, asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will explain why the additional Papers connected with the Memorials of Artillery Officers, ordered on the 16th of July 1875, have not yet been presented to the House, and if he can state when they will be presented?

, in reply, said, the Papers referred to by the hon. Gentleman were on the Table of the House, and would shortly be in the hands of Members. The delay was occasioned by the fact that the Papers moved for were scattered in different parts of India, and some delay was necessarily occasioned in collecting the Papers.

asked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, When it is proposed to bring in a Bill for the Prevention of Floods in the River Thames, for which Notices were published by the Metropolitan Board of Works in November last?

I regret that I am unable to state when the Bill on this subject will be brought in. A draft Bill has been prepared, but the subject involves many important questions, and the Metropolitan Board of Works is desirous that the Bill should be fully considered before it is submitted to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the great increase of wine and spirit licences to grocers and other shopkeepers; and, whether he intends to propose some alteration in the Licensing Laws, giving to magistrates power to refuse applications as in the case of public houses and beer houses?

, in reply, said, the attention of the Government had been called to the subject by the proceedings at the various quarter sessions in the country, and all he could say at present was that the matter deserved serious consideration, and was at the present moment receiving it.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is now prepared to state what is the addition to the Royal Titles which Her Majesty's Ministers will advise in the event of the passing of the Royal Titles Bill?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that I am not now prepared to state what is the addition to the Royal Titles which Her Majesty's Ministers will advise in the event of the passing of the Royal Titles Bill.

After the Answer which I have just received from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that on the Motion for the second reading of the Royal Titles Bill I will move—

"That this House should not be asked to read this Bill a second time until the addition proposed to be made to the Royal Titles shall have been stated by Her Majesty's Ministers, and until full opportunity shall have been given for the consideration of such addition."

, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire into the present system of levying the Customs Duties on Wines" said, the subject was an important one in connection with the Revenue of the country, because it was alleged by some high authorities that to alter the present system, by which a duty of 1s. per gallon was taken on wines under 26 degrees of alcoholic strength, and of 2s. 6d. on wines above that degree of strength, must necessarily imperil the integrity of the Revenue derived from the spirit duties. It was the opinion of those, however, who were best acquainted with the subject that the present system of levying duties upon the wines imported into this country ought to be placed upon a clear, a simple, and a fair basis. He had the conviction that a change was possible without interfering with the integrity of the Revenue, and he wished to see such a system adopted as would realize the mode suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—a system which would combine the greatest simplicity of operation with the greatest security to the Exchequer. Various Papers presented to Parliament in 1869 showed how the controversy on this question had been carried on among the three Departments of the Customs, Inland Revenue, and Board of Trade on the occasion of negotiations with Portugal. In 1866 the Government asked the opinion of the Board of Trade with regard to the lowering of the 2s. 6d. duty and other alterations which were then mooted; and the Board of Trade, after a close examination of the question, arrived at the conclusion that a reduction from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 6d. per gallon of duties on wines between 26 and 40 degrees strength would be feasible. The proposals were next submitted to the Departments of the Customs and Inland Revenue. The Customs never grappled with the arguments which had been advanced on the subject, contenting themselves with saying that to admit wines at lower rates would unsettle a system arranged after very mature consideration. The Inland Revenue maintained that the effect of reducing the duties on strong wines, as proposed by the Board of Trade, would be to hold out a great temptation to the introduction of factitious wines, which it said were, in fact, merely spirit-mixtures, such as so-called Hamburg sherries. By that admission, in his opinion, the Inland Revenue conceded everything he contended for. If these Hamburg sherries were merely spirit-mixtures, he saw no reason why they should be introduced as wines; and if it was possible for the machinery of the Customs to stop sweetened brandies, as had happened of late repeatedly, it would, in his opinion, be equally easy for the same machinery, perhaps with some slight alteration in it, to put a stop to the introduction as wines of spirit-mixtures generally, and consequently of Hamburg sherries. The Board of Inland Revenue referred to the difficulty of preventing frauds, which they feared might arise if certain modifications were made. But he wanted to know whether fraud was prevented under the present system? He had been told that among traders of lax principles the practice was not unknown of mixing wines made at 1s. with wines of 42 degrees strength at 2s. 6d. a gallon, so that liquor which had paid really but 1s. 9d. duty per gallon was sold at rates as if it had paid on entry 2s. 6d. duty. The Government at that time, notwithstanding the views of the Customs and Inland Revenue decided that the standard at which the duty had been previously fixed was not one essential and vital to maintain for the security of the Revenue. In presence of adverse opinions by those Boards, the Government of the day had come to the conclusion to propose a certain reduction in the duties, and thereby admitted that the existing rates were not essential for the integrity of our fiscal systems. The reduction offered was not considered to have been sufficient, whereupon further inquiry was then instituted, particularly by the Board of Trade, whether a greater reduction might not be made. The matter was subsequently dropped, and he thought it one which a Special Committee might well investigate. The question turned practically on the point whether compound or factitious wines, spirit-mixtures, or Hamburg sherries could be introduced into this country at a price which would render illicit distillation formidable. The Board of Trade distinctly maintained the contrary with much detail of calculation. In reply, the Inland Revenue had pointed to results from experiments made on genuine Portuguese wines at £23 a butt; but such results were necessarily fallacious, and could not invalidate those arrived at by experiments on the only material that could be used for illicit purposes—factitious wines and spirit-mixtures like Hamburg sherries. The Board of Trade came to the conclusion that if the duties were reduced to 1s. 6d. all round on wine up to 40 degrees strength the maximum loss to the Revenue would be only £120,000 in excess of the loss which the Government was prepared for in its previous offer of reduction, and this calculation was never seriously challenged by the Inland Revenue. That brought the history of the question down to October, 1866. Considerable controversy existed with reference to many ancillary points. It was known that semi-musts and wines in an incomplete state of fermentation had not developed their full strength, yet the official inquiries instituted by Mr. Bernard on Portuguese wines had been made mainly on semi-musts, which could not be taken as fair samples of the strength of fully-developed wines. From that fact alone the House could draw its conclusions with regard to the practical value of the tests in use on the ground of such experiments. Lately, 200 samples of perfectly natural wines from Melbourne on being tested by the Customs officials yielded the following results:—Out of the 200, 121 were found to be from 27 to 32 degrees of alcoholic strength, and four more from 32 to 34 degrees. There could not be a more opportune moment than the present for the appointment of a Committee, which would be able to inquire into the condition on which the wine duties could be properly levied, and to conduct this inquiry with the advantage of all the knowledge accumulated on the subject during the last 15 years. He begged to move for the appointment of the Committee.

, in seconding the Motion, observed, that it was now 24 years since the last inquiry was instituted on the subject, and since then a great deal of valuable experience had been gained, which it was desirable should be placed at the disposal of those who were interested in the subject. Until within a few days ago the question might have been argued on the ground of the preferential duties; but he understood that the Portuguese Government had at that short distance of time given up the excess of preferential duty. It was all very well to introduce alcoholic tests; but as long as they charged a duty of 2s. 6d. a gallon on countries producing strong wines, and 1s. a gallon on those which produced light wines, the former would look upon the lighter duties as being in nature and in fact preferential. The great question was whether the equalization of the wine duties would seriously endanger our Revenue, especially at a time when such large demands were made on it; but there was reason to believe that such would not be the case. Before the reduction of the duty we consumed, in round numbers, 7,000,000 gallons, the revenue from which was £1,900,000; but the consumption now was 17,300,000 gallons, and the revenue from it £1,712,000, or within £188,000 of the revenue before the reduction. It was objected that the increased consumption of the stronger wines would diminish the consumption of spirits, and thus the Revenue would be injured; but experience had shown that wine and spirits were drunk by different classes of persons, and even if there was a large reduction in the quantity of spirits drunk it would not be without its advantages. Then it was said that the effect would be to benefit the Cape Colonies; but it should be gratifying to us that the trade of the Cape should be benefited as well as that of a foreign country. The equalization of the duties would also enable us to abolish bonding, and in that way a great saving might be effected in the pay of our Custom House officers. For these and other reasons he hoped a Committee would be granted, and that the Government would show a disposition to meet in a fair spirit those countries which thought themselves unfairly treated.

said, he did not know what course the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to take; but he was very much disposed to join his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire and the hon. Gentleman opposite in urging upon the right hon. Gentleman the wisdom of consenting to the inquiry now sought. The proposition which it was hoped the Committee would agree to, and that the evidence would lead them to was, on the whole, rather a simple one—namely, that the point at which a higher duty than 1s. was levied on foreign wines should not be fixed, as at present, at 26 degrees of alcoholic strength, but should be fixed at some higher degree, or should range from 36 to 40 degrees. Both sides of the House would admit, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also would admit, that if such a change could be made, it would have the effect of extending our trade with other countries—in some degree with France, but notably with Spain, and probably to some extent with Portugal. The objection to such a proposal was one rather of fear than of fact. It was said that if they had a higher degree—that was, if they admitted stronger wines at the low duty of 1s., those wines would be made use of in this country for the purpose of making spirit, and that people could make a profit by doing that, and that the result would be that a fraud would be committed on the Revenue, and the Revenue would suffer. Now, if that were true, the objection was formidable, and one which the House could not, without great mischief, overlook. But it had been disputed; and he thought the evidence of opinion, on the whole, so far as he had been able to gather it, was stronger against that view than the contrary. His hon. Friend had quoted the opinions of the Revenue Department, the Customs Department, and the Board of Trade. Those opinions were conflicting, and giving each of them equal weight they were still left in the dark. He had been for some short time at the Board of Trade, and he recollected that this question was at that time very fully considered, and especially by one officer whose opinion was very valuable—he referred to Sir Louis Malet. The opinion of the Board of Trade was distinctly that it was perfectly safe to make the change proposed, and that it would be greatly advantageous to the country if that change were made. He took the trouble at that time to make some inquiry on his own account, and he had an interview with eminent authorities connected with the other Departments, and his conclusion was this:—that their opinion was not based upon facts clearly ascertained, but was based rather upon tradition and a kind of apprehension—a fear of allowing anything to be done that would in any way endanger the income which the Chancellor of the Exchequer received from those duties. He was not at all satisfied, from the conversation he had with those authorities, that the view they took was sound, or sustained by facts in such a manner as to justify the Government in adhering to the higher rate of duty. If those authorities were at variance, who should decide? The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked some one connected with the Inland Revenue, and he received one opinion; he made a similar inquiry of the Board of Customs, and he received a different opinion; he therefore made further inquiry at the Board of Trade, and he could only say if the officers of the Board of Trade were now what they were when he was there, they were persons on whom the greatest reliance might be placed. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was still in the dark, he would be left in the dark and be obliged to form his own opinion, or come to some other tribunal. But what tribunal was there so good as a Committee of that House for ascertaining the facts and opinions of all kinds of persons with respect to such questions? He did not say that men might not sit upon a Commission who had strong opinions in respect to the matter that came before them; but still he said a Committee of that House was an admirable tribunal for obtaining facts and evidence upon which Government and Parliament might form an opinion on a question of this nature. He asked the House, was not the question one of some importance? They had an enormous trade with other countries, almost all over the world. The great harriers to our trade over half the world were barriers of tariffs. There was scarcely any country in which trade was more restrictive, in which monopolies were more universal than in Spain. He recollected about six or seven years ago, just before he was withdrawn from the House for three or four years, he had a long conversation with the then Spanish Minister, who told him he felt certain that, if the English Government would make a change in the wine duties, and treat Spain as they treated France practically, so that their wines might be admitted at a low duty, he had no doubt whatever it would be possible to negotiate a Commercial Treaty with Spain, as they had already done with France, that would be highly advantageous to both countries. That, he thought, was a matter of great consequence. No doubt, of late years there had been a great demand for labour, wages had been high, and money had been plentiful; but that state of things did not last, and we were constantly interfered with by competition with other countries, and by the tariffs that existed in them. If they could, by Commercial Treaties or by making any concessions, introduce themselves to new customers, and bring their people into some closer communication with some other people, that was a great advantage—so great that it was not wise that an opinion founded on traditions, and on the fears of any of the Revenue Departments of the country, should be interposed against an inquiry of this nature, and against a great advantage which the country would gain, provided the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire was correct. He believed it was correct, and therefore it would be greatly to the advantage of our export trade, and our trade generally, if the change to which his hon. Friend pointed could be made; and with that opinion he would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to this Committee. There was no doubt great force in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Lloyd), that there had been no Commission of Inquiry into these duties for 20 or 25 years. Circumstances had greatly changed in that time. They appointed many Committees every Session, some of them for objects in which not much could be done. But here was a distinct proposition of great importance. If the views entertained by himself and by the hon. Gentleman opposite were correct, the country would suffer if the inquiry was not made, and the change which they hoped to be brought about might not be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that in making these observations he had not the slightest wish to take any course of opposition to the Government, or to act in connection with any Party difference. The right hon. Gentleman was a free trader as much as he (Mr. Bright) was, and made a great speech the other day in a great hall dedicated to free trade. He was glad that, having withdrawn himself from that platform oratory, the right hon. Gentleman succeeded to it, and talked the doctrine he (Mr. Bright) had talked there 30 years ago. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would deal liberally in this matter, and allow this Committee to be appointed; and he believed that great good might and would result from it.

observed, that it had been asserted that we had differential duties on wine. Now, he disputed that point. The duties on wine were uniform, and the additional duty was on the spirits that were added to the wine; and if strong wines were admitted into this country at 1s. per gallon it would be impossible to maintain a duty of 10s. per gallon on British spirits. He did not consider it necessary to refer the subject to a Committee, and he had it on the highest authority that 99 men out of 100 engaged in the wine trade were opposed to the proposed change in the wine duties. It had been said there was no prospect of illicit distillation. A great deal was said about Hamburg sherry. That was a very queer compound. It was distilled originally from potatoes, mangel wurzel, and other vegetables of that character. He should like to know what his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had to complain of? He (Mr. Bass) did not think that Spain or Portugal had any reason to complain of the consumption of their wines in this country. In 1859, before the wine duties were altered, the consumption of Spanish wines in Great Britain was 2,780,000 gallons, while last year it reached 6,770,000 gallons. The consumption of Portuguese wines had been in the former year 2,200,000 gallons, and in the last year 3,887,000 gallons. He was not surprised that Portuguese wine did not increase at the same rate, for port was almost extinct. ["No, no!"] He could only say he was in the habit of entertaining his friends occasionally, and he only knew one friend who drank port wine. The wine, no doubt, bore a high character; but it was virtually extinct. During the last year the importation of Spanish and Portuguese wine was 10,657,000 gallons, while from all the rest of the world, including France, from which the importation had very greatly increased since the reduction of the duty, we had only imported 6,685,000 gallons. The brands that were most distinguished when he was in the wine trade, and which still remained so, had increased nearly 50 per cent in price; and if we reduced the duties on those highly-brandied wines again, the Spanish and Portuguese would put the money into their pockets, and the English consumer would not be benefited. At the Vienna International Exhibition there were 284 samples of natural Spanish wine and 381 samples of Portuguese wine; one of the former, fortified, contained 57 per cent of spirit. He was persuaded that a man might drink two bottles of one of those natural wines with far less injury to his constitution than if he drank a pint of those brandied wines. Now, if wines with 57 per cent of spirit were allowed to be imported into this country at a duty of only 1s. a gallon, how would it be possible to maintain the 10s. duty on British spirits? As an illustration of the manner in which Spain and Portugal treated this country with regard to import duty, he might mention that on the article of bitter ale a duty of no less than 125 per cent was levied by Portugal. Our wine duties now yielded £ 1,700,000 per annum; whereas the duties on foreign and domestic spirits produced more than £20,000,000. They ought not, therefore, to allow that large revenue to be interfered with by the introduction of bad brandy in the form of wine at 1s. per gallon while the spirit duties were still kept at 10s. per gallon. The appointment of a Committee would, he thought, do a great deal of mischief and excite expectations which never could be realized.

said, he thought that they had had a very interesting discussion, and also that they were indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Cartwright) for the manner in which he had brought that question forward. He hoped the hon. Member would not consider him wanting in respect if he did not follow him into all the points which he had raised. He approached the subject with no feeling of prejudice against the cause advocated by the hon. Member. He appreciated highly the importance of cultivating good relations with Spain and Portugal, and developing, as far as possible, our trade with those countries. In 1866, as President of the Board of Trade, he had joined in fighting the battle to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, against what he then thought, and was still inclined to think, were the exaggerated fears of the Revenue Departments. He might also inform his hon. Friend who spoke last that he was very fond of a glass of the excellent wine he had described. But the question immediately before them was, not so much what was the proper scale of wine duties, as whether it was expedient to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into that subject, and he would confine himself to that point. A few days ago the hon. Member for Oxfordshire and some gentlemen connected with the London wine trade waited on him at Downing Street on that subject, and a leading member of the deputation said he hoped if the Committee were granted the Government would lose no time in acting on its recommendations; because nothing could be so mischievous to the trade as keeping it for a long time in suspense, expecting that alterations would be made, and then not to make those alterations. That was a statement so perfectly obvious that it was echoed by another gentleman, who, though inclined to favour the proposal of a Committee, yet intimated that if its Report was not to be acted upon he would prefer that it should not be appointed, because he did not wish the trade to be disturbed by a discussion which would render it impossible for them to carry on their business satisfactorily. Well, he could not but feel that there was very great justice in that; because the importers imported their wine a considerable time before it was brought into consumption, and had to consider what would be the price for which they would be able to sell it. It was very inconvenient for them to have large stocks in hand, which might not be entirely run out before any great alteration was made in the duty. He had been struck with a curious suggestion of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. S. Lloyd) in regard to the drawback. That hon. Gentleman said that, taking into account what the quantity of wine imported in the year was and what the consumption was, they had nothing to do but to put off the reduction of the duty if they decided on it, and run out all the stock of wine in hand, and then there would be no trouble about the drawback. That might be a very pleasant doctrine for the hon. Member to enunciate; but it was not at all pleasant for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it would lead to their having no wine imported, and no wine revenue for a whole year. If the merchants were to hold back from importing because they expected some material change in the duty, the inconvenience to the trade would be great, and the loss to the Revenue very considerable. Well, what was the position of the question? They were told that they ought to have an inquiry into it now, because they had not had a Parliamentary Committee sitting upon it for some 25 years. The Committee, however, which sat in 1852 was a most influential one, and elicited a considerable amount of most valuable evidence. Since that time that evidence had received equally valuable additions from departmental inquiries, Commissions, and the various means which were always at the command of the Government of the day. But what was it that the advocates for this Committee were aiming at? He understood the hon. Member for Plymouth to say that what they were going for was an uniform duty on all kinds of wine. But the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) did not ask for a uniform duty at all; he said that we ought to raise the duty on the higher scale with which we had to deal, and that instead of 26 we ought to take 32, or something of that kind. Those were two very different proposals. If a Committee was appointed there would be all sorts of opinions among the Members; evidence would be given this way or that way as suited the different views of its Members; and there would be such a diversity of opinions that the conclusions arrived at would be of little value. After all, the responsibility must rest with the Government of the day, which had to consider not only these points, but fiscal questions generally, the condition of the Revenue, and the proper time for making proposals for alterations of taxation; and he could not but think that a Committee would be rather a hindrance than an assistance. To the depuation he had the honour of receiving the other day he pointed out that these were difficult questions, and asked how they could be solved before a Committee. The reply he received was that a Committee, largely acquainted with the subject, would be sure to arrive at valuable conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham seemed also to think a Committee was a good instrument for arriving at the truth on questions like this; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had great doubts whether a Committee would be composed exclusively of Gentlemen acquainted with the subject. The House knew that in striking Committees a great many considerations came into play. It was necessary, for example, to strike a balance between one side of the House and the other, and to introduce Gentlemen connected with different parts of the United Kingdom. But the Committee would hardly be dealing with wine duties alone; for dealing with them affected, more or less, directly or indirectly, all kinds of alcoholic liquors, and this fact alone would lead to great conflict of opinion amongst the Members of which the Committee was composed. He was bound to say that, although he recognized the importance of the question, and agreed in the propriety of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire bringing it forward, and found no fault with the spirit in which it had been discussed, he felt that the disadvantages, which were inevitable, must far outweigh any good that might be derived from the appointment of a Committee. As the House would see, it would be very unfortunate if the Committee made recommendations which the Government, for fiscal reasons, could not carry out, or which might lead to embarrassment in our dealings with foreign countries. A good deal had been said of our Commercial Treaties with Spain and Portugal; but it should be recollected that any changes in them might affect our trading relations with France. With regard to foreign tariffs, he desired to see the system of free trade maintained and carried further; but he felt that we were approaching a critical point—the termination of our present Commercial Treaties. It was therefore important and necessary that every step we took should be guarded with great care. He hoped the success which had attended the liberal commercial policy emanating from this country, and which the right hon. Member for Birmingham had so large a share in initiating, would have its effect on foreign countries, which now felt its advantages without fully appreciating the principles from which those advantages were derived. For himself, he should like to see a large and comprehensive understanding come to by the Powers of Europe as to some common bases for tariffs. Some such international bases would be of inestimable advantage; but it was inconvenient just now to discuss large questions like these. As to the immediate question under discussion, he did not think the cause they all had at heart would be promoted by the appointment of the Committee, and, therefore, he hoped the Motion would not be agreed to.

said, he was as much in favour of the principle of free trade as the right hon. Member for Birmingham or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was opposed to the Motion for the reasons he would shortly offer. In the first place, he would point out that while the spirit duties amounted to about £20,400,000, the wine duties did not in the aggregate reach £2,000,000. Yet enormous concessions had been made to the trade of those countries which were wine producers, and revenue was sacrificed in their favour, concurrently with an enormous increase in the duties levied upon home manufactured spirits. He would not say the only, but he might fairly say almost the only, home manufacture which remained to Ireland was that of spirits. The duty within the last 20 years on the spirits manufactured in Ireland and consumed there had been raisedfrom£964,000, to about£3,460,000, although the consumption had not increased one gallon. England had practically the power of regulating the principles of free trade to the prejudice of Ireland and Scotland. It was impossible that those countries could take any measures to protect themselves, and therefore their duties had been raised to the highest point capable of endurance. He objected to granting any relief whatever to wine producers or wine consumers, whilst such an enormous amount of spirit duties was placed upon Ireland. As he believed the attention of the Committee was solely to be directed towards effecting a reduction of the duty on wine, and not on spirits, he should oppose the Motion.

, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire into the case of the depositors in the late Tralee Savings Bank," said, it might appear at once that the subject was purely of a local character; but inseparable from it there was an Imperial principle upon which he relied. Although the failure of the bank occurred so long back as the month of April, 1847, the recollection of it was as fresh as ever in Tralee, and such of the depositors who were still living and their descendants had never for one moment abandoned the claim which they considered they had upon the Government for the money of which they had been defrauded. It was true that the subject had already been investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons; but he met that by saying that since the holding of that investigation circumstances had occurred which had greatly strengthened the claims of the depositors. When the failure occurred Mr. Tidd Pratt, a Government officer, proceeded to Tralee, investigated the circumstances, and made an award that a sum of £16,000 was due to certain depositors who had deposited their money previous to the passing of 7 & 8 Vict., and he awarded these sums against the managers and trustees of the bank. The Committee evidently thought that the awards of Mr. Tidd Pratt were good and binding, and that the £16,000 would have been recovered from the trustees and managers. However, that was not the case, for a verdict which had been obtained against the trustees in an action for £100, brought by a depositor, was after argument in the Court of Queen's Bench set aside, Chief Justice Blackburn, who delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court in favour of the defendant, observing that no action could be maintained on the awards, which were bad in form and in substance, and he added that he thought the depositors who had been deprived of their legal right by the insufficiency of the awards of a public officer had a moral and equitable claim to be recouped the amount of their awards. He believed that had the Committee been aware of these facts they would have dealt with this case as they had done with that of the Cuffe Street Savings Bank, and recommended the Government to compensate the depositors. A second class of depositors consisted of those who had lodged their money subsequent to the year 1844, and who by the change in the law made that year were deprived of the security which the other class of depositors had in the personal liability of the trustees and managers. The claim of the second class of depositors was founded on the facts that they were unaware of the change in the law, and that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had systematically violated the provisions of the Act 7 & 8 Vict., for the management of savings banks. These allegations were substantiated by the Report of a Committee of that House which some years ago sat to investigate the Tralee case. The Act required that bonds should be given by the officers of the bank and lodged with the clerk of the peace for the county and the National Debt Commissioners, but it was not enforced with regard to the actuary, nor was that fact made known to the depositors, by the neglect of which the actuary was able to carry on unchecked his system of fraud. The complaint was that the National Debt Commissioners, by their neglect, had contributed to the loss, and they being Government officers, the Government was liable for their acts of negligence. There was a striking difference between the Cuffe Street Bank and the Tralee Bank. The trustees of the former had actual notice of what was going on. There the Government called on the bank to have their accounts investigated, but the bank refused; but in the Tralee Bank, owing to the bungling and incompetence of the Government officer, the depositors were prevented from recovering £16,000 of their money, and therefore he was justified in expecting that the Government would not disclaim responsibility in the case of the Tralee Bank. There was still, he might add, a very small sum in the hands of the Commissioners, and he hoped the Committee for which he now begged to move would be able to suggest some course by which that amount might be made available for the depositors.

seconded the Motion, and said it would be a great boon to those poor people if they got back the money which they had deposited in ignorance of the fact that the trustees were no longer liable to them for their deposits.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he sympathized very much with those poor people in the loss which they had sustained; but the Government were in no sense responsible for the failure which occurred in 1847, owing to the defalcations of the actuary of the bank, which had, he believed, been going on for a considerable time. After the failure Mr. Tidd Pratt had gone over to Ireland, and, having inquired into the matter, had made some kind of award, by which the trustees of the bank were adjudged by him to be liable for a certain class of deposits. It appeared, however, that when an attempt was made to put the award into force it was found to be illegal, and that Mr. Tidd Pratt had not executed his duties in a proper manner. The consequence was that a Committee of the House of Commons had been appointed, which sat during one Session and a portion of two others, to investigate the claims of the depositors.

The invalidity of Mr. Tidd Pratt's awards was not discovered until after the Committee reported.

said, that would be important if it were the fact; but he found in a draft report which had been drawn up by the late Mr. Henry Herbert, a member of the Committee, that there was special reference made to the decision of Chief Justice Blackburn as to the invalidity of Mr. Tidd Pratt's award. The Committee, therefore, had the facts fully before them, and they reported that the cases of the Killarney and Tralee Savings Banks had no peculiar features differing from those of other banks that had suffered from the dishonesty of the directors. It was not desirable, therefore, that 25 years after another Committee should be appointed to review the proceedings of the previous Committee, and when many of the witnesses who were examined at that time, including Mr. Tidd Pratt, were dead. It would be a waste of time to do so, and it would be a hardship and a delusion towards those poor people, who no doubt treasured a sense of the wrong inflicted so long ago, that they should for a moment suppose that the House of Commons was likely now to do something for them. It was impossible that any Committee could take a different view from that appointed 25 years ago; and if they did it would be admitting a principle that would apply to every savings bank that failed in the United Kingdom. The Cuffe Street Savings Bank was a wholly different case; because there it was the action of the Government officers which more or less conduced to the loss, since Mr. Tidd Pratt, instead of recommending the winding up the bank, recommended that it should be continued, because he was afraid that by winding it up there would be a run on the other savings banks, and that great mischief would result therefrom; and then Parliament recognized the claim of the depositors by making a Vote of money in their favour. There still was, however, in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners a small sum of about £2,000, which undoubtedly belonged to the depositors in the savings banks if they could be got at. The Commissioners had always desired to give the money back to the trustees, if they would only undertake the responsibility of distributing it, but the trustees had always shrunk from assuming this responsibility. A short Act might be passed authorizing some person in whom confidence could be reposed to distribute the money among those who could make out their claims as depositors. Of course, the individual employed would be put to a great deal of trouble, and he must not be held responsible in regard to any claim which might be made upon him after the distribution.

rose to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the Railway Passenger Duty injuriously affected the interests of the Railways and the public, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Railway Passenger Duty ought to he reduced at an early date, with a view to its ultimate repeal."

Having traced the history of the Railway Passenger Duty, and pointed out how the Stage-coach Duty had been repealed in 1869, and the Horse Duty in 1874, the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to argue that railways and stage-coaches had been placed in a false position towards each other, and that railway companies were subjected to a great injustice. It was often said, in justification of the continuance of this tax, that railways were a monopoly; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), in his Budget speech in 1870, had spoken of them as a somewhat qualified monopoly. The monopoly was certainly qualified, for it was difficult to point out in what it consisted. All the great centres of industry—Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Glasgow—had not only two but three railways competing with one another; and if in any case the injurious effects of monopoly were produced, there would be no difficulty in getting the House of Commons to bring the monopolists to their senses by wholesome competition. Besides stage-coaches, tramways, omnibuses, and canals competed with railways much more than hon. Gentlemen supposed. The average railway fare for all classes of passengers was 10½d. a journey. It followed, therefore, that a very large proportion of railway traffic must be at rates considerably less than 10½d. The average of passenger fares of all classes on the London and North-Western, with its great length, was 1s. 5½d., and of the third class 1s. 1d. The average fare of all classes on the London, Chatham, and Dover was 7d., and of the third class 5½d.; and on the Sheffield line it was very nearly the same. Omnibuses and tramways competed materially with the Metropolitan Railway, which carried passengers at an average of 2½d. per journey, and the Metropolitan District and the North London and South London lines were in much the same position as the Metropolitan. But it was not London only, but every great city of the Empire had its system of suburban railways, carrying an enormous number of people short distances at exceedingly low fares. It was argued that the railway companies were rich and could afford to pay this tax. That, however, was an argument which appeared to him to be the first step towards Communism, tending to dangerous results. The way in which he dealt with that argument was to deny that it was true. The railway companies, as a body, were not rich. In 1874 £38,000,000 of railway property paid no dividend whatever, and he did not believe that that figure had since been much lessened, and the average dividend of all the railway companies only amounted to £4 8s. per cent. There might be some sense if you were taxing companies which were really rich, but where was the propriety of taxing a company like the Great Eastern, which, after a great struggle, had paid a half per cent upon its ordinary stock; or the Cornwall Railway, which could only pay its preference shares by borrowing; or the Torbay Railway, which paid nothing even on its debentures? He supposed the tax would be exacted even if a company were unable to pay its working expenses. In the Report of the South Devon Railway Company for 1872 reference was made to the "undue and exceptional taxation to which this description of property is subjected," and at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer and another Member of the Government were directors of the company. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, did not frame the Report, but it must have received his sanction, and railway shareholders might hope that he was still of the same opinion. The tax was not only an exceptional one; it restricted locomotion, and thus materially interfered with the commercial prosperity of the country. The late Sir Robert Peel, when stating his celebrated Budget in 1842, said that—

"Nothing but a hard necessity would induce him to derive revenue from locomotion;" and again, that "he should contemplate with great reluctance and regret the necessity of increased taxation upon railroads."—[3 Hansard, lxi. 435–6.]

This was an authority always listened to in that House with respect. There were other reasons why it was inexpedient at this time to impose these burdens on railways. New scientific appliances were costing the companies large sums. The block system cost the North-Western Company £250,000 a-year; and at the late inquiry into the Great Northern accident it was said by the officials that that company paid £80,000 a-year for the purpose of the block system. The price of labour, too, was largely increasing. In the Report of the North-Eastern Company for the last half-year the increased expenditure from this cause was set down at £46,000 a-year, and the Chairman of the Midland Railway Company indicated a somewhat similar sum. Nor was the tax itself small in amount, as was sometimes said. The London and North-Western paid in 1875 on this account £143,000; the Great Western, £92,000; the Great Eastern, £43,500, being rather more than they distributed in dividend; and the Great Northern, £36,400. The tax tended to become a perpetual annuity upon railways; and if capitalized at 4 per cent, at which sum the leading companies could borrow money, the tax would represent to the London and North-Western a capital sum of £3,600,000; to the Great Western, £2,300,000; to the Great Eastern, £1,100,000; and to the Great Northern, £920,000. If the companies raised these sums at 4 per cent, they would have to pay the interest, but would be able to expend the capital in improving their means of communication and increasing accommodation. The Great Northern Company were told, after the recent accident, that they should construct a new line. Such a line would cost more than £1,000,000, and the whole sum would be furnished if the duty were remitted, and the capital which it represented were raised by the company at the rate of 4 per cent. A recent judicial decision with reference to the Cheap Trains Act had brought the railway world and also the public to the conclusion that the time had come when the matter should be taken into consideration and finally and satisfactorily disposed of. The provision that in order to be exempt from that duty trains containing third class passengers must stop at every station on the line operated in the most absurd and oppressive manner, especially at a period when the railway companies had abandoned their formerly somewhat narrow and exacting spirit, and were now pursuing a more liberal policy towards the public, offering to the working classes, in particular, increased facilities for cheap and expeditious travelling, whereby their time, their only capital, was economized, their expenses on their journeys were reduced, and their personal comfort and convenience much increased. The short observation made by a man extremely well versed in railway affairs on the effect of that tax was that it greatly hampered managers in framing their time-tables. It also hindered their attempts to reduce fares and give increased accommodation, and its abolition would be as much for the interest of the public as for that of the shareholders. He hoped, therefore, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled to inaugurate a more sagacious policy, which would incite railway directors to a generous rivalry in the career of reduction and concession; and he confidently predicted that any immediate sacrifice which might thus be entailed on the Revenue would be recouped over and over again through the stimulus that would be imparted to the general trade and commerce of the country. It had been suggested that if the tax were reduced the railway companies ought to bind themselves to make some concessions to the public; but in bringing forward the question on behalf of the railway companies, and of the public, he assured the House that they asked, not for any favour, but only for justice, which in any country ought not even in appearance to be either bought or sold; and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere to the constitutional declaration—"We will deny justice to no man, neither will we sell it." The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, expressed a hope that the Government would see their way to accept it, or, at least, to agree to the proposal which was to be made by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rodwell) for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

rose to move, as an Amendment—

"That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of the present Law relating to the Railway Passenger Duty, and especially as to its effect upon the working of the cheap trains."

The Amendment was by no means antagonistic to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, for he fully agreed with him in the views which he entertained and he prayed in aid of the facts which had been laid before the House; but he thought that the plan which he suggested was the proper way to deal with the question, as it would pave the way for future legislation. Injustice at present was inflicted in three ways—injustice on the railways in general, on the railways in particular, and on the public at large. The operation of the law was perfectly at variance with the spirit on which the Cheap Trains Act was framed—namely, to enable the working classes to have greater advantages in railway travelling. They were now in this position—they must either travel by stopping trains or pay something extra for their fare, for many lines had added 5 per cent to the third-class fares. The persons for whom cheap trains were originally intended had to suffer either in time or in money. This was not a matter which could be dealt with by an abstract Resolution. If there was a grievance it would be redressed, and the feeling had now grown up, not simply on the part of the railway shareholders, but on the part of the public, that the time had arrived when something should be done. He trusted that the Government would agree to the appointment of the Committee for which he asked.

seconded the Motion.

said, he did not think the House would desire him at that moment to enter at large upon the question of the railway passenger duty. It was a large and difficult subject; and if he had only to deal with the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks), it would, of course, be necessary to enter at some length into it. But they had the alternative proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and it seemed to him that the course which would be most convenient would be that he should accept the Amendment and agree to the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose of—

"Inquiring into and reporting upon the operation of the present Law relating to the Railway Passenger Duty, and especially as to its effect upon the working of the cheap trains."

The question of the railway passenger duty had been several times brought under his notice, and he had carefully considered whether the claims advanced by those who pleaded for the abolition of that duty were claims which he could recognize; but on looking closely into the matter, with a view to practical action, he found it by no means easy for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with it. One of the difficulties which he had always felt was this—that a question had been raised whether the tax ought to be taken off in the interests of the companies or of the travelling public. So far as the interests of the shareholders were concerned, the question, no doubt, was one which would deserve consideration; but if they were to be relieved of the burden which had been borne since railways began, and which had been voluntarily undertaken, it was reasonable and fair to ask on behalf of the public what advantage the public were to derive in return from the abolition of the tax. Besides that question, there was the further one, which was more directly pointed at in the Amendment. When first the railway system was brought under the serious notice of Parliament, a desire was felt on the part of the Legislature to promote travelling, and it was at that time supposed that railway travelling must necessarily be expensive, and that, therefore, it would never be worth the while of the companies to run trains at low rates to suit the working classes. It was thought desirable to introduce clauses into the Act of Parliament requiring the railway companies to run trains likely to be useful to the working classes; and in order to make that obligation less unpalatable to the companies it was accompanied in the case of those particular trains by the remission of the railway passenger duty. It now became a question with regard to the working classes themselves whether the particular stipulations made for the benefit of those classes really conduced to their benefit or not, and whether it might not be actually to the advantage of the travelling public that the companies should be set free to make the best provision they could, untrammelled by any legislation on the subject. He felt that, under the circumstances of the present day, it was exceedingly probable that the obligations laid upon the directors and managers of railway companies, especially as they had now been interpreted by Courts of Law, might interfere with their making the best possible arrangements for the convenience of the working classes, and they might also lead to unnecessary inconvenience to the railway companies themselves. That was a point they would have to consider. They had also to bear in mind that since railways were introduced a great change had occurred in the circumstances under which the working classes used the railways. It was impossible in dealing with the question to leave out of sight the cognate question of the dwellings of the working classes. The House must see that legislation and the efforts of the Government were now directed towards removing to a great extent the working classes from the centres of industry and sending them, very much for the benefit of their health, to some little distance from the place of their employment; but unless they could have the advantage of cheap, rapid, and frequent locomotion that benefit would be considerably diminished and neutralized. The difficulty was to devise some means by which to mitigate and meet this inconvenience; and on one occasion when a deputation connected with the metropolitan railways discussed this question he asked them whether they could propose any plan by which passengers by third class trains should receive a greater benefit than they did. He was, however, afraid that they were not at that time able to make any practical suggestion for the attainment of the object which they had in view; but he was prepared to have the question fully sifted, to see whether some practical solution of it could not be found. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than that the Government should be able so to re-arrange the system of passenger duty as to give encouragement to workmen's trains and greater facilities to those by whom they were used. Leaving, then, the large question open, he had great satisfaction in supporting the Amendment.

said, he did not propose to oppose the Amendment, because to do so would be useless, as it was to have the support of the Government; but if the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks) took a division on the Main Question he should certainly vote with him, because he looked upon a tax on locomotion as next to one on food—as almost the worst that could be imposed; and he should like to have it plainly seen whether the Government were in favour of such an imposition or not, while if a Committee were appointed, the House and the country would remain in happy ignorance of their views on the subject.

also expressed a hope that the hon. and learned Member for Oldham would press his motion to a division—not for the same reason assigned by the hon. Member who had just sat down, but in order to afford Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of meeting the proposal not by a side wind but by a direct negative, so that the country might ascertain the opinion of the House on the subject. He protested against the Select Committee policy of a Government which called itself strong, but which did not appear to be capable of making up its mind on a single subject. Representing as he did a constituency (Hackney) in which there were a great number of working men, he had not received a single application asking him to support the repeal of the passenger duty, while he could not go into the Lobby of the House without being pestered with solicitations from railway directors and others interested in railways to lend his assistance to get rid of the tax. Now, let him suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced it that evening to be his intention to repeal it; what would be the result? Would there be the smallest security that the public would receive one bit better railway accommodation? No; but the evening papers to-morrow would certainly contain statements to the effect that the railway market was remarkably firm, and that there was a rise of 3 or 4 per cent in Metropolitan, South Eastern, and London and Brighton stock. He did not, he might add, know what the Report of the proposed Committee would be, or how many railway directors would be upon it; but in order to give the public fair warning not to speculate in railway shares because of its appointment, he thought that, as a matter of common honesty, it could not be too explicitly stated that there were some hon. Members in the House who would resist as strenuously as they could the remission of an important branch of revenue in order to benefit those who happened to have invested in a particular kind of property. This was a question in which railway directors and shareholders were much more interested than the public. He was filled with the utmost astonishment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose finance was generally sound, did not meet this proposition in a bolder spirit. What was the argument for it? It was said that the railways were unjustly treated and exceptionally taxed, because they had to pay a certain duty from which omnibus and cab proprietors and other owners of locomotion were exempt. But that was an obvious fallacy. The railways were a monopoly. That House gave them a locus standi to oppose any Bill for the purpose of making a competing line. Suppose the London and Brighton Railway was paying 10 per cent and a new line were projected, the House had given the company the right to step in and oppose it—a right which had been frequently exercised under such circumstances by the existing companies. But if the General Omnibus Company were paying 10 per cent there was nothing to prevent anybody from starting fresh omnibuses and participating in that profitable trade. The one was a monopoly and the other was perfectly open, and that distinction made all the difference as to burdens placed upon locomotion. This duty produced £700,000, which, capitalized at 30 years' purchase, would produce £20,000,000; and the proposal meant simply to transfer that sum to the pockets of the shareholders, for not a penny of it would ever reach the public. The Government did not like to meet the proposition with a direct negative, and the Amendment afforded them a convenient means of escape. The plea of injustice was utterly untenable. When the proprietors of the Metropolitan, which was always put forward as the strongest case, came to that House and asked permission to make a railway, they knew perfectly well that their line would not carry goods, but chiefly passengers, and they knew also that this duty would be charged upon them. They said nothing then of injustice or harsh treatment—or of being subject to special taxation—it was not till they had made their rail-was that they spoke in that tone. No injustice, therefore, was done either to investors or constructors, unless some new conditions or burdens had been imposed since they obtained their line. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) was drawn in such elastic language that it would permit the whole subject to be opened by the Committee, which might—so far as the terms of the reference went—report that they had taken evidence, and upon that recommend the total abolition of the passenger tax. They might add, "especially having view to the working classes," but that would only be a bit of empty ornamentation. What would be the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of his possible successor, when he had not got a shilling of Revenue to spare—when the expenditure was increasing, and the Revenue not particularly prosperous—when he would be at his wits' end for money to carry out his grandiloquent scheme for getting rid of the National Debt—if this Committee came down and recommended the immediate repeal of this tax, which produced £700,000 a-year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would then be convinced he had been guilty of a dangerous abnegation of power in referring this question to a Select Committee instead of at once deciding against it for himself. Now, at railway meetings directors occasionally indulged in tall language, threatening to abolish workmen's trains and do other things to diminish the accommodation of travellers. He thought, however, that the working men and the public might be quite comfortable, for the more inconvenient and costly travelling was made, the worse it was for the railway companies themselves. If this condition did not apply, the monopoly of railway companies could not continue for a week. It was said that an additional 5 per cent had been charged by some railway companies upon a portion of their traffic, and that this was the price which the working classes must pay as long as the tax continued. But what security was there that, if the tax were repealed, fares would be reduced? It would be as reasonable to expect a tailor or a boot-maker to work from philanthropic motives as it was to expect a railway company to charge under any circumstances any other fares than those which would pay the best. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the public, should exact some definite equivalent from the railway companies in lower fares or better accommodation before surrendering this £700,000; but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not, in answer to this Motion for a Select Committee, adopt the unanswerable arguments which he had urged earlier in the evening against the appointment of a Select Committee upon the Wine Duties.

said, that he knew from experience that the working classes were well able to take care of themselves, and did not value the patronage of hon. Members in that House. He thought the better course to adopt would be for the House to leave altogether out of consideration the reference to a Select Committee, and vote on the direct Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Old-ham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks). Railway companies had gone into business of late years with their eyes open, and they could not complain of injustice by the continuance of the duty. Many trades had to pay duty for the privilege of their being carried on, and the railway companies having taken upon themselves the carrying monopoly they must submit to the terms that had been imposed and the public must put up with the inconvenience. If a Committee was appointed it should be entrusted to inquire not merely as to the reduction or repeal of the tax, but as to the benefits which the public were to have in return for the surrender of so much annual Revenue.

said, he would advise the hon. and learned Member for Oldham to withdraw his Motion, and let a division be taken on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire for a Select Committee. If ever there was a question proper for a Select Committee, it was this question of the passenger duty. The speech of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) afforded the strongest argument for reference to a Select Committee, for a speech more full of fallacies and misstatements he had never heard. If a Select Committee was agreed to, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be a Member of that Committee, and he (Mr. Laing) would undertake to produce evidence that would refute every one of the assumptions which pervaded his speech. The hon. Gentleman contended that the travelling public had no interest in the remission of the duty. But the fact was the travelling public would be benefited immediately by its abolition to the extent of one-third, though the chief advantage would be that it would cease to hamper the time table. In the Brighton Railway, with which he (Mr. Laing) was more immediately connected, they had not waited for the action of Parliament or of the Government, though the burden was felt; but out of the 22,000,000 of passengers annually carried 20,000,000 were third-class passengers, and the average fare of each passenger was only 10½d. Was it to be supposed that they would not be benefited? The hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that it would be a hardship on railway proprietors if they found themselves in a different position from what they were in when they applied to Parliament for permission to make their lines. But what railway proprietors complained of was that they were in a different position, because until lately there was a duty on all other kinds of locomotion, and the railway tax had been fixed in relation to that duty, and imposed exactly as an equivalent. But while the taxes on locomotion generally had been abolished the railway passenger duty remained. In his judgment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have acted fairly, either to the railway interest or to the public, if he refused a Select Committee to investigate all the circumstances, and see whether it was not possible to devise some modification of the laws relating to cheap trains which would enable the companies to give larger accommodation to the public without seriously trenching on the revenue.

, though seldom agreeing in the views of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), confessed that he concurred in a great deal of what had fallen from him on this subject. The question simply involved one main point. It was whether £700,000 a-year which was now paid by the railway companies should be taken off their shoulders and shifted on to the shoulders of somebody else. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could certainly not afford such a reduction, and if there was any change it must be of the nature he had suggested. But why should railway companies be excepted from special taxation? There were many other classes in this country who had to pay special taxes. Brewers, auctioneers, publicans, and others had to do so. The profession to which he belonged had to pay special taxes, both while students were preparing to enter it and after they had entered it. The common notion was that there was a monopoly in these cases which justified the special tax, but in fact in the legal profession the road was open to all; in the railways it was only open to those who could comply with the conditions laid down by the companies, and they were therefore close and practical monopolies. He could not help thinking that if the railway companies had avoided their internecine quarrels and contests they would have been under no necessity of asking for a remission of taxation to make up their dividends. He quite agreed that if any inquiry was made by a Select Committee it should distinctly include what the public were to receive in return for the surrender of the £700,000 a-year to the railway companies.

would not have taken part in the debate but for the speeches of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and the hon. Member for West Sussex (Mr. Gregory). The latter hon. gentleman had found fault with the South Eastern Railway Company; but speaking as a director of that Company he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would say that it had no desire to avoid but would rather court investigation into its affairs and management. The hon. Member for Hackney, giving his opinions with great confidence and as if they were such as could not be controverted, was very vehement in his condemnation of railway shareholders and directors. But the principle of a tax upon locomotion was either right or wrong, and if wrong, why should it be retained in one particular instance, merely because, whilst the public would be benefited by its abolition railway shareholders would also be incidentally benefited at the same time. But he begged to ask, if the hon. Member for Hackney was in favour of a tax on locomotion, where was that hon. Gentleman when the duty was taken off omnibuses and stage coaches? Was his voice equally raised against the repeal of the latter tax as it was raised that night in favour of the retention of the railway passenger duty? On the other hand, if taxes on locomotion were objectionable in principle, on what just ground were railway companies to remain subject to them while their competitors had been relieved from them? The hon. Member for Hackney might feel a particular aversion to railway directors and shareholders, but they were persons who stood in the van of a great public improvement, for the execution of which they had risked their capital; and it could not be denied that they had secured to the country enormous national benefits. Moreover, it should be recollected that whilst the omnibuses and stage-coaches paid nothing towards the maintenance and repair of the roads upon which they travelled, and which they cut up considerably, the contrary was the case with the railway companies. They not only bore the whole expense of repairing and maintaining the roads on which their trains ran, but those very roads were rated to the poor rates to a very large amount. This rating was based upon no principle such as regulated general rating, but a railroad which so far from injuring a rural parish, brought to it wealth and prosperity, afforded employment to its inhabitants and added largely to its rateable value, was itself in many instances exceedingly highly rated in proportion to other property, and in every case contributed very largely to local taxation. The passenger duty was placed on them at a time when it was deemed desirable to equalize the taxes on locomotion, and now that their rivals had been freed from those imposts the railway companies only expected to be treated with fair play. As, moreover, the effect of a recent judicial decision had been greatly to increase their burdens, they were surely entitled to ask the House whether it really intended them to labour under that aggravated disadvantage. On a great question of policy it might not be right for the Government to have recourse to a Select Committee; but this was a matter of a social nature, and one well fitted to be referred to such a body. The hon. Member for Hackney, when he contended that the money would go into the pockets of the shareholders, was probably judging from what occurred on the repeal of the omnibus and stage coach duty, which he did not oppose. For his own part, he could not help thinking that this burden on railways was unjust, considering the great amount of wealth and prosperity which they had spread throughout the country—and he would recommend the House to agree to the appointment of the Committee.

said, the General Omnibus Company had reduced their fares 50, nay in some instances, 100 per cent when the stage carriage duty was abolished, and he wished to know if the railway companies would, if they got rid of the passenger duty, act with the same amount of liberality?

believed that the movement had been set on foot by railway directors, railway managers, and railway shareholders, to increase their profits or dividends, and expressed his regret that the Government had consented to the appointment of a Committee, for the Motion did not afford the slightest hope that the case of the working classes would receive proper consideration. The tax every railway company knew of when they got their Bills—in fact, they bought them with those conditions. It was no answer that some of them did not pay; all trades might as well come under the Government and ask to be relieved of their legal obligations because they did not pay as railway companies.

said, that if railways were to be taxed because they were a monopoly, he did not see why tramways should not be taxed also. He approved the appointment of a Committee.

would vote against both the Motion and the Amendment. It would be a most improper and ill-judged thing to reduce the tax. He quite agreed with those hon. Members who had complained that the working classes had been put forward as a sort of stalking-horse. He did not believe, if the duty were reduced, that it would materially affect the working classes. He could not understand why there should be this patronizing of the work-classes. The working classes were, in his opinion, the most independent class in the country. There was no class better able to take care of itself. The working classes did not need to be patronized—they did not want to be patronized. They did not want any favour—nothing but equal justice, and if that was given them they would ask for nothing more. If the Amendment did not indicate a reduction of the duty and a desire to abolish it, then it was altogether meaningless and a mockery. Why should there be a Committee at all? The question had been so well argued, and his views had been so well expressed by the hon. Member for Preston, that he felt he should be wearying the House if he proceeded further; but, in conclusion, he wished to say that he should vote both against the original Motion and against the Amendment.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Resolution in favour of the Amendment. ["No!"]

, in order to render the appointment of a Select Committee as little injurious as possible, moved to add the following words—

"And further to inquire what additional accommodation for the public may fairly be demanded from the Railway Companies as an equivalent for the reduction or the abolition of the Duty."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add, at the end thereof, the words

"and further to inquire what additional accommodation for the public may fairly be demanded from the Railway Companies as an equivalent for a reduction or the abolition of the Duty."—(Mr. Fawcett.)

said, he had heard the speech of the hon. Member with surprise, but he had heard his Amendment with astonishment. He had declared his object was to restrict the inquiries for the Committee, but his Amendment would greatly enlarge them. If they were to get into the question of what railway companies should give in return for the reduction of the tax, they would be dealing with that which he was anxious the Committee should avoid. He should certainly oppose the Amendment.

moved that the Bill be committed that day six months, on the ground that it imposed an additional burden on the ratepayers of the country.

strongly opposed the Bill, on the ground that it was most unfair to impose such a measure on the whole country simply because the corporation of Liverpool wished to deal generously with some of its old servants.

supported the Amendment, and observed that if it were true that the Bill was introduced in consequence of certain municipal arrangements intended at Liverpool, it was a vicious precedent, which the House would do well to avoid.

stated that he had received a letter from Liverpool informing him that the Bill was only supported in the corporation by a majority of 25 to 24, against an amendment proposing that the municipal employés should form a superannuation fund from which they might receive annuities on their retirement either from old age or infirmities. He believed the principle of the Bill to be most vicious.

said, he had been requested by the Mayor and Corporation of Preston to give every opposition to this measure.

said, it would be found by a reference to the Petitions that the Bill was generally desired by the boroughs. The superrannuation it proposed was more limited than was possessed by any other public bodies. He had found, in taking out the calculations for Liverpool in order to ascertain how much would be the extreme amount of superannuation that could be given under the Bill, that if the Town Council were to superannuate every man who could be so dealt with at the highest rate the Bill would allow, the result would be that on a total of salaries amounting to £45,770 they could only superannuate 12 persons, and the total cost would be £1,100, for which they would get 12 active young men in place of 12 men over 65 years of age, or who were incapacitated by illness. He maintained that nothing was more expensive than to retain inefficient servants, especially in borough corporations, where there was much work to do and where there were large sums of money to be disposed of. He appealed to the spirit, fair play, and justice of the county Members, who had such large powers in their own hands, and who could superannuate their servants to a much greater extent than was proposed in the Bill, not to oppose a measure that would only tend to give municipal bodies powers to secure efficient administration which they themselves possessed, and constantly found it desirable to use. He trusted the House would agree to go into Committee on the Bill.

said, he had received a telegram from the corporation of Sheffield asking him to support the Bill. He believed that it would be a measure of economy; because it would enable the municipal corporations to appoint young and efficient officers, instead of retaining old servants who had become unfit for their duties, and whom they did not like to discharge because they could not give them a retiring allowance.

said, he was astonished to hear such a statement from the hon. Member for Sheffield. Why did not corporations do as the counties did with the police, who paid a certain amount in order to get retiring pensions? He should vote for the Amendment.

supported the Bill.

said, the objection to the Bill appeared to be based on the assumption that the municipal corporations of the country could not be trusted to grant pensions to their servants when they were incapable of serving them longer, If the corporations were corrupt, the Government ought to bring in a Bill for their reform; but efficient service could not be obtained without means of superannuation.

said, he could not support the Bill, as he had not heard any intimation that corporations would be discouraged from giving pensions to persons who had all their lives been paid full salaries on the assumption that they would not receive pensions.

believed that the Bill would increase local taxation, but would lead to promote efficiency.

argued that the Bill simply met a demand of humanity.

said, he could not vote for conferring a power of this kind on corporations until they were cleared from suspicion of political jobbery.