said, he had placed a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move the rejection of this Bill, on the ground that it interfered with a very valuable and important common—namely, the town moor of Newcastle-on-Tyne, a large portion of which it proposed to take. The promoters of the Bill, he was glad to say, had recognized the objections raised to the Bill, and had agreed to run through the moor in a tunnel, and to restore to the moor as much common land as they proposed to take from it. Under those circumstances, the objections which many hon. Members felt to this Bill had been fairly met, and he had no further opposition to make to it.

said, that after so protracted a debate as that which they had just had, he would not weary the House by trespassing long upon its time. But after what had transpired on Thursday, when the Bill was last before the House, he thought it his duty not to let the second reading pass without saying a very few words. On that occasion neither of his hon. Friends whose names were on the back of the Bill were present to explain its provisions, and the second reading was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), who subsequently stated that something had been done with the provisions of the Bill, and that he believed all opposition was withdrawn. He (Lieutenant-Colonel Milne Home), therefore, took the opportunity of stating that his constituents were opposed to the passing of this Bill; and he felt it his duty to come and support the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Bryce) in his opposition. The hon. Member himself was not in his place on Thursday; and he thought it was due to him, as well as due to his hon. Friends the promoters of the Bill, to allow the discussion to be postponed until this day. He now found that the opposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was withdrawn, and the House had heard from him that his objections had been met by the promoters of the Bill. He only trusted that the objections he (Lieutenant-Colonel Milne Home) had to take would be equally met. Without going into the nature of the objections raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, it was enough to observe that they arose at the Southern end of the proposed railway; whereas his (Lieutenant-Colonel Milne Home's) objections were entirely with regard to the Northern portion of the line, and they might be very shortly stated. They were, it was true, only of a local nature; but he contended that they involved a principle which it was fair to bring before the House of Commons. The principle was simply this—that if the Bill were passed in its entirety, he believed it would unwarrantably interfere with the existing commercial interests of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, which was at the Northern section of the line. He need not go into any detail upon that subject, because he had presented two Petitions to the House from the Town Council of Berwick and the Harbour Commissioners; and he might say that on two points it appeared that the commercial interests of Berwick would be interfered with. First, as to the direction of the line—the Northern portion of it. If it were carried out as proposed, it would divert the traffic from the existing route, and the traffic would have to go by a circuitous route and would be taken away from the present channel at Berwick, which was the out-port of that part of Northumberland and the principal market towns connected with that district. He could not help contending that it was wrong in principle to interfere, without some sort of compensation, with those existing interests. More than that, a Bill had already passed a second reading in the House, which was promoted by the North Eastern Railway Company, which already possessed the Northern part of Northumberland. The line laid down in that Bill went through almost identically the same district of country, although he was free to admit that it did not confer such special advantages on two or three landed proprietors as the Central Northumberland Line did. But they ought to preserve the rights of the community rather than improve the personal interests of two or three landed proprietors. He did not mean to take upon himself at this stage the sole responsibility of so strong an action as moving that the Bill be read a second time six months hence; but he did hope that his hon. Friends who had charge of the Bill would give effect to the views which he had ventured to express. All that he had further to say was this—that if the Bill came downstairs unaltered in the direction he had ventured to point out, he should reserve to himself the right of moving the rejection of the Bill when it reached the House again.

said, he had an Amendment down upon the Paper against this Bill, which raised, to some extent, the identical principle which had been under the consideration of the House for the last hour and a-half; but the House would be glad to learn that it was not his intention to detain them more than a few moments, as he only desired to point out what he thought wore the very objectionable provisions of the Bill. There was only one clause to which he took exception—namely, the 25th clause, which provided for the extension of time beyond that allowed by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act for the disposal of surplus lands by the North Eastern Railway Company. He should not detain the House by reading the clause in detail; but in the Lands Clauses Act, which he need not remind the House was a general Statute, the limit of 10 years was proscribed during which surplus lands should be disposed of in the manner provided by that Act. This Bill, however, gave another 10 years during which these lands should be disposed of. The ground of his objection was that if it was necessary to amend the Lands Clauses Act, which was a Public General Act, that amendment should take the shape of a Public Bill. The promoters of the Bill had issued a statement of the reasons for it. It was not his intention to controvert those reasons. The proposal in the Bill might be an improvement—and he would concede, for the sake of argument, that the proposal in the Bill might be an improvement—in the existing law; but still he said that even an improvement of the Lands Clauses Act should be introduced into this House as a Public Bill. It was no answer to his objection to say that the Lands Clauses Act was faulty in any respect. He would assume that it was faulty. The same principle which was discussed at some length just now applied far more forcibly to the present Bill—namely, that it was sought by means of a Private Bill to modify, or, if they liked to say so, to amend and improve a public Statute. Now, among the reasons given by the North Eastern Railway Company why Parliament should adopt their proposal was one which he thought was a very good argument against the Bill—namely, that certain other Bills which they mentioned had had similar provisions in- serted. The North Eastern Railway Company said that in 1849 and in 1851 they succeeded in obtaining the introduction into Private Bills of provisions of this kind. Now, he thought that a reason why the House should, upon that occasion, mark its disapproval of that practice. If Railway Companies, or any other persons, desired to amend the Public Statutes, they should bring their proposals before Parliament in the shape of a Public Bill. It was a great hardship to owners of property. Owners of property relied upon the provisions of the Public Statutes, and they were not, in the first instance, disposed to put themselves to the expense of opposing a Private Bill. He was not himself personally affected by that Bill, although many of his neighbours were; but in some cases those who were in the possession of ample means had availed themselves of the opportunity of petitioning against the Bill. He knew one Petition which had been lodged; but those who were not so well able to deal with cases of that kind would not incur the expense, and were now without any protection for the defence of their interests. He ventured to say that it was a hardship upon private persons to be driven to the expensive machinery of petitioning against Private Bills when they held their property in reliance upon the provisions of the General Statute. He should not detain the House, especially as he had the disadvantage of following a lengthy and exhaustive discussion upon a Bill which raised, to some extent, a somewhat similar principle. The House must, however, be very careful how they deliberately allowed themselves to be drawn into a precedent in the matter. What had occurred before was only a quasi-precedent, which had escaped the notice of Parliament. The House had now before it an attempt to override a General Statute. But he was not without hope that the attention of the promoters of the Bill would be called to it, and that they would modify the Bill and strike out this clause. But there was another provision to which he would draw the attention of the House. In the Lands Clauses Act provision was made for the right of pre-emption, and the rights of certain parties within the 10 years prescribed by the Statute. The person from whom the land was originally severed, and other persons, had a right of preemption; but this Clause 25 did away with that. He was told that the clause as drawn very distinctly overrode the right of pre-emption, which was distinctly preserved in the Lands Clauses Act. Apart from that the clause was most objectionable, and he hoped the House would firmly put its foot down upon the principle involved—namely, that a Public Statute could be amended by, as he thought, an insane clause in a Private Bill. He protested against such a thing, and he would venture to hope that the Representative of Her Majesty's Government, whoever he might be, who had this matter in charge, would support the proposition that he laid down; and even conceding, for the sake of argument, that the proposal was an improvement upon the Lands Clauses Act, he held that the improvement ought to be brought in as a Public Bill.

said, that as one of the Members who had charge of the Bill, perhaps the House would allow him to reply to the remarks of his right hon. Friend. The Bill was a most important Bill for the North of England. It was a Bill which contained a great many provisions for works which were calculated to promote specially the public safety. This Bill went into several matters which had been delayed for several years owing to the depression of the times. It was a Bill which was looked upon with great interest in the districts served by the North Eastern Railway Company; and, therefore, he begged that the House would not jeopardize a Bill, on the allegations of his right hon. Friend, especially when it contained so many provisions that were of interest to the community. His right hon. Friend said that that was a matter of principle, and that the Railway Companies ought not to come to the House and ask for an extension of time. He would ask his right hon. Friend when he first discovered this great principle, because ever since his right hon. Friend and he (Mr. Pease) came into that House—for he thought they came into it at about the same time—year after year Railway Bills had been passed containing that very clause, or something to a similar effect. Only the previous evening the House passed the second reading of a Bill containing a clause drawn on these very lines; and during this Session of Parliament four Railway Bills had been passed, and he asked why the North Eastern Railway was to be singled out to be made a martyr of for the sake of a principle which had already been admitted? What he wished to draw the attention of the House to was that he was quite prepared to abandon that clause, and substitute another clause, one which had already been inserted in the North Western and Midland Railway Bills, and which limited the power of the Railway Company to hold surplus lands not adjoining Railway Stations or Railways to two years. That clause had been most carefully settled by the Earl of Redesdale, and had been approved by his counsel; and he (Mr. Pease) suggested that that clause would be an improvement upon the clause in the North Eastern Railway Bill. But in reference to his right hon. Friend's remark, he would say that the North Eastern Railway Company had had that same clause in several Railway Bills. It was brought forward from the old Bill. The North Eastern Railway Company had never offered land to anyone but to the adjoining owners, and they had always concluded that they were bound so to do by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, in dealing with the clauses alluded to by his right hon. Friend. But if there was a railway in the world to which the period for holding surplus land should be continued, he thought it was the North Eastern Railway. During the last 10 years that Company had laid down, in promoting public safety, 325 miles of siding; they had considerably increased their rolling-stock; and in order to place their servants near their work, and in order to avoid accidents, they had built nearly 1,000 cottages for their platelayers and signalmen. It was impossible to say to what good purpose the surplus lands might be applied. They who were on the North Eastern Board knew no one who was aggrieved by that action of the North Eastern. His hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had some private interest which he supposed was affected. There were other persons whose private interests were also affected; but he thought that those private interests must come before a Committee of the House, but not before the House of Commons, because that House was not a proper tribunal to look after those interests. All he asked the House was to pass the second reading of the Bill, and he would undertake to put in a clause on the lines of the clause inserted in the North Western Bill. And as to the difficulty which his hon. Friend had regarding selling lands to adjoining owners, he would give him his word that there was no intention to override the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. He trusted, under those circumstances, the House would deem it right to pass the second reading of that most important Bill.

said, he could not agree with the reasoning of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham with reference to the Bill; but he entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend opposite. ["Hear!"] It was gratifying to him, and it was a gratification that was evidently shared by the great majority of the Members of the House, that he—on this occasion, at least—agreed with his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Lowther). He agreed also, with pleasure, with some of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for South Durham. He (Mr. Dodds) thought that the Bill was of considerable importance, and he was in favour of many of the propositions which it sought to authorize. But the clause to which objection was taken had no reference whatever to any of these propositions. The hon. Member proposed to abandon the form of the clause to which objection had been raised. He had admitted the force of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and admitted that the clause ought not to be sanctioned as it stood; but he (Mr. Dodds) trusted that the House would insist on his either withdrawing the clause absolutely and unconditionally, or refuse to read the Bill a second time. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham said that private interests only were affected; but the House would remember that when private interests were affected by Private Bills, the requirements of the law should be adhered to as to notice to the owners and occupiers of all lands taken, and if the North Eastern Company desired to extend the time required by them under the provisions of the various Acts, they had only to give notice to the several occupiers and owners. Instead of this, they were seeking to take lands in six or seven different counties, and in 120 different townships, which had been acquired by 26 different Railway Companies now incorporated with the North Eastern system, and they sought to affect every one of those owners and occupiers without giving them any notice. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would insist upon the entire omission of the clause from the Bill, or would divide the House upon the question of the second reading.

said, he thought that the House ought to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire for his opposition, which was based upon the clearest principle, that that was an attempt of a Railway Company to evade the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act. He did not rise for the purpose of adding anything to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He only wished to remind the House that last year it set its foot down when an attempt was made by the Metropolitan Railway to deal with another clause of the Land Clauses Act, and it enjoined that if a part of a house were taken the whole ought to be taken. They tried to evade that and failed, and he begged to remind the House of the fact, and hoped the House would be consistent, and set its foot down firmly against the demand of the Railway Companies to evade the principles of the Land Clauses Act.

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman opposite said he hoped the Member of the Government specially charged to look after that Bill would express the opinion which had been formed upon it. As that Representative, he should endeavour to do so in a few words. The position which the House had taken up in reference to these matters was, that they would not interfere with the functions which they had voluntarily committed to the Committees upstairs, unless there was some great principle of public policy, or other great principle, at stake. He had carefully considered the Bill, and did not think that it was a case of the kind. The only point was whether the Company should be allowed to vary the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act so as to obtain an extension of time for the re-sale and redemption of surplus land. Surely that was a matter of detail, and a matter of evidence, which could not be properly decided by the Houses; but which could be decided, after full inquiry, upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman said that the promoters were seeking by a Private Bill to alter a Public Act; but that statement was a little misleading. It was a Public Act which it was usual to incorporate in all Private Bills, power being given to modify its provisions when special circumstances required their modification. The modification of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act was a matter of frequent occurrence. Only within the last few days a Bill of the North Western Railway contained exactly the same provision as was in the Bill now before the House; and it certainly would be inconvenient if the House were to take the matter into its own hands and interfere with the work of the Committees upstairs.

ventured to think that that was a matter for the House to take into consideration. The principle of the Lands Clauses Act was that a Railway Company should have the power, for 10 years, to say whether they required the land they had purchased for the purpose of their works or not. During these 10 years they had to give the adjoining owner the right of preemption; and if they did not sell within the 10 years, then the land reverted to the persons originally entitled to it. Now, the Bill entirely set aside that. He ventured to think that there was a very important principle and policy in the Lands Clauses Act, because, if it were not for these provisions, the Railway Companies might acquire the right to get lands into their hands, and they might set up to be not only Railway, but Land Jobbing Companies. It was said that there were several Acts containing similar provisions to those in this Bill; but he doubted if any one was of so wholesale a character as that Bill. The Bill sought to take lands which were in 126 different parishes, and acquired under no less than 26 Acts of Parliament, and no particulars were given of what these lands were, or how long they had been held; and he could not help thinking that much of the land comprised in the Bill had been in possession of Railway Companies for years and years beyond the period. That was a matter with which the House ought to deal, and that was a point to which he wished to call the attention of the House.

said, that the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease) had stated that he would withdraw the clause, and would substitute for it another clause which was found in the Bill of another Railway Company. He had not had the opportunity of studying the clause, and he could not be expected to commit himself to a clause he had not read, and still less to commit the House in the matter; but he had no doubt the hon. Member would allow the second reading to stand over until, say, Friday. He would withdraw his Amendment if the hon. Member would thus give him time to examine the clause and see if he could agree to it. He should like to hear the hon. Member say something on that point.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend opposite would not accept the offer of his right hon. Friend, who would only move the rejection of the Bill when the second reading again came on.

said, he distinctly stated that he would withdraw his Motion for the rejection of the Bill, because he wished to have an opportunity of examining the clause it was proposed to substitute for the one now contained in the Bill.

said, that meant that if he thought proper he would again move the rejection of the Bill. It was not reasonable that exception should be taken to one particular clause and the Bill rejected on that account. His hon. Friend opposite had done as much as he could in having said he was willing to substitute a clause which had been already approved by the Speaker's Counsel, and which had also met with the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means; and he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) ought to agree to the second reading, and allow the clauses to be submitted to the proper tribunal upstairs. He must correct his right hon. Friend in another point. He had said that this was an attempt to override the Lands Clauses Act. Why, the Lands Clauses Act specially provided that any further period beyond 10 years might be prescribed; and surely it was obviously impossible for a Railway Company always to say exactly what use they would be able to make of their land. It appeared to him the promoters of the Bill asked nothing unreasonable, and he hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.

said, that he ought to apologize to the House, after such a long discussion on a Private Bill already; but he must say that the Bill which he was about to oppose also involved a principle of great public importance. This was a Bill proposing to transfer the Regent's Canal to a Railway Company. Now, he could quite understand a great number of objections being taken from different quarters against this Bill. He could quite understand the objection being taken that it interfered, if he might use the expression, with the privacy of a public park. He could understand the objection that it displaced houses, and otherwise interfered with the poor inhabitants of the Metropolis; and he could also understand a strong objection coming from the School Board, in consequence of the great number of children who would be ousted from their homes, and obliged to be taken far from the schools they had been in the habit of attending. He could also understand the objection that it interfered with private rights. He did not propose to trouble the House with any of those heads of objection. The objection he took was entirely on a different ground. He had no private interest to serve. He was not connected with either Canals or Railways; but he took his stand solely upon the public principle involved, and on the great fact that if this Bill passed a crushing blow would be dealt to the competition between Railways and Canals. Now, observe that there was a very important point of view to look at in this Bill, and that was the engineering point of view. He had been told, upon good authority, that over the area of the Canal which was proposed to be restricted in its width—over the area of, perhaps, 30 acres in all—no less than one-fourth was permanently taken away from the navigable area of the Canal. And he need not remind the House that to restrict the navigable waterway of any Canal was seriously to interfere with the traffic through its whole length. Now, this principle of the competition of Railways and Canals had been insisted upon over and over again by this House; and he respectfully submitted to the House that if this principle was infringed now, they would be transgressing the recommendations of Committee after Committee and Commission after Commission of this House, and flying in the face of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons in 1872. The Act of 1845, in its Preamble, recognized expressly the importance of maintaining the competition between Railways and Canals. Then there came the Act called Mr. Cardwell's Act of 1854, expressly providing that through communication should be established on the Railway and Canal systems. In 1858, at the instigation of the Canal Companies themselves, there was an Act passed for the protection of Canals and against their absorption by the powerful Railway Companies of the Kingdom. The combination of Railway Companies which was then in existence was so powerful that it was necessary for the State to interfere. He need not say that from the period of 1858 to the present time the threatened monopoly of the Railway Companies was becoming more and more severe, until at last they would be face to face with a dominant and domineering power, against which no remedy would be available unless the State stepped in to undertake the sole control and management of the Railways. He would state very briefly what were the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons of 1872. They expressly recommended that it was most important to maintain the competition between Railways and Canals. They recommended that inland navigation in the hands of a public trust should not be transferred to, or placed under, the control of a Railway Company. They recommended that no Canal should be transferred to, or placed directly or indirectly under, the control of a Railway Company, nor should any temporary lease to a Railway Company be renewed until it had been conclusively ascertained that the Canal could not be amalgamated with an adjacent Canal or with a trust owning an adjoining inland navigation. Now, he was perfectly aware that the promoters of this Bill offered all sorts of compensations, and were ready to submit to all kinds of conditions. He might say that, without offence to them, they were profuse in the conditions which they offered, and in the limitations of their own powers, and he did not question the good faith of the promoters of the Bill. But this he did say—that when they once placed a Railway Company in the commanding position in which this Railway sought to be placed by absorbing within its system a great Canal, he said that it was against human nature that that great Company, after a time, should not consider rather its own interest than the separate interests of the Canal; that they would come afterwards and apply to Parliament, saying—"Our traffic is enlarged; we are unable to carry the goods submitted to us; let us have a little more—a slice of this Canal;" and so gradually the process of deglutition would go on, and they would absorb the whole existing waterway of this Canal. What was this Canal? There was a vast system of inland navigation extending from the Severn and Staffordshire on the West to the Docks at London on the East. The Warwickshire Canal Companies poured their traffic into this Re-gent's Canal, and a short time ago the Warwickshire Canal—in which he begged to repeat that he had no personal interest—sought to obtain before the Railway Commissioners through rates upon the line of the Regent's Canal. He had heard the objection since stated that the traffic of the Canal Company was diminishing, and that, therefore, in the interests of the public, the Canal ought to be transferred to the Railway Company. But this was not true. On the contrary, the fact was that the traffic on the Canal was in an increasingly flourishing condition. He was not there for a single moment to contend that if the Canal really were in an impecunious condition, it would be wise and politic on the part of the State to say that it should not be transferred to some solvent body—it might be to some Railway Company. He thought, however, that a case might be made out in which the State might be called on to interfere and declare that, in any event, such a Canal, having been once established, ought to be maintained as a waterway. But he did not wish to insist on this point. What he did insist on was this—that the Canal was not only a solvent, but was a really profitable concern. He had already alluded to the conditions which the promoters were willing to impose on themselves, so that the public might disabuse themselves of the idea that there was danger of the Canal being allowed to become useless. He would refer the House to what had been said by the Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons in 1872; and, for his own part, he thought that any conditions that might be sought to be imposed on the promoters would, in the lapse of time, be found perfectly fruitless. The Report of the Joint Committee, which he had just mentioned, set forth—

"That the tolls wore fixed by Act of Parliament at a remunerative rate. It is stated in some cases that the Railway Companies holding the Canals not only do not make improvements, but that, by neglecting repairs, by closing the Canal locks, and by failing in the supply of water, they suppress the traffic on the Canals. The amalgamation of the Canals above mentioned with the Bail ways has been strongly opposed, and Parliament has in many cases desired to annex conditions to those amalgamations compelling the Companies to maintain the Canals in an efficient working state; providing for other Canal Companies making through rates. These provisions, however, have almost uniformly failed; and the present state of things appears to be that obligations of this description are much more easily evaded by the owners of the Canals than they can be enforced by the traders."

"It is difficult to make a Company maintain an effectual competition with itself."

desired to support the arguments advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick, and to endorse what he had stated to the House. He considered that the Regent's Canal was placed in rather a peculiar position, and one differing from that of most other Canals in the Kingdom, as it was the means of gathering up the threads of all the existing Canals in the country, so that those Canals which passed through Oxfordshire and other counties could carry their goods by means of it to the Docks and other points with which it was connected. He was aware that the promoters said they were not going to fill up the Canal. It was very possible that they did not mean to do that; but there were other ways of shutting up a Canal besides filling it with earth. He held that one of the greatest protections they had against Railway monopoly was to be found in the Canal system of England, a system which certainly was of the greatest importance to the agriculturists of the country, whose interests would be materially affected if the Canals were allowed to be absorbed into the Railway system. He had been told by some gentlemen in London that one thing which they wished particularly to avoid was the agriculturists bringing their manure along the Canal, and dropping it into the water in the neighbourhood of London. All he could say in answer to that was that the agriculturists would be very glad to receive that manure back again, if they could get it. But, of course, he only referred to this matter by way of joke. He thought that if the Bill were allowed to pass without question, they would soon see, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Warwick, the goods that were now brought by Canal from different parts of the Kingdom transferred to the Railways, to the entire destruction of the Canal system. He, for one, therefore, could not allow this measure to pass without uttering his strong protest against it; and if the hon. Member for Warwick should press his opposition to a division he should certainly give him his support.

, as one who had put his name on the back of the Bill, desired to make some answer to what had been said by the hon. Member for Warwick. From what the House had just heard from that hon. Gentleman, it might be supposed that the Regent's Canal was about to be absorbed by the Railway, and that, in point of fact, an end was to be put to the Canal. This, however, was not at all the case. The Resolutions of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons of 1872 pointed to the contingency of powerful Railway Companies absorbing and putting an end to the Canals; but this was not the proposal made by the Bill. The pro- posal was merely that Parliament should give power, by passing the Regent's Canal, City, and Docks Railway Bill, to the incorporation of the Canal with the Railway, for the double purposes of Railway and Canal. Every word that had been uttered by the hon. Member for Warwick as to the disadvantages that would arise if the great system of internal navigation which communicated with the Docks in London and the Grand Junction Canal were put in peril was totally without foundation. The provisions contained in the Bill sought to impose upon the Railway Company the most stringent obligations to maintain the Canal as a navigable waterway—provisions just as stringent as were those requiring them to maintain the proposed Railway as a Railway. By the provisions of the Bill—which the Railway Company would modify in any way that the Committee to whom it might be referred might think fit, in order to meet the objections taken on the part of the Canal system of Great Britain—the Railway Company had an overwhelming interest in maintaining the Canal. It was said by the hon. Member for Warwick, and it was quite true, that this Canal was not a declining property. On the contrary, it was a very valuable property. As much, he believed, as £60,000 a-year was earned by the Canal; and he asked—was it to be supposed that a new Company, constituted for the purpose of taking up this Canal and making a Railway alongside it, would be willing to sacrifice such an enormous income as that? The Railway was to start from Paddington, communicate with the Great Northern and Midland lines, and run down to the Docks—not only to the Limehouse and Victoria Docks, but also to the immense new Docks further down the Thames, known as the Royal Albert Docks—mainly for the purpose of taking up the goods traffic, which now had to be conveyed through the streets of London, and which helped to render the streets almost impassable. He thought there would be a double communication for a certain district; but for three miles of the Canal the Railway would not interfere with it at all, and where it was close to the Canal it was only because there the surplus land might be had at a price that would make the speculation remunerative. Would a Committee sitting upstairs be inadequate for the comprehension of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Warwick? Certainly not. All the Canal proprietors, whose locus standi might have been disputed by the promoters of the Bill, were to be admitted, and would have the opportunity of offering their evidence upstairs. Would they, he asked, be unable to impose upon the Railway and Canal Company the necessary obligations to maintain the Canal and prevent its being destroyed? If the arguments that had been used against the Bill had any foundation in fact, they would constitute reasons for its rejection, but they were nothing of the kind; on the contrary, every objection raised by the hon. Member for Warwick was not supported by the facts.

rose to support the second reading of the Bill, and he did so on the ground of public policy, the same ground as that which had been alleged by the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the Bill. He did not think that anyone who was conversant with the terminal accommodation of London and its requirements, and also the terminal accommodation of the vast system of Railways throughout the country, could look at this measure without seeing that it was not a scheme to diminish, but rather to increase public accommodation. It had been stated that the proposed Railway would interfere with the Canal navigation of the country. Having seen the vast number of Petitions presented against the Bill he had, as a mere matter of professional interest, been to the Private Bill Office to examine the details of the scheme, and he was of opinion that it provided amply for the continuation of the navigation afforded by the inland system of waterways. He said this as the result of his own observation. But surely it was, after all, a question of fact, and the question of fact was a matter for inquiry; but if the House accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Warwick they would be refusing inquiry. It was a matter of evidence as to whether the Canal traffic was to be interfered with, or as to what amount of additional competition would be afforded to the public by means of the railway. There was a great deal of public traffic that the Canal could not carry. He was connected with a mining property in North Wales, which sent a large quantity of coal to London, and if they were sent by the Great Western Railway to Padding-ton they could then be carried by the proposed line, should it be made, down to the Docks, thus giving the owners of the mine the benefit of the terminal accommodation that would thus be created, and which the Canal did not give. Again, if, as an engineer, he was sending a locomotive for shipment to India, of what use was the Canal to him? None at all; but if there were a Railway added to the Canal, and running alongside it to the Docks, a beneficial competition would be set up with other Railways. Every one who knew what need there was for it would appreciate the advantage of having another Railway running from Paddington into the City—a Railway which, it should be remembered, would present the advantage of being made without any large interference with property in London. He had said he supported this Bill on the ground of public policy; and he would put it to the House—supposing the Canal Company were a large and powerful body, and came to Parliament to ask for additional capital to enable them to make a Railway alongside the banks of the Canal, where then, he asked, would have been the question of public policy that had now been raised, and would they then have heard of the Report of the Joint Committee on Railway and Canal Amalgamation? The House would have made no objection to the Company's request that they should have the power to help themselves by making a Railway. But in the present case they would have two forms of competition on one property. The object was not to destroy the Canal, or to divert traffic from it; but to create two distributing sources of traffic by adding a Railway to the Canal, with the intention that each should be made to do the best it could in furnishing the means for this distribution. For these reasons he begged to support the second reading of the Bill.

said, if he thought for one moment that the interests of the public could be endangered by the passage of this Bill, he should have given his cordial support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel); but having been engaged in transactions similar to that before the House, he knew that, so far from the interests of the public being injured, they would be very largely benefited if the measure were allowed to pass. He remembered their narrowing the Worcester and Birmingham Canal, which had been already referred to, and the effect of that had been that instead of damaging the navigation, the navigation had been improved. He conceived that the Regent's Canal was made in a similar manner to that of which he had spoken, with shelving sides, so that there was a difficulty in getting close to the towing path; and what was done in the case of the Worcester and Birmingham Canal was to wall up the sides, by which means, while leaving sufficient space for the navigation, enough land was obtained to make a railway by the side of the Canal, a Railway which came into the centre of the town of Birmingham, and brought in goods and merchandize that could not be so conveyed before, thereby proving a decided benefit to the town, while, at the same time, the canal traffic was still kept open between the Trent and the Severn. With regard to the present measure, as there was no intention to close the Regent's Canal, the Railway would be the means of conferring great additional benefit on the inhabitants. There was plenty of spare land alongside the Canal for the purposes of the Railway; and as he held that the proposed line would be very useful instead of detrimental to the public interests, he should give his support to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

said, he had put an Amendment on the Paper with a view of enlarging the scope and composition of the Committee to which the Bill, if it passed a second reading, would be referred; and he should be glad if the Government could see their way to the adoption of his proposal. Although he could not move his Amendment at the present moment, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether it would not meet the exigencies of the case to appoint a Committee composed, as he had indicated in his proposal, of 15 Members, 10 of whom should be nominated by the House and five by the Committee of Selection. He certainly could not think it sufficient to leave to the discretion of an ordinary Committee on a Private Bill the question of compensation for the damage that might be done to hundreds of houses in the Metropolis if this Bill were passed. He also thought that the occupants of these houses, who could not possibly obtain a hearing under the ordinary Rules of the House, ought to be able to go before the Committee.

The question before the House is one of great importance and also of considerable difficulty. This Bill has been under the consideration of the Board of Trade for some time, and I have seen both the promoters of the measure and some of those who are its opponents. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel) will rest satisfied with having raised the points he has submitted to the House at this stage, and will not press his Amendment to a division. There is no doubt that the Bill does raise a question of public policy of the highest kind; and the hon. Member for Warwick has stated with accuracy the conclusions that were arrived at by the Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons in 1872. In my opinion, those conclusions are still in entire accord with the views entertained by the House of Commons and by the commercial class generally, which are to the effect that the amalgamation of Canals with Railway Companies, or the giving to Railway Companies the control over the Canals of this country, ought as far as possible to be discouraged, and, whenever permitted, all necessary precautions should be taken to secure the maintenance of our inland water navigation. I must say that the present case is a strong one, and is in flagrant opposition to the policy so laid down. This is not one of the cases in which Canal navigation has been conducted under great difficulties, and in which, if amalgamation be not permitted, it will probably be impossible for the navigation to be carried on; it is, on the contrary, the case of a really profitable and going undertaking which has been maintained for a long time, and might, apparently, be maintained for any length of time in profitable existence. Under these circumstances, if this were the first time such a Bill had come before the House, I should be inclined to object to it; but I cannot leave out of view the fact that many similar amalgamations have been conisidered by the House, allowed to go before a Select Committee, and then passed into law. The Joint Committee of 1872 contemplated a set of exceptional circumstances—namely, where it is conclusively proved that the Canal in question cannot be amalgamated with any other system of water navigation; and it does not appear to me that the House is in a position to decide without hearing the evidence whether this is one of the cases in which such an amalgamation as suggested by the Joint Committee could or could not be brought about. It is a question of evidence as to what are the facts, which I think ought to be referred to a Select Committee. For my own part, though I do not venture to offer any advice to the House on the matter, I have come to the conclusion that I ought to vote for the second reading of the Bill. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), I think that, considering the importance of the matter, it would be desirable that the Bill should go before a Hybrid Committee; but I regard the number stated in his Amendment as too large, and am of opinion that seven, or at any rate nine, Members would be quite sufficient. If it is the pleasure of the House that the Bill should go to a Committee, it will be the duty of the Board of Trade to make a full and particular Report to that Committee, setting forth the facts which I have already stated, quoting the remarks made by the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, calling special attention to the particular circumstances of the case, stating what are the exceptional conditions, if any, to justify the proposals of the Bill, and what in their opinion will be necessary in order, if the proposed amalgamation be allowed, to preserve an independent and navigable waterway.

said, that one reason why this Bill should be allowed to pass was this—that in order to develop the trade and commerce of the City, and to secure public improvements, something must be done. People were migrating out of the City year by year, going further and further away, and there was not only the labour and difficulty of bringing them to their work in the morning, not only in tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands; but there was the further difficulty of taking them back again, and that was constantly and weekly increasing. They all recollected that a sad accident lately occurred near Canon-bury, which was caused by the pressure in trying to bring the people in with sufficient speed by means of trains running behind one another every two minutes. Beyond all doubt that was a dangerous proceeding; but still it was almost necessary. What was proposed by this Bill? The Company proposed to construct 13 miles of Metropolitan Railway, running through the North Eastern suburbs of London, and they would bring the people up to the very edge of the City—namely, to the borders of the Barbican. If any Company bonâ fide proposed to do that work, the House ought not, in the interest of the public, and in the interest of the people who had to go in and out of the City, to stop a Bill by which this could be accomplished, but ought, in the interests of the public necessity, to allow it to have a fair hearing before a Committee upstairs, in order to see whether such a line could be constructed. In some way or other, means must be taken for getting the people into the suburbs. He ventured, therefore, to think that the House should allow the Bill to go through a second reading.

said, he did not wish to address the House at any length. He only desired, as a Metropolitan Member, to call attention to one point of considerable importance, which was closely related to that which had been mentioned by the hon. Member who had just spoken (Sir Sydney Waterlow). This Bill proposed to displace a very large part of the population of London, he believed no less than 11,000. He was not certain of the exact figure, but that was the number which had been given to him; and, considering the line that the Railway took, it was not at all improbable. Now, there was a Standing Order which required that every Bill which proposed to take labourers' dwellings should have a clause providing for the accommodation of the same number that would be displaced under the provisions of the Bill. It was important, then, to consider whether the Clause required by that Standing Order was one that was sufficient for the occasion. Now, the clause was Clause 70. It was a clause sufficiently familiar to those who studied Private Bill legislation; but he contended that it was altogether illusory, and that it did not give sufficient protection. It was a clause which the Companies, when formed, were able to wriggle out of and evade, and something more strict and precise was required. He took this opportunity of saying that unless the promoters of the Bill, when they got upstairs, brought up a better clause, and made more adequate provision for the labourings classes, it would be the duty of himself, or some other Metropolitan Member, to move that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of introducing a satisfactory clause.

said, he thought that the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) had been about to raise another objection to the Bill, as he had on former occasions, on the ground that the line proposed to run through open spaces. The hon. Member had taken Epping Forest and Wimbledon Common in hand, and only that afternoon he had said a good word for the Newcastle Town Moor. But the hon. Member had forgotten Regent's Park. There were people living near Regent's Park, to whom it was quite as necessary to have an open space to go to, as it was to those who lived in the East End of London. He (Colonel Makins) hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would do something to preserve the quietude of Regent's Park, by the usual provision which he sought for other open spaces—namely, requiring the Railway to be carried through a tunnel. He (Colonel Makins) thought that this proposed Railway was objected to by the poorer portions of the community, who were not able to appear before the Committee.

asked the permission of the House to make one remark in answer to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. He had satisfied himself that in the whole of this Bill there was no such interference with Regent's Park or Victoria Park, or any other open space, as called for the intervention of those who were concerned to preserve commons and open spaces.

said, he had some knowledge of the requirements of the inland navigation of the country, and he believed that the necessities of that kind of business would be sufficiently met if, as proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, this Bill were read a second time and sent to a Hybrid Committee. The great object with regard to the inland navigation of the country was that the communication with London should be maintained absolutely free and unchecked. Therefore, he was in favour of this going to a strong Hybrid Committee, which would take a wider view than an ordinary Select Committee of the matter. If he received such a guarantee, he should not object to the second reading of the Bill.

said, his Amendment had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the admission that this was a flagrant violation of the policy of the Committee of 1872. The question he had to ask the House was, whether a division should be taken? He should be inclined himself to accept the offer which had been made to refer the Bill to a Committee of the nature indicated by the right hon. Gentleman; and he (Mr. A. Peel) must rely upon a Report being made by the Board of Trade, which he trusted would point out, in unmistakeable terms, that this was a departure from the avowed policy of Parliament. If the Bill passed, another blow would be dealt at Canal competition. He did not propose to put the House to the trouble of a division.

(who was received with cries of "Oh!") said, that he did not come there to speak on behalf of any body of capitalists; but he came there to call attention to the strange fact that, it having been admitted that this Bill was, generally speaking, in flagrant violation of public policy, there was to be no division taken to express the sense of the House upon the question. He confessed that he saw many objections to leaving a question of public policy to the consideration of a jury of experts—for a jury of experts a Committee of the kind proposed undoubtedly was. There were many advantages in having the opinion of experts on various occasions; but he was not in favour of taking the opinion of experts on a question which ought to be one of broad common sense and broad public policy. He was sorry to see that so little attention was apparently given to the very important question raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce)—namely, the point as to the provision for the housing of the very large number of persons likely to be rendered houseless and homeless by this Bill The Artizans' Dwellings Act had, by the operation of Bills of this kind, been rendered practically, in many cases, a mere dead letter. Railway Bills offering tempting opportunities and promises to the capitalists were, year by year, brought to that House. They met the applause of the capitalist class; tens and scores of thousands of poor people were rendered homeless and. placed in a most disadvantageous position in consequence. As a matter of general policy they had their Irish experience, which showed them that they had allowed the Irish Canals to be sacrificed to Railway enter-prize. He thought that the agricultural constituencies would have just cause to complain if the agricultural Representatives did not make a vigorous protest, expressed in a proper form—namely, by taking a division against the Bill. He objected to this growing tendency to hand matters of public policy over either to private Committees or mongrel Committees. It was not the way to test questions of public policy. Not only theoretically, but practically, one man was quite as good as another in matters of this kind. When they appointed a Committee of experts these experts must be biassed, more or less, in the direction of the enterprize in the prosecution of which they had gained their special experience. It was precisely a class of authorities of that description which at all times had been, with the best of intentions, the most dangerous to the public interests. Capital had too much weight in that House; and he objected just as much to delegate the powers of the House to a jury of capitalists as he would object to delegate the interests of justice to a special jury of lawyers. He was additionally inclined to press the proposal that a jury of experts or a Hybrid Committee should not be employed, in view of the threat impending over the House, that a large portion of the House would be practically deprived of its powers if certain proposals of the Government were carried out, and that a permanent jury of experts should be ap- pointed for dealing with a large class of Public Bills instead of the House of Commons. This was not a Private Bill. It was a Public Bill, which went to the root of public interests of the very gravest importance. The very fact that it had been admitted by the President of the Board of Trade, who had at heart, to such a large extent, the capitalist enterprize in that House—the very fact that the Board of Trade had admitted that the Bill was, in its general character, a flagrant violation of public policy, was quite enough to justify the throwing of it out, for this year at any rate. There had been no sufficient public preliminary discussion; the question had not been before the London public; it had not been before the agricultural constituencies, who were vitally interested in the matter; and there was no sufficient reason why a Bill of this magnitude, involving a fundamental violation of public policy, should be hurried through the House, even on the ipse dixit of the President of the Board of Trade. He had listened with admiration to the speech of the hon. Member who opposed the Bill, and he would not by any means decry the valuable character of that speech; but if the hon. Member who opposed this Bill was aiming at no other object than to get the opinion of highly respectable Members of the House, he could have got that opinion just as well somewhere else, in the Committee Rooms of the House, or in the Library, or in any other room of the House. Here they had been occupied for an hour in getting the opinions of half-a-dozen highly respectable Members of this House, and, after all, there was to be no division. He should oppose the withdrawal of the opposition to the Bill; and, as far as he could do so, he would see that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon these questions.

said, he wished very shortly to draw the attention of hon. Members who represented agricultural constituencies to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member below him (Mr. O'Donnell). There had been great complaints, and complaints well founded, of the way in which agricultural produce had been treated by the great Railway Companies. This Canal, with which they were now called upon to deal, was by itself a very short Canal extending over a short distance; but it was the last and most important link of the great Midland waterway of the country. It was the last link of the series of Canals which extended from Hull in the East to Liverpool in the West; and if this Canal was handed over to the Bail-way Companies, and if it was no longer to be useful to the great Canal traffic, it would be not a loss simply of four or five miles of Canal, but it would have the effect of shutting up the whole Canal communication of this country between the Port of London and the Ports of Liverpool and Hull on the East and West. He certainly hoped the House would go to a division.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Statutory Rules which regulate the length of the vacations of the Supreme Court of Judicature are still in force; and, if so, whether the Judges of the Chancery Division have power to extend the vacations beyond the periods prescribed by the rules or to create additional vacations not authorized by the rules; and, whether the Lord Chancellor has jurisdiction to prevent the expense and delay occasioned to the suitors by the closing of the Superior Courts of Justice during the time when by Law they ought to be sitting?

It is quite correct to say that the Judges have no power to lengthen the statutory vacation, and, therefore, no power to shorten the Sittings; but, at the same time, there is no legal obligation upon them to sit every day during the periods in which the Sittings are held. For many years, both before and since the passing of the Judicature Act, the Judges in Equity have suspended their Sittings for a short time between the beginning of the Hilary and the Easter Sittings. This was in consequence of the great strain upon the Judges of Sitting continuously, and also in consequence of their having to perform various duties in Chambers. I think that if my hon. Friend will inquire he will find that the Judges have done only what is usual, and, I have no doubt, necessary.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Customs clerks transferred to the warehouses under the assimilation scheme will be continued as clerks, and have a separate classification, or if it is intended to amalgamate them with the surveyors, examining officers, and gaugers; and, whether such amalgamation will not grievously injure the promotion and prospects of said surveyors, examining officers, and gaugers?

The transfer to the Outdoor Department of the clerical duties connected with the warehousing of bonded goods will cause a considerable addition to the outdoor establishment. The new situations will be offered to as many of the displaced clerks as are judged eligible for them. They will not be placed upon a separate classification, but will be amalgamated with the existing surveyors, examiners, and gaugers, although some may be employed on clerical duties only. If the whole of the new offices be not thus filled up, members of the outdoor service will be selected to fill the remainder in accordance with the usual rules. It is not expected that the promotion and prospects of the existing outdoor staff will be injured; but every care will be taken to prevent their being so.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the following statement, which appeared in the "Freeman" newspaper of the 28th ultimo:—

"A long special investigation was held in the Courthouse at Maryborough here to-day, before Mr. M. Sheffield Capan, into a charge of alleged conspiracy to shoot Colonel H. D. Carden.… After a full and searching investigation the two farmers accused, Larkin and Williams, were discharged, and Scully, the informer, placed in the dock on a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury. Larkin and Williams were then sworn, and proved that everything that Scully had testified against them was wrong and utterly false, and Head Constable Walsh, of Mount-mellick Station, and Mrs. Margaret Smith, of Acragar, gave further important evidence, quite sufficient to fix the charge of perjury on the informer. The prisoner was then committed to take his trial…. His worship expressed an opinion that the two men, Larkin and Williams, should be indemnified for the expenses they were put to;"

What occurred was this. Scully came to the Constabulary and informed them of an alleged conspiracy to murder; he was not led by the police or anyone else to believe that he would receive any reward; his information was voluntary, and he made a deposition before a magistrate against Larkin and Williams. During the investigation of this charge the Sessional Crown Solicitor (who was conducting the prosecution) considered it proper to make a special Report of the case to me, on which I directed him to withdraw the charge against Larkin and Williams, and prefer a charge of perjury against Scully. This was done, the Sessional Crown Solicitor informing the magistrate in open Court that this course was taken by my direction as Attorney General. Scully was committed for trial, and I have since directed his prosecution at the Assizes. Meantime, I suspend my judgment on Scully's guilt or innocence. I merely have decided that there is a case proper to be submitted to a jury. In answer to the last paragraph of the Question, I can only say that there is no indemnity fund at my disposal; and, therefore, I am not, nor, I believe, is the Chief Secretary, prepared to recommend an indemnity.

wished to know whether this man Scully, before his com- mittal, made any application for a reward in pursuance of the Circular issued by the Executive?

repeated that no application to such an effect had been made to the Constabulary or other authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has considered the question of expense to which Militia Artillery Officers will be put by the changing the silver lace at present worn by them to gold lace; and, if so, whether he will allow them such sum as will recoup them for the expense to which they will be put?

also asked, Whether the Secretary of State for War will lay on the Table or state to the House the estimated expense to officers of each rank in each branch of the Militia in consequence of the new Regulations as to change of uniform, lace facings, or accoutrements; and, if he will state to the House the reasons for restricting any allowance to certain regiments, and not making a proportionate allowance to all?

I believe that I have already, in this and last Session, answered these Questions four or five times; but out of respect for the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member I will ask the House to allow me to repeat that as the change, which was strongly urged on us by Militia officers, from silver to gold lace need not be carried out until the present uniforms require replacing, I could not with propriety burden the public with any allowances to these officers. Where the change has been compulsory an allowance has been made which I am satisfied is a fair one, and provision for this will appear in due course in the Estimates. There are no Papers which it would be of any practical use to lay on the Table.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that some colonels of Militia had given orders to their officers to change their uniforms at once?

If that is the case it has not been reported to me, and it has been done without authority.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will state to the House the number of arrests which have been made under the Coercion Act of last year, from the beginning of its operation up to the first day of the present month?

Seven hundred and ninety-four persons have been arrested since the passing of the Protection of Person and Property Act up to the end of February, of whom 587 were in custody on the 1st of this month, 15 of them having been re-arrested.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is a fact that the portion of Dundalk Gaol in which the suspects are confined consists of a long corridor with cells on each side; whether there is a warder on duty in this corridor from 5.45 p.m. till 8 a.m.; whether a suspect prisoner is prevented from passing from his cell into the adjuncts of the corridor, and is refused even a drink of water between the hours named, though an ample supply of drinking water is within reach of the warder; and, whether such regulations are reasonably necessary for the security of the prisoners?

The description given in the Question of the construction of this portion of Dundalk Prison is correct, and warders are on duty in this corridor the entire day and night. Prisoners detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act are let out of their cells at any time when necessary on their ringing for the warder on duty. They have a sufficient supply of drinking water placed in the cells, and on no occasion has any prisoner been refused a drink of water. These regulations of the prison are reasonably necessary for the security of the prisoners.

asked whether, if he substantiated his statement, the grievances complained of would be removed?

If the hon. Member will communicate with the Chief Secretary I am perfectly sure that any regulation which is unnecessarily stringent will be at once relaxed.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will be prepared to give a direction for the embodiment in the forthcoming Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies of information showing which of the Societies in Great Britain and Ireland have or have not made returns of their valuations, under "The Friendly Societies Act, 1875," together with the results of such valuations?

The suggestion of my hon. Friend is a good one. Directions will be given for carrying it out in Part II. of the Report for 1880 so far as relates to Societies, and in that for 1881 so far as relates to branches.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, under the favoured nation clause, French shipowners, in addition to their own Government bounties, will possess trading advantages in the coasting and Colonial trades over Foreign vessels; and, if he can inform the House of what these advantages will consist?

There has been no change whatever made in this respect by the Treaty of the 28th of February, and the situation remains the same as under the Treaties which have now expired.

asked what the differences were?

said, it would take him half an hour to state what the differences were.

asked the Postmaster General, If the contract for the conveyance of mails between Cyprus and Alexandria has been finally ratified; whether the subsidy is the result of public or private tender; and, if the existing postal charge for letters, &c. exceeds the total expenditure or otherwise?

, in reply, said, that a new contract for the Cyprus mails had been entered into, but would not be acted upon until it had been approved by Resolution of the House. It was offered to public tender. He was sorry to be obliged to state that the service had been attended by a heavy and serious loss up to the present time.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been given to Clause 6 of the "Conditions of Contract" for the clothing of the Irish Postal Service, from which it appears that contractors residing in Ireland are bound to deliver the made-up clothing for inspection and approval at the Royal Army Clothing Depôt, Grosvenor Road, Pimlico, the cloth from which the articles are made having been previously approved at the same place; and, whether it would be deemed sufficient to send samples of the made-up clothing for inspection and approval, the clothing to be strictly according to such samples, and subject to the approval of the authorities at the General Post Office, Dublin?

The regulation to which the hon. Member refers applies not only to Irish, but to all contractors in the United Kingdom. After making inquiry, I am glad to be able to state that the suggestion contained in the Question of the hon. Member can be adopted.

asked the honourable Member for Gravesend, If he can state whether the City and Guilds of London Technical Institute, of which he is the treasurer, or the Livery Companies, have made any communications to the Royal Commission on Livery Companies, of which he is a member, showing the extent to which the large funds at the disposal of those Companies are at present and may be hereafter applied to the promotion of technical instruction in London and the provinces; and, whether he is able to state when the Commission is likely to make its report?

, in reply, said, the Livery Companies had, in the Returns forwarded by them to the Royal Commissioners, clearly set out the amounts which they had already contributed and promised in support of the City and Guilds of London Technical Institute, and of technical education in the Provinces. Remembering that those large grants had been voluntarily contributed, it might, he thought, be assumed that the Livery Companies would not only keep them up, but increase their grants and subscriptions in furtherance of technical education from time to time as they might find increased funds available for the purpose. The Royal Commission would doubtless feel it part of their duty to inquire and report as to the desirability and practicability of strengthening by Parliamentary sanction the existing connection between the Livery Companies of London and the various industries of the country by some scheme for developing a system of technical education, such as the Companies had themselves initiated and brought into partial operation. The Commissioners were continuing their inquiries, and it was impossible to say when their Report would be ready.

asked the Prime Minister when the Supplementary Navy Estimates would be taken?

said, he hoped to be able to state that on Friday.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House on Friday whether he could make the annual Financial Statement before Easter; and, if so, on what day?

No, Sir; I am not at all sure that I should be able to state that on Friday. At the same time, my present impression is, that, viewing the fact that Easter comes upon the 9th of April, I am extremely doubtful whether I will be able to make the Financial Statement before then.

asked after what hour that evening the debate on the "House of Lords and the Land Act" would not be resumed?

It is most important for Public Business that the Irish debate should be brought to a close. Her Majesty's Government have not contributed, I hope, unreasonably in their own persons to its prolongation, and we are still inclined to act upon the principle of sparing the infliction of our own orations upon the House as far as we possibly can. We had hoped to save a fraction of time to-night for the purpose of that debate; but, in view of the fact that important questions have arisen, which have delayed till 8 o'clock the commencement of Public Business, and though, on the whole, most anxious to get forward with that debate, which I earnestly hope will close on Thursday night, I do not think it would be fair to hon. Gentlemen to keep them to-night upon so slender an expectation of getting time as we now entertain. Consequently, I would propose that the debate should not come on tonight.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I should like to make an explanation with regard to what occurred last night between the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and myself during the debate on the Irish Question. I stated that the right hon. Gentleman had, during his tour in Mid Lothian characterized a statement in a letter addressed by Lord Grey to The Times as the "apprehensions of an old woman." The right hon. Gentleman denied the accuracy of my statement, and so I said I should feel bound to substantiate it. I have gone through the revised and published speeches of the right hon. Gentleman delivered in Mid Lothian, and I am bound to say I cannot find in them any trace of the statement in question. Fortunately, however, there are other sources of information open to me, and I find on referring to The Times newspaper a speech which has been carefully eliminated from the published speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will, with your permission, in my own justification, read an extract from it to the House. The meeting was held at the Liberal Club in Edinburgh on the 31st of March, 1880, and was reported in The Times of the 1st of April of that year. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman dwelt entirely and solely on that letter of Lord Grey, and he is reported to have spoken thus—

"He did not agree with Earl Grey as to the enormity of this danger. There was a great deal of difficulty still to contend with in the state of Ireland; but as to the apprehension that the people of Ireland wanted to tear Ireland away from its connection with this country, he told them frankly that he did not share it. He put it away as an old woman's apprehension. Not that he wanted to apply the term 'old woman' to any person! He employed it strictly to qualify the character of the apprehension."

Mr. Speaker, I am not able to admit either the courtesy of the noble Lord's proceeding, or the correctness of his assertion that he was about to substantiate his allegation; and I am obliged to him, in particular, for his statement that I had taken pains literally to eliminate from a set of speeches this particular speech which the noble Lord thinks he has discovered. Sir, I took no such pains. I did not make the collection of speeches, and I did not eliminate any speech from them, or introduce any speech into them. Sir, the noble Lord stated last night that I had described the warnings of Lord Grey, in his letter to The Times, as the utterances of an old woman. I stated that I had not done anything of the kind.

"Apprehensions," not "utterances."

The noble Lord is reported to have said "utterances;" but that does not signify in the slightest degree. He quotes the reports to the letter against me; but he does not seem to like them as against himself. I said that I had stated nothing of the kind. When such a denial is given by a Member the usual course is for the hon. Member who has made the statement to express regret for having fallen into an error. Instead of that, the noble Lord, entirely rejecting my disclaimer, said he should proceed to substantiate his allegation. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] He has not substantiated his allegation. He has omitted from the report in The Times a passage which would show that he had not substantiated it. In the first place, Sir, as regards this meeting. It was not a public meeting at all. It was not a meeting of the Liberal Club. It was a meeting of my committee in a private room, and I greatly doubt whether a reporter was present. My reason for that doubt is that I do not remember being cognizant of, or observing any such thing; and that the report, differing in this from, I think, every other report of a speech which I made in Mid Lothian—where, I must say, the reporting was most admirable—is a report in the third person. Well, Sir, what happened was this. I referred to Lord Grey's letter, and I ascribed to Lord Grey two allegations. I said—

"Lord Grey added, in relation to the past Government, that two glaring instances showed what a dangerous man Mr. Gladstone would be."

"Were carried by the Government of which he (Mr. Gladstone) had the honour of being a Member; and they had been the cause of the present great danger which the country had to undergo, which he found in the state of Ireland. He did not agree with Lord Grey about the enormity of this danger."

"Not that he meant to apply the phrase 'old woman' to any person, but to use it strictly as qualifying the character of the apprehensions."

"He had now done with Lord Grey, and he wished not to be tempted to say a word derogatory in any degree"—that was after an interval—"to a politician who was a most able man—a man of great talents and undoubted honesty."

"He was so anxious about his personal respect for Lord Grey, that if he had said anything that would hurt or wound him in any degree he would wish it retracted."

I rise, Mr. Speaker to a point of Order, and to invite your ruling upon the terms of a Notice of Motion, which appears to-day for the first time upon the Paper, and which I will now read to the House—

"Mr. Labouchere—House of Lords: That the House of Lords is useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished."

Perhaps, Sir, I may be permitted to explain. The words are words which have already—["Order!"]

I rise to Order. The Chair has been appealed to on the point of Order. I do not apprehend that the hon. Member has any right to explain.

I may be permitted to explain that the words of the Motion are precisely those which were submitted to a Parliament in England—the Long Parliament—and that they were passed by that Assembly. As, however, it has been pointed out to me by some hon. Friends of mine that the word "useless" may imply some sort of reflection upon the Members of the House of Lords, I have modified that word, and have put instead, "unnecessary, obstructive, and dangerous."

In answer to the questions of the hon. Member, I may say my attention was drawn to the terms of this Notice of Motion; and I was informed that the precedent of the words had come from the days of the Long Parliament. I am bound to say that I considered that certainly one expression in that Notice was inadmissable. The hon. Member for Northampton spoke of the House of Lords as "useless." Now, had any hon. Member spoken of the other House of Parliament in terms of that character, I should have felt it my duty to call him to Order; and I am glad to find that the hon. Member for Northampton, as I understand him, has withdrawn from his Notice of Motion that particular expression. The hon. Member also asks me whether it is competent for this House to raise the question of the abolition of the House of Lords? The hon. Member must be aware that that proposition has frequently been before the House.

remarked, that, according to his memory, the decisions of the Long Parliament had not been regarded as binding by the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair.

With your permission, Sir, I wish to put a question which I have already submitted to you. Referring to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh is ready, in compliance with No. 26 of the Rules and Orders of this House, to produce to the Clerk of this House the certificate of his return as the new Member for the borough of Northampton, and to the fact that the return has been certified by the Clerk of the Crown; and also referring to the fact that two Members—the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and the senior Member for Northampton—are ready to introduce Mr. Bradlaugh to the Table, in accordance with the Resolution of the 23rd of February, 1688–1 wish to ask you, Sir, whether the Resolution of the 6th of March forbids Mr. Bradlaugh and his introducers from coming to the Table for the purpose of claiming his seat for Northampton according to law; and to ask whether, as Mr. Bradlaugh is forbidden to take the Oath of Allegiance, you will inform me how he is to proceed to perform his duty to his and my constituents, by sitting and voting in this House?

In reply to the first question of the hon. Member, I have to state that I have no hesitation in saying that, in my judgment, in view of the Resolution agreed to by the House yesterday, that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath of Allegiance prescribed by law, it would be irregular and disorderly for the two hon. Members referred to to introduce him to the House and conduct him to the Table for the purpose of his taking the Oath. I may add that it is a well-known Rule of this House that no hon. Member is to come to the Table to be sworn until he has been called upon to do so by the Speaker; and, having regard to the Resolution of yesterday, I consider myself bound not to call upon the hon. Member for Northampton to come to the Table to be sworn. As regards the second question put to me by the hon. Member, I have only to point out that it forms no part of my duty to advise hon. Members as to the course which they should pursue in asserting their title to take their seats.

, in rising to move the following Resolution:—

"That, owing to the heavy duties imposed upon our manufactures by so many Foreign nations, whilst all Foreign manufactures are admitted into this Country duty-free, and to the depression of the rural Home trade caused by the free import of Foreign agricultural produce at prices with which our own farmers are unable to compete, the interests of all classes of producers in this Country are vitally assailed; and that the time has arrived when it is necessary to reconsider the policy of free imports, with a view to the relief of our Home industries, and the more equal distribution of the heavy burden of taxation now pressing upon them,"

"Bad harvests are only one of the causes. The rise in rents, the increase in the cost of labour, and the heavy fall in the price of agricultural produce, owing to foreign competition, are also causes which have led to that result."