and that fixed the value of the service. The British India Steam Company were willing to do it for that sum, and that sum, the hon. Member (Mr. Holms) said, was the utmost they would pay, and it would be inexcusable to pay more. Now, the answer to that argument appeared to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be absolutely conclusive. He had laid Papers on the Table which hon. Members had had an opportunity of reading. It appeared that in the Autumn of 1871 the Government were considering the propriety of entering into such a contract. They had not made up their minds whether to do it or not, but wanted information to guide them. They requested the Post Office to obtain that information. The Post Office "sounded," if he might so call it, two Steamship Companies, the Union and the British India, and the result was that the Union Company offered to do it for £29,000, and the sum which the other Company was reported to be willing to take was as low as £15,000. Then, asked the hon. Member, not unnaturally, Why fix the country with the larger and not with the smaller payment? That was just the matter which required explanation. Hon Members and he were quite at one on that subject. He was unable to give that explanation the other night, and why? Because he was not in possession of it. If he had been he would have given it. He did not think it proper to offer the House a guess or a conjecture. He had waited for absolute certainty, and having got it, it was his duty to state it to the House. The fact was this—The Government requested the Post Office to give them some idea at what rate that service could be done, and they applied to the Union Steamship Company, which stated £29,000. Then the Post Office applied to Mr. Monteith, the Director General of the Post Office of the India Government, for his opinion, and he wrote to Mr. Tilley, the Secretary of the Post Office, a letter—now before the House—in which he said that the British India Company would perform the service for 5s. per mile; not absolutely, however, as those who had read the Papers knew, but coupled with the condition that it should last for 10 years, and should be part of the general service of India. At the time that Company in India was desirous for the renewal of the service they had been carrying on for many years between Calcutta and Bombay, and they took exactly the same view of the subject as was subsequently taken by the Union Steamship Company. That was to say, they did not want apparently to have anything to do with it by itself, but wished to make it the means of getting something else which would enable them to do it for a small sum. The hon. Member for Hackney said that this was an absolute and independent contract. It was no such thing. It was coupled with the condition that they should obtain a renewal of their former contract with the Indian Government. That that was so, was fully evident from the letter of Mr. Tilley, in which he said—

"If you will be good enough to refer to Mr. Monteith's private letter, you will find that the rate is 5s. per mile for ten years' service, as a part of the General Indian Service, and that is the light in which I have always read it."

Well, what happened? The Government were not in a position to accept or reject those offers or suggestions. They had not matured their plans, but they next found the two Companies tendering together, the one for the conveyance of mails from Aden to Zanzibar, the other from Zanzibar to Table Bay. What had happened in the meanwhile they had no means of knowing; but what he had stated was only another proof that the tender for £16,000 was not really an independent tender for the service, from the great facility with which the British India Company gave it up to the other Company, he supposed as not being a thing of very great value. That was the tender that the Government received in June, and it was ultimately accepted, together with a reduction of the tender for the Cape mail. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to be incredulous when he stated that to be the true construction of the matter, but he would furnish them with evidence that it was. He had that morning received a letter from the British India Steam Navigation Company, whose tender of £16,000 had been condemned by the hon. Member for Hackney. The letter was as follows:—

moved, as an Amendment, that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman be negatived. He had thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was intended to remove prejudices; but when it was stated by him that the Union Steamship Company sent in a tender for the Eastern as well as the Western Coast of Africa, and that both were to be treated as one, he (Mr. Holms) felt obliged to say that that statement was entirely inaccurate, inasmuch as the Union Steamship Company sent in on the 25th June, 1872, a joint tender with the British Indian Company for the conveyance of the mails from Aden to the Cape.

No, No.

If the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Papers he would find that that was so.

Not jointly for the whole service, but one for the one part and the other for the other part.

said, the tender was absolute and was subject to no condition whatever. That joint tender was accepted by the Government, and arrangements were made to divide the gross amount between the two Companies. The arrangement did not in any way affect the condition of any other tender. Again, in August, 1872, as would be seen by the Papers, the Union Steamship Company asked the Government to reduce the contract for conveying the mails from Zanzibar to the Cape to eight years in consideration of their obtaining an extension of the Western contract. It followed that the right hon. Gentleman could not have himself investigated the question when he said that this was a tender from the Union Steamship Company for both the East and West of Africa. It was clear that the Government had completed their arrangement for accepting the joint tender of the 25th of June, and were beginning to parley about the Western contract. Only on the 3rd of this month the Union Steamship Company had sent to hon. Members of this House a statement, in which they declared that in October last they entered into a contract with the Government for a mail service three times a month between England and the Cape, and another contract for a monthly service between the Cape and Zanzibar. The statement that the two were made dependent one on the other simply vanished into nothing. The Cape colonists surely knew what was advantageous for themselves; but they had declared for months that this was not advantageous to them, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that it was. In 1863, when the contract for conveying the mails between this country and the Cape was entered into, the Cape colonists were asked for a subsidy, which they were willing to give if the Government would agree that the mails should be conveyed in 36 days instead of 38; but the Government did not agree, and the contract was completed without the subsidy, the postage being raised from 6d. to 1s. From that time to this the colonists had looked forward to getting a cheaper rate of postage, and yet the Government sought to saddle them with a contract which would not expire until the year 1881, and under which the high rate of postage would be kept up. The right hon. Gentleman asked if it would be fair to hold the Union Steamship Company to the tender of £15,000, if they took away their other contracts. He (Mr. Holms) would hold them to nothing unfair, but the quicker they put the contract up to public competition the better. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to have compassion upon the Union Steamship Company, because they had expended £350,000 on account of these contracts. The truth was that the Union Steamship Company had been forced by the competition with which they were assailed to give better boats and better accommodation, and had they not been able to make the voyage in 30 days they would have been extinguished by other and better boats. At a meeting of the shareholders held on the 17th of October, 1872, the chairman made a speech, the object of which was to show how necessary it had been for the Company to spend money in vessels. He said they commenced with steamers of 600 or 700 tons burden; that they then employed boats of 1,300 or 1,400 tons, and found them as inadequate to meet the growing trade as the former vessels had been, and they had got boats of 2,000 tons, and seven years hence he did not hesitate to say they would require bigger ships if they were to continue to hold their own. This was before the contracts, and did it not throw a flood of light on the position of the Company? The whole of this affair had been a godsend to them, whether they got the contract or they did not. They went into the market when vessels were comparatively cheap; they bought more than they required; and if they were to sell the vessels now they would realize a very considerable profit. The chairman, indeed, stated that the vessels which had cost £500,000 could not be replaced for £100,000 more. That proved that they had got a good sound investment in the vessels which they possessed. If this question was to come down to a point of compensation let them treat the Company handsomely. They had paid over £3,000, 000 in compensation to the United States; and if £11,000 was too little for this Company, let them give them more, provided there was just and proper cause for giving them anything at all. But a Company which had had contracts with the Government since 1857 surely knew perfectly well that no contract was binding until it had been passed by the House of Commons. He now came to the most extraordinary portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He had told the House that the offer of the British India Company was bound up with another, and it was not an offer on which he could found anything; but it would have been much sounder if he had made that reply in June, 1872, instead of June, 1873. What was the position of the British India Company in relation to the Government now? They had contracts on hand, and they did not wish to quarrel with the Government of the day; and they would do what they could to bridge over the difficulty with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. An offer of this kind, not loosely made, in relation to every port between England and Zanzibar, must have received careful consideration at the Post Office, at the Treasury, and at the Colonial Office, where it formed the foundation for that despatch asking the Cape Colonies to give £4,500 in relation to the offer. Could it be said that the calculations of the Post Office and Colonial Office were based upon nothing? The proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, that the figures in Lord Kimberley's despatch were such as nothing could be founded upon was one of the most unbusinesslike that he had ever heard made in the House of Commons. Mr. Tilley, in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman said, that so long ago as 1871 the offer was made, and it was not a formal tender for an independent service, but an estimate on which the Government might treat. The British India Company had accepted the northern route. They were of opinion that it was not necessary to have a subsidy for the service from Natal to the Cape, because there was a good trade already from Natal to the Cape. With regard to the question of the appointment of a Select Committee, everything would depend on the composition of that Committee. No Committee was needed to express a judgment upon the way in which this business had been transacted; the House could give its judgment on that. He thought we might have a Committee to inquire generally into the transactions of the Post Office in relation to mail contracts, and more especially in relation to the private arrangements that were entered into in connection with them afterwards; and he thought the House would perhaps be ready to grant such a Committee by-and-by. As to the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was going to propose, he should be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in its favour, and would then perhaps offer some remarks on the subject.

in rising to move as an Amendment—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which Articles of Agreement were made on the 7th day of May 1873 between the Union Steamship Company, Limited, and the Right Honourable William Monsell, Her Majesty's Postmaster General,"

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given some explanation of the despatch which had been laid upon the Table since the last discussion and that he had not made a speech like that which he had delivered on the last occasion. With all deference to his position, he (Mr. Bouverie) must say that a speech less calculated to conciliate the judgment of the House, or to persuade it that this arrangement was for the public advantage, he had never heard. The right hon. Gentleman had then to defend what was alleged to be an improvident arrangement, and he told the House that it was the last body in the world that should pronounce an opinion on the contract; that it was subject to all sorts of influences, and that it should leave him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) master of the situation; but the impression produced by the reading of the Papers was that the House would not have liked to have left the contracts in the position in which the right hon. Gentleman would have them placed at his absolute discretion. These were matters which required explanation, and therefore he ventured to put this Notice of Motion on the Paper. Another matter which required explanation was the omission of the Treasury Minute with reference to the last contract. Such a Minute was not a merely formal matter, but it was one of considerable importance. When the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) spoke the other evening he had so much knowledge of the subject that he took it for granted the House had more knowledge than it really possessed, and that it was aware how many contracts there were before the House dealing with this matter. There were three contracts which had been placed on the Table dated the end of last year, one with the British India Navigation Company, and the two with the Union Company, all for different portions of the line. One of these contracts which the House had not been asked to confirm—the service between this country and the Cape—had been withdrawn by the Government. So had the first one for the service between Zanzibar and the Cape. Then came another proposition for the service between the Cape and Zanzibar, to pay for the same service which had been offered for £15,000 the larger sum of £26,000. That was a circumstance which required explanation before the Select Committee. Another fact which required explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the omission of the Treasury Minute. The House would recollect why it was called upon to sanction these contracts at all, or why the Standing Orders required that a Treasury Minute should be attached to these contracts. It was upon this very matter of mail contracts that one of the most powerful Committees ever appointed by that House sat in 1360. They recommended that the House should confirm mail contracts, and that this Treasury Minute should be attached with the view of preventing blunders and jobs. In the present instance there was, of course, no idea of any imputation of jobbery, and he was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney would be the first to repudiate any such imputation. But there was, at all events, the appearance of an overt blunder having been committed which should be inquired into. This Company had got the contract to carry the mails from the Cape to Zanzibar for eight years for £26,000 a-year, when seven or eight months before, they were willing to undertake the same duty for £15,000. The hon. Member for Hackney was quite right in saying that these two Companies made a joint tender for £25,000 a-year for two contracts—£10,000 for the bit between Aden and Zanzibar, and £15,000 for the bit between Zanzibar and the Cape. Then appeared this extraordinary circumstance—that the Post Office authorities, when they submitted this offer to the Treasury on October 29, 1872, stated the consideration for which the Union Company were willing to reduce the term of this service to Zanzibar from ten to eight years, so as to make it synchronous with the termination of the Peninsular and Oriental contract, the consideration was that their Lordships should extend to the same period a new mail contract from England to the Cape of Good Hope. They said they had got so favourable a contract at £15,000 that they were willing to reduce the term by two years if only the Government would agree to give them an extension, which they much desired, of the contract between the Cape and England. That extension was given to them; but the contract for it was subsequently abandoned by the Government on the remonstrance of the Cape colonists. The measure then of the sacrifice of the Union Company in this abandonment was not £11,000, to be paid for the service to Zanzibar for eight years by the taxpayers of the country, but it was two years' additional term, which might be added to the £15,000 for the Cape and Zanzibar contract. They were however, now told that this service for £15,000 per annum was such a loss to the Union Company that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it his duty to sacrifice £11,000 per annum more of the public money to console them for the loss of the extended contract between England and the Cape. It seemed to him that according to the Papers on the Table there was no ground whatever for taking £26,000 per annum as the real value of this contract to the Company when they agreed to give up the contract between England and the Cape. He wished to remind the House that this was not a new class of question. He did not think it desirable that the House should bait the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question. He felt sure that he had decided according to his "lights," but it appeared from the papers that all the circumstances were not under his consideration at the time. And that was what the Committee on Mail Contracts in 1860 reported to have been the case in regard to the Galway and Dover Mail Contracts. The Committee reported that in making and modifying these contracts it was clear there was a want of concert and of well defined responsibility. The Committee also recommended that new mail contracts should be open to competition; but that as to extensions or modifications of former contracts it was impossible to lay down any rules, and a discretion must be left to the Executive, subject to the control of Parliament. The Committee about to be appointed should apply these rules and recommendations to the present case. It was odd that one of the most prominent Members of that Committee, which was presided over by the late Mr. Dunlop, was the present Secretary to the Treasury, who moved the adoption of the Chairman's Report. The House was therefore entitled to look to him in order to see that the recommendations of that Committee should be fully enforced. It appeared, moreover, that this line was originally started, not for the purpose of offering facilities to trade, but with a view to the suppression of the slave trade. He doubted whether the House of Commons were justified in pursuing these indirect objects by a system of mail subsidies. If the slave trade were to be suppressed it would be much better to do it in a direct manner. The present case was essentially one for a Select Committee; but its Members should not be the holders nor the expectants of offices. They ought not to sit upon the Treasury bench and perhaps should not be ambitious of sitting there. They should be gentlemen capable of forming an independent opinion. There should be one gentleman on each side representing the opposite views on this question, but these two Members should be themselves debarred from voting. A Committee of that kind had been appointed to inquire into the Leeds Bankruptcy case, and other instances of such Committees were mentioned in Sir Thomas May's Book. He thought such Committees had more of a judicial character than ordinary Committees appointed by the House. When the conduct of a Minister or official person was in question it was objectionable to have a Committee composed of his Colleagues, or of those who were supposed to take a more or less official view of the matter. Indeed, this appeared to him very much like taking a jury from St. Giles's to try a pickpocket. There was an influential element in that House of independent Members who neither held office nor desired to form an official connection with the Government, but who were men of substance and of brains, and capable of pronouncing an independent opinion on such a question as the present. Therefore, if the House should agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, he would to-morrow or on Monday propose to nominate a Committee of seven Gentlemen to try the question of these contracts, and to name also his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney and some Gentleman on the part of the Treasury as Members of the Committee without the power of voting, in order that they might elicit the facts for the judgment of the tribunal. This, in his opinion, would be a fairer and better solution of the question than the course proposed by the hon Member for Hackney; and he trusted it would commend itself to the fairness and good sense of the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, his right hon. Friend who had just sat down proposed the reference of this subject to a Select Committee, and he understood that the Government made no opposition to that Motion. From the way in which the proposition had been received, he inferred there would be no opposition to such a course. Therefore, he was not disposed to enter into the merits of the question to-night; but there was one point he was rather anxious about, and which he did not think his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) had quite elucidated—namely, as to the way in which the Committee was to be chosen. There was a recent precedent on the subject. In 1868 it was his good fortune or misfortune to enter into the Cunard and Inman Contract, which in the following year was called in question in the House of Commons. It occupied the attention of the House for a considerable time, and it was ultimately determined that the contract should be referred to a Select Committee. He offered no opposition to that course, and a Select Committee was appointed, but it was nominated by the Committee of Selection. The order on that occasion was that five Members should be appointed by the Committee of Selection and two Members by the House. He had not heard whether his right hon. Friend proposed that the Select Committee should be appointed in that way. [Mr. BOUVERIE: I am quite willing.] He (Mr. Hunt) would propose that the matter should be treated in the same way as was done in the case of the Cunard and Inman Contract.

said, he did not intend to enter into the merits of the case, especially as the Government had signified its willingness to refer the matter to a Select Committee. But one or two matters had been referred to by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) with regard to which he thought his hon. Friend was in error. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the joint tender of the two Companies preceded the offer of the Union Company for the extension of its service.

begged pardon. What he meant to say was that the arrangement of the Government for the extension of the Western Contract was entered into after the joint tender of the 25th of June.

said, the proposal made by the Union Steamship Company for the extension of its services was made on the 12th January, 1872, and it was after that tender had been made, and while it was under the consideration of the Government, that, on the 25th of June following, the joint tender was made by the two Companies for the joint service. He denied that there was any attempt made by the Union Company to take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers; they proposed to remunerate themselves by the extra traffic they would derive.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) that the Committee ought to be appointed in the manner he had indicated. It should be one in which the House and the country would have the fullest confidence. He would suggest that both the contracts should be submitted to that Committee.

said, he could not allow the Zanzibar Contract to be referred to a Select Committee without declaring his opinion with regard to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought this evening to have expressed regret for his utterances on the former occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had, in really strong terms, but with the blandness which became him, protested against the character of that speech. He (Mr. White) confessed himself that he had never heard a speech which gave him so much pain as the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when this matter was originally brought forward. For the first time, he felt what must have been the mental torture—the absolute agony of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of the Treasury—on seeing all the principles which they had so earnestly, so honestly, and so efficaciously advocated, trampled underfoot and treated with contempt by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman told the House he could not help feeling it was much more desirable that the responsibility of entering into Post Office mail contracts should rest with the Government, than that it should be transferred to the House of Commons, because such a transfer would tend to introduce personal solicitation, lobbying, and other practices which he should be sorry to see introduced into this country. He (Mr. White) could testify that the whole course of the policy of the House since he had occupied a seat in it, had been to assert the right to question, revise, and control, all such contracts which successive Governments had made. Owing to ignorance, or perhaps want of forecast, or of information on the part of such Governments, we had existing mail contracts to the amount of £1,260,000 per annum; whereas it was notorious that the service could in all respects be now as efficiently done at considerably less—he believed at less than one-half that cost. He felt sure that, if the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), sitting on the right hand of the Speaker as Finance Minister, had given utterance to such sentiments as those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole of the Liberal side of the House would have been in a blaze. There would have been one wide-spread feeling of indignation, and he confessed that he himself looked upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's condemnation of the reiterated and emphatic declarations of the Prime Minister with regard to the constitutional control of Parliament with feelings of abhorrence.

said, that if the Union Company had wished to go on with a contract they might have done so, and, if not, the House would have been perfectly willing that compensation should have been given them for any expense they might have been put to—the matter to have been settled by arbitration. If that were done, the amount which the country would have to pay would not be one-fifth of that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed.

moved to add, at the end of the Question the words "such Committee to consist of Seven Members, Five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and Two to be added by the House."

said, he thought the present was hardly the occasion to raise the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) which was entirely distinct from his proposal. Indeed, if the words of the right hon. Gentleman were added to the proposal, any hon. Gentleman would be entitled to claim that it be divided and the Question put separately. In the course of his remarks he had said nothing about the mode of appointing the Committee, and his sole desire was that there should be one of an independent character. In 1867 in the case of Meer Ali, involving the character of a Member of that House, and in 1854 Committees had been appointed in the way which he had suggested. He thought the best course would be that the right hon. Gentleman should wait until he saw the list of the Committee, when he might move the rejection of any names to which he might object.

said, he thought the proposal of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Hunt) was a fair one, and, besides, it was in accordance with the last precedent, when a contract such as that under discussion was referred to a Select Committee. He had heard the name of the probable Chairman and some of the Members of the proposed Committee mentioned since he had come down to the House, and he did not think it expedient that the matter should be arranged in that way.

said, no one could have listened to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) or of his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Bouverie) without feeling that their object was that the composition of the Committee should be perfectly equitable. For his part, he thought that the Government should take as little part as possible in the matter, and that they should be guided by the general feelings of the House. The more agreeable, and perhaps more regular course, would be to take the Motion for the appointment of a Committee first, and next the question as to the mode of its appointment. He presumed that Notice would have to be given with respect to the two modes of appointing the Committee; and believing that his right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite might approximate in their views, he thought great advantage might arise from giving the subject 24 hours' consideration.

I must remind the House that on the previous occasion referred to—the contract with the Cunard Company—a similar discussion took place, and the same views were expressed, and the House arrived at the result which has been suggested by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt). No doubt we ought to consider the feelings of the Committee of Selection as much as possible; but the objection of the Members of that Committee to appoint in inquiries of this character usually arises from the fact that such investigations are of a personal nature. Now really we cannot say that an inquiry into the conduct of a Department of the Government is to be looked upon as a personal investigation, or that the Committee of Selection would feel that delicate embarrassment which is natural to them when they have to appoint Gentlemen to inquire into the conduct of individuals. The difference is so distinct that I think the House will at once recognize it; but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that in all these cases it is expedient not to act with any precipitation. I do not think the question will at all suffer by being postponed for 24 hours, and I have no doubt we shall then arrive at a decision which will be thoroughly satisfactory.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment; but he desired to point out that it was similar in its terms and in the mode in which it was proposed to the precedent he had referred to.