asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether a proposal has been made to that body for dealing with the sewage of London at Crossness, and for finding a suitable monetary guarantee that it shall be done effectually; and, if so, what are the intentions of the Board on the subject?

I beg to inform the hon. Member that the Metropolitan Board has had under consideration from time to time proposals and schemes for dealing with the sewage of the Metropolis at the outfalls, but none, in its judgment, of a thoroughly practical and satisfactory character, and that the particular Company presumably alluded to by the hon. Member some years ago made experiments at Crossness, the result of which did not encourage the Board to look for a solution of the difficulty in that direction.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the populations of Ballyragget and Castlecomer, Lisdowney and Freshford, in the county of Kilkenny, besides those of Abbeyleen, Durrow, Ballinakill, and Atlaugh, in the Queen's County, on whose behalf a resolution adopted at a large and influential public meeting has recently been forwarded to him, will be absolutely un-provided for and wholly deprived of any benefit under the proposed new Mail Service from Dublin to Cork, unless the Mail Train stops at Maryboro' as prayed for; and, whether he will undertake that no final decision be arrived at until there shall be afforded an opportunity of a further expression of the public opinion of the South East of Ireland upon this subject of vital interest?

The Question of the hon. Member indicates the difficulties which are always associated with any scheme to accelerate a mail service. Such an acceleration as that which is contemplated to Cork can only be secured by running the trains at a higher speed and by requiring them to stop at fewer places. If the new trains stopped at all the places where the existing train does, a considerable part of the acceleration would be lost. I regret the places referred to should not derive any advantage from the new service. I am very anxious that there should be no delay in bringing the new service into operation; but I shall be prepared to consider any representations which may be forwarded to me by the hon. Member or others who are interested in the districts to which he refers.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Alexander Morphy, Crown Solicitor, is an uncertificated bankrupt; and, if so, why he has been retained in the Service?

Mr. Morphy was never a bankrupt, much less an uncertificated one. He became embarrassed in 1872, whereupon he voluntarily allocated four-fifths of his salary to pay in full his unsecured creditors. On one single creditor declining to abide by this offer, Mr. Morphy sought the protection of the Court as an arranging debtor to give effect to his proposal. His arrangement was then carried unanimously, and Mr. Morphy has paid in full all his creditors. As he paid 20s. in the pound, there was no object in taking out the certificate. At the time of the arrangement the Government of the day fully inquired into the matter, and decided that no case had arisen for taking any action against Mr. Morphy, who appears since to have honestly discharged all his debts.

Was he ever suspended?

No.

I beg to give Notice that I will ask further Questions on this subject, as I cannot appreciate the nice distinction of the hon. and learned Genman.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has had any further communication in reference to the alleged degree and academic status of Mr. Geissler, Professor, Queen's College, Galway; and, whether he can promise an investigation?

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has received within the last two days a communication with regard to Professor Geissler's degree and academic status. When asking about the appointment in 1868, the Government acted upon the testimonials and opinions of men of great eminence now dead. Having regard, however, to the position of the matter and the responsibility he assumes, an investigation will be made.

asked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether he is aware that numerous English public companies refuse to transfer shares on Irish probate or grants of administration without having the same resealed in England at considerable unnecessary expense; and, whether such demand is legal?

said, that English Public Companies were acting quite legally in refusing to transfer shares on Irish probate or grants of administration without having the same resealed in England. The Companies were not bound to wait until the probate had been granted; but they could do so as an extra precaution. The law upon the subject applied to Ireland as well as to England.

It only makes the matter worse if it obtains in the two countries. Is there no way of obviating it?

It can only be done by a change in the law.

Is it not a fact that Insurance Companies will accept Irish probate of the proof of debt, and will refuse it to enable a transfer of shares?

That may be so. They are not required to do it, and if they like they can dispense with it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the Letter signed "Non-Practitioner," in The Times, and to the articles in The Lancet, Medical Times, and other medical journals, in reference to the Medicine Stamp Act; if he has any information to confirm the statements in these various publications that the Act, instead of discouraging, stimulates largely the sale of quack medicines, mainly through the stamp being interpreted as a Government guarantee of the safety and purity of the medicine, the vendors of many quack medicines implying in their advertisements that the stamp affords a Government guarantee; whether he is aware that the large number of deaths that occur annually are attributed to the taking of poisons in the shape of secret medicines; if he is aware that the Act which was passed for the purpose of protecting the medical profession against quack medicines has been condemned by all the authoritative organs of medical opinion in the throe Kingdoms; whether the Revenue Department intend to enforce the rigid interpretation put on the Patent Medicines Act, and set forth in the circular of Mr. W. H. Cousins of May 17th; whether this has been found very seriously to prejudice British exporters of medicine, in competition with continental manufacturers of medicines; whether, already, owing to this action on the part of the Department, a large quantity of the trade to the Colonies has fallen into the hands of Germany, France, and America; and, whether he will favourably consider the question of repealing the Tax?

No, Sir; I have not read the newspaper statements to which the hon. Member refers, and I can, therefore, express no opinion about them. As to the point whether the stamp on patent medicines should express that they are not guaranteed by Government, I am disposed to think that the French practice of putting on the stamp a disclaimer of such a guarantee might, perhaps, be followed with advantage. I have no information as to the hon. Member's third and fourth Questions; but I am aware that there has been during the last few months a good deal of controversy on this subject among professional people. The Circular of May 17 does not refer to British medicines at all, but to foreign medicines first imported and then exported in bulk by agents of foreign firms, and it can only affect the consumer abroad. I know nothing of the consumption of patent medicines in the Colonies. As to the last Question, I can hold out no hope of repealing this tax, which brings in £160,000 a-year; but I have asked the Board of Inland Revenue for Reports on the subject, which I shall study with care.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether there is a considerable difference in emoluments, vacation, sick leave, and retiring allowance of the copying clerks attached to the different courts in Ireland; whether a report upon the subject has been made by Mr. Holmes, Treasury Remembrancer, proposing changes which would be detrimental to some of these clerks; whether some of the judges have refused their assent to the proposed changes; and, whether steps will be taken to give all the copying clerks the advantages now enjoyed by some in the matters stated?

, in reply, said, the only foundation for the rumours upon which the Question appeared to be based was a recent Order of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and other statutory authorities as to the pay of copying clerks. Clerks who should be appointed after the date of the Order were put upon equality as to their duties and pay.

asked whether a Report upon this subject had been made by Mr. Holmes, the Treasury Remembrancer, in reference to which some of the Judges had agreed, and some had not?

said, he must decline to give any information on this point. The Report was strictly confidential. No Order had been made affecting the position or pay of copying clerks appointed previous to the date of that Order.

gave Notice to repeat the Question.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that thirty - six temporary inspectors, for carrying out the provisions of the Land Act with reference to loans to tenants, have recently been appointed by the Board of Works; whether these gentlemen were appointed without public notification of the vacancies and without competition; whether they are nearly all Protestants and many of them Freemasons; whether some of them are relatives of the officials of the Board; whether some of them have no recognised professional qualification; whether it is a fact that men holding the diploma of Civil Engineer applied for and were unable to obtain such appointments; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of those who applied for these appointments, showing in each case their professional qualification, and a list of those who obtained the appointments, showing their qualification in each case, and stating, as in the case of the Return of Irish Magistrates, the number of Protestants and Catholics respectively; whether, as the Government have no objection to granting such a Return, save on the ground of expense, he will, if he still objects to giving the information in print, place it in manuscript upon the Table, so as to afford Members the information asked for, while obviating the objection on the ground of expense of printing; and, whether he can state what the expense of such a Return would be in print, seeing that it would probably not occupy more than one page, and that the information exists in the office?

There are 36 Inspectors for carrying out the provisions of the Irish Land Act, with reference to loans to tenants, who have been appointed at various rates during the last two and a-half years. The fact of these appointments being open was generally known, as appears from the large number of applicants for them. Vacancies have been filled by the full Board of Works, by careful selection from the lists of candidates, with their testimonials and certificates. There are now nearly 170 names on the list of candidates. It is hardly possible to judge of an engineer's qualifications on paper; but I have carefully examined a statement, furnished me by the Board of Works, from which it appears that more than half the number have regular degrees in Engineering, and the rest have ample practical experience. Some few of them seem to be connected with some of the numerous officers of the Board. The Board of Works have no knowledge as to the religion or politics of the men chosen, still less whether any are Freemasons, and will not inquire into matters so entirely irrelevant to the duties of a civil engineer. I think this is scarcely a subject for a Return; but I have a nominal list of the persons appointed, and of their qualifications, which the hon. Member may examine freely if he wishes to do so.

asked whether the list would show the qualifications of the rejected and accepted candidates? The hon. Gentleman had not answered the portion of the Question which asked whether some candidates who had no professional qualifications were accepted, while others who had professional diplomas either from Trinity College or the Engineering School of the Queen's or Royal Universities were rejected.

said, that the list to which he had referred was only of accepted candidates. It would be impossible to publish the names of the gentlemen who had not been selected.

asked if the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to publish in a Memorandum the number of candidates holding diplomas who had been rejected?

said, he would inquire into that.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that Mr. Daniel Best, a first class supervisor in the Inland Revenue Department, was, when in charge of an Irish district some years ago, proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Inland Revenue to have endeavoured to obtain payment of an expenditure not incurred in the public service; whether, since then, various descriptions of misconduct have been proved against him; if, within the past two years, Mr. Best has been proved, at an inquiry held by Mr. Inspector Grant at Sheffield, to have obtained under false pretences from the public Treasury numerous sums of money as rewards arising out of the detection and prosecution of persons at Sheffield for keeping unlicensed dogs; whether he was allowed to escape prosecution and retain his position as Inland Revenue officer upon refunding the money so obtained; if some officials are dismissed the public service for misconduct much less grave; and, if he will state the reasons for the leniency extended to Mr. Best?

Mr. Best's errors were not so grave as the terms of the Question would suggest; he has been twice severely reprimanded and removed; and the Board of Inland Revenue say that they would not have treated any other officer more severely under the circumstances.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board, by letter, directed the returning officer of the Edenderry Union to disallow, at the elections held last March, the votes of all persons who owed arrears of seed rate, and specified some of these persons by name; and, whether, in view of a new election now about to be held, they have written to him to allow these same persons votes, although they still owe these arrears; if so, why have they decided to allow these votes, in opposition to their own ruling of last March, in opposition to the ruling of the Court of Queen's Bench, and to his repeated statements that seed rate was a part of the poor rate, and anyone owing arrears of seed rate was disqualified from voting?

There is no discrepancy between the instructions of the Local Government Board on the occasions referred to. The first related to seed rate made and assessed upon the ratepayer; but the latter referred to seed rate not made or assessed upon the ratepayer, but for which he became liable as a subsequent occupier. The non-payment of a seed rate has the same effect in depriving a ratepayer of his right to vote as the non-payment of the poor rate; and, therefore, the deprivation only arises in the case of rates for which the voter was originally liable by reason of the rate having been assessed upon himself.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Sub-Commissioner and other officers of the Land Courts, whose services have been recently dispensed with, only received ten days' notice that their engagement would terminate on the 31st; and, whether they will be given a month's pay from the date of the notice given to them?

The term of Office for which the Assistant Commissioners and other officers were appointed expired on the 31st of July. There was no necessity, therefore, for giving any formal notice that their services would not be required after that date. The names of the Assistant Commissioners selected for re-appointment were announced in this House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, on the 17th of last month, and on the 21st the Land Commissioners communicated with the Sub-Registrars. There would, therefore, be no warrant for giving a month's pay out of the public funds, as suggested.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will recommend to Her Majesty's Government the re-appointment of the Select Committee on the Labourers' (Ireland) Act in the Autumn Session, so that the report may be completed in time for the introduction of an amending Bill in February next?

I am informed that it is contrary to precedent to give a definitive answer to this Question as it affects the action of the Government next Session; and the recommendation of the Committee will, of course, be carefully considered.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as a consequence of the refusal of the European Powers to accept the proposals made to them, the hands of Her Majesty's Government are set free; whether they will be less hampered in carrying out their reforms in Egypt than they have hitherto been; and, whether in view of the financial difficulty, and of the fact that the immunities conferred upon Europeans by Mehemet Ali have just been abolished, Her Majesty's Government will use their influence with the Khedive to abolish also the partial immunity from taxation, still enjoyed by the great landowners, and will advise the equalization of the Land Tax, whereby a large and much needed addition would accrue to the Revenue, and a chronic source of discontent be removed?

Pending the mission of Lord Northbrook, I am sorry to say that I cannot enter into the different subjects which are raised in the Question of my hon. Friend.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the International Conference on the subject of the execution of Foreign Judgment, to which we were invited by the Italian Government, has taken place; and, if so, with what results?

Her Majesty's Government acceded to the proposal of the Italian Government that a preliminary examination of this subject, on the basis of the Resolutions adopted at Milan, in 1883, by the Association for the Reform and Codification of International Law, should take place at Rome by a Conference of official delegates from various Governments; but no meeting of that Body has yet taken place.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is the intention of the Royal Commission on the Dwellings of the Poor to hold sittings in any of the rural districts, or to appoint Assistant Commissioners to visit them?

The Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes has already completed its inquiry into the condition of the rural districts of England and Wales. A large number of witnesses from various counties representing all interests have been examined, and Her Majesty's Commissioners have unanimously decided that there is no necessity to appoint Assistant Commissioners or to hold sittings in the Provinces. It may be interesting to the House if I say that besides one witness from each of the mining districts in Wales and Cornwall, there were three witnesses as to the gipsy population, and 16 witnesses were examined as to what may be considered the ordinary condition of affairs in the rural parts of the country.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Is he aware that, at the last meeting of the Donegal Board of Guardians on the 2nd August, a motion in accordance with his proposal to appoint a Catholic assistant teacher for the Donegal Workhouse as a settlement of the case has been rejected by a large majority of the Board; and, in view of the spiritual destitution in which the inmates are left in the Workhouse by the majority of the Guardians, will he, through the Local Government Board, make the appointment by sealed order, and, in case of further hostility by the Guardians, suspend the Board and appoint Vice Guardians in their stead?

I regret to say that it is a fact that the Guardians, by a majority of 11 to 7, rejected the proposal to appoint an assistant teacher. The Local Government Board have no legal authority to make the appointment themselves by sealed order; and while they consider the action of the Guardians illiberal, yet, as the matter is one in which the Guardians have an explicit discretion left to them by the Poor Law Acts and Regulations, and have exercised that discretion, no case has arisen which would justify the Board in dissolving the Board of Guardians. The Local Government Board will communicate with the Roman Catholic priest of the parish in the hope of being able to make some new arrangement under which he would consent to resume the duties of chaplain.

said, that this promise was made several times already; and he hoped, therefore, that the communication would be immediately made.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he will state by whom are leases under the Land Judges' Court (Ireland) prepared, on what scale of charges, and by whom fixed; and, if he will also state whether there is any definite period within which a Receiver is bound to submit letting proposals for land after receiving same for the decision of the Judges?

The leases are prepared in the Receiver's Office of the Land Judges at a scale fixed by the order of the Court as follows:—Order 3, Rule for preparing lease, 5s.; for counterpart, 2s. 6d. This is above the stamp duty. There is no definite period within which a Receiver is bound to submit letting proposals; but it would be a breach of duty if the period were unnecessarily long.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Liquidation proceedings in connection with the West of England Bank, which failed in 1868, are still unfinished; whether they have been kept open for many years longer than those of the Glasgow Bank, though the liabilities were only about a fourth of those of the latter; whether, in 1881, the liquidators had in hand some £66,000, a large portion of which was dissipated in a single year by legal proceedings in which there was no reasonable prospect of success; whether the Barker property, which cost the Bank about £570,000, was sold by the liquidators for £67,000, payment of which was to extend over several years; whether he will cause the liquidators to furnish a full statement of the position of the estate, with details of outgoings and commission; and, whether one of the liquidators has been given a Receivership under the new Bankruptcy Act?

I would remind the hon. Member that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, are not applicable to Joint Stock Companies, and that consequently the Board of Trade have no knowledge of, or power to interfere with, the liquidation proceedings in connection with the West of England Bank. As, however, the hon. Member has referred to the fact that the Official Receiver at Bristol is one of the liquidators, I have thought it right to communicate with that gentleman and learn from him that (1) the West of England Bank failed in 1878, not 1868, as stated by the hon. Member The liabilities exceeded £3,000,000, of which amount half was paid in three months, and the balance within 13 months after that. The proceedings are now limited to the realization of assets for the benefit of those who found the money to pay the creditors. (2.) It is not true that in 1881 the liquidators, out of £66,000, dissipated a large portion by unsuccessful legal proceedings. Out of £66,000 stated to have been in hand, over £50,000 has been returned to shareholders, and the legal proceedings, which have been almost uniformly successful, were undertaken with the sanction of the Court. (3.) The Booker property realized nearly twice as much as is suggested by the hon. Member; and only about one-third of the amount was to be paid by instalments with interest at 6 per cent. (4.) The accounts in detail are passed and filed in Court, and a summary has been sent to every shareholder up to December, 1883.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, By what authority a right of user of the "road or public way on Hampstead Heath, leading from Telegraph Hill to Golder's Hill," is reserved to equestrians only, and closed to the general public for vehicular traffic; who is responsible for the condition of the road in question; and, whether he will consider if the road could not be rendered serviceable throughout for all purposes?

I beg to inform the hon. Member that the road to which he refers never was anything but a rough bridle or cart track across the turf at Hampstead Heath, except that portion of it which was utilized by the Board when they made a ride for the use of equestrians. No public right of way for carriages exists across this portion of the heath, and the Board do not consider it would be to the public advantage to allow vehicles generally to be driven over the heath, inasmuch as abundant accommodation is afforded for such traffic by the macadamized public thoroughfares across the heath which already exist. The Board is responsible for keeping the road in question in a fit condition for the use of equestrians.

What is the hon. Member's view of a fit condition?

I consider a fit condition the condition in which the road is now.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the number of days during the year ending on the 31st December 1883, in which the Land Commissioners sat in cities or towns, other than in the city of Dublin, for the hearing of cases, exclusive of cases, if any, arising under the Arrears Act?

The Land Commissioners sat in 1883—exclusive of sittings in Dublin—on 17 different occasions, and those sittings occupied 78 days. During the first seven months of the present year they sat on 15 different occasions, extending over 81 days.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an extensive larceny of cattle perpetrated upon a holding of Mrs. Catherine Fitzgerald, of Kilmanagh, in the county of Kilkenny, that is to say, that eleven yearling heifers and one yearling bullock were removed off those lands on or about the 13th of June last, that five of the cattle have since been received by the owner, but that the remaining seven head are still missing and unaccounted for; whether he will cause the local constabulary, augmented for the past two years by the number of fifty additional constables over and above their normal strength, to make search for the same; and, whether he will detail some of the extra detective force to bring to justice the perpetrators of this outrage, and to discover the missing cattle believed to be still in the Country?

I am informed that 12 head of cattle disappeared from Mr. Fitzgerald's land; but it is by no means clear that they were stolen. Some of them, amounting, in all, to seven, have since been found straying in different places; five are still missing. The local Constabulary used every effort to trace the missing animals, and will continue to do so with regard to those still missing. It is mainly owing to their exertions that seven of them have been recovered and restored to their owner.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether large orders that have hitherto been executed by the Royal Laboratory Department, Woolwich, have recently been given to Sir W. Armstrong and Co. Limited, for instance, an order for upwards of six hundred powder cases at £18 10s.; and, whether the price quoted for these cases by the Royal Laboratory Department was £13 17s. 4d.; and, if so, whether he will explain the reason for giving preference to a private firm under such circumstances?

The facts are not correctly stated in the Question of the hon. Member. It is not a fact that large orders that have hitherto been executed by the Royal Laboratory Department have recently been given to Sir William Armstrong and Co. (Limited). With regard to the order for upwards of 600 cases at £18 10s., which the hon. Member instances, I should say that this is a now service for a new class of gun, and these particular cases were designed by Sir William Armstrong and Co., in connection with their hydraulic system of loading. The price quoted by the Royal Laboratory Department for these cases is not correctly stated in the second part of the Question. The sum named by the hon. Member is below the estimate.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state what has been the total value of the exports and imports of Bagdad, Bussorah, and Bushire, for the twelve months last reported to the Government of India?

The latest trade statistics received from the Persian Gulf political Residency are for the year 1882, and show that the imports of Bushire were 102 lakhs, and the exports 65 lakhs. We have no Reports from Bagdad and Bussorah; but no doubt the Foreign Office will obtain them for my hon. Friend if he wishes it.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If he can now give an answer to the memorials by shipwrights, joiners, and other classes whose claims were heard by him and by the Secretary during their visits to the Dockyards; and, whether any concession is intended to be made to the memorialists?

The Memorials of the shipwrights and other classes of workmen in the Dockyards have been carefully considered by the Board. In a few cases we propose an advance; but we do not feel justified in recommending any general increase of pay in the Dockyards. Replies in this sense will be communicated to the Petitioners.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is proposed to include within the scope of the inquiry by Royal Commission into the Marine Department of the Board of Trade the sanitary aspect of emigration and immigration, and the position of medical officers in emigrant ships?

I recognize the great importance of the question; but I am afraid that the Royal Commission will have so many and such complicated matters to deal with that it would be undesirable to extend the scope of the inquiry in the manner suggested.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as stated in a telegram from Cape Town, that Mr. Mackenzie is to be superseded as Resident Commissioner in Bechuanaland; and, if so, whether he will inform the House on what grounds this step has been taken?

All the information as to Mr. Mackenzie's movements we as yet have received is contained in a telegram of the 30th of July, from Sir Hercules Robinson, in which he informs us that he has summoned Mr. Mackenzie to Cape Town to confer with him on Bechuanal affairs, and that Mr. Rhodes, late Colonial Treasurer, and a Member of the Griqualand West Boundary Commission, has been appointed to act as Commissioner in Mr. Mackenzie's absence.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state what are the salaries paid respectively to the principal clerks of Customs and principal clerks of Inland Revenue at the ports of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Londonderry, Limerick, and Waterford; whether the duties of these officials are not similar in their nature; and, if so, why they are not put on an equality in the matter of salary; and, whether pay for "overtime" is allowed to these officials in either and which Department?

There are principal clerks in the Customs at Dublin and Belfast with salaries at present rising to £600; but there are none at the other ports named. They would be paid for overtime if necessary; but practically never are so. There are no principal clerks in the Inland Revenue in Ireland; and I am not aware to what class of officials the hon. Member alludes as discharging similar duties to the principal clerks in the Customs.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will be good enough to state if the sum unexpended out of the £250,000 voted by Parliament last Session, from the Irish Church Fund, for the construction of fishery piers and harbours, will bear interest until the whole amount shall be expended; and, if so, what rate of interest will be allowed; and, whether such interest will be on the difference between the sum actually expended on works, and the original sum allocated by Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman has already made this suggestion and has been promised that it will be very carefully considered. It would be a great motive to allow interest on the unexpended balance, if the Fishery Commissioners would thus be induced to treat the fund as something to be maintained as a permanent resource, instead of expending the whole capital in five or six years. No action is, however, possible at present, as legislation would be required if the suggestion were adopted.

asked whether steps would be taken to promote such a measure as would insure that the unexpended portion of the fund would bear interest until the whole amount had been expended?

I have already indicated that the matter is being considered, and will, I think, be favourably so; but nothing can be done until next year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be a fact that the Turkish Government have imposed a quarantine of ten days on all vessels passing through the Dardanelles?

Yes, Sir; Her Majesty's Ambassador has remonstrated, but hitherto without avail. Lord Dufferin will continue to endeavour to obtain permission for vessels bound to or coming from the Black Sea to pass the Straits without communicating with the shore—in other words, in quarantine; failing this measure, he will try to obtain a reduction of the period of detention.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, during the Recess, he will favourably consider and adopt measures for an increase of space and improved ventilation in the Ladies' Gallery, also for the removal of the screen; and, further, if any Order of the House exists which leaves about one-third of the Gallery with a divisional partition under the control of Mr. Speaker?

said, he would consider the matter referred to by the hon. Member during the Recess; but he could not hold out any certain prospects of being able to do anything in the direction suggested. With regard to the second part of the Question, a portion of the Ladies' Gallery was appropriated by a Committee of the House, immediately after the erection of the House, for admission by order of Mr. Speaker, who used this privilege, not as a matter of private right, but who exercised it to meet claims of a special character, whether proceeding from Members of the House, or from other distinguished persons.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any reason why the grating should not be removed, and such changes made as would greatly facilitate hearing and seeing in the Ladies' Gallery? [Cries of "No!"]

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision has been come to by the Law Officers as to the prosecution of Mr. Vaughan Montgomery, J.P.; and, will the Papers be laid before the Lord Chancellor?

The Attorney General has instructed the Sessional Crown Solicitor to proceed in this case for the penalty. While the matter is sub judice it would not be proper to refer the case to the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House in what proportion of appeal cases, and to what extent, has the amount of rent fixed by the Assistant Commissioners and County Court Judges respectively been varied by the Court of Appeal?

In cases in the Land Court in which there were 6,048 appeals lodged and disposed of, rents were altered in 1,089 cases, 899 being raised, and 190 lowered.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there are any instructions in force at the dockyards empowering the authorities to retain hired men after the age of sixty if found fit for service; in whom is this discretionary power vested; and, has it been exercised since the issue of the last Dockyard Instructions?

By Dockyard instruction all hired men are to be discharged at 60 years of age. There have been a few special cases of retention on the strong recommendation of the Superintendent, and with the approval of the Controller and the Civil Lord. A more elastic system has been proposed, and is under consideration.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it has been decided when the Commission for the Delimitation of the Russo-Afghan Boundary is to commence its work; and, if he can state the probable period of time during which it is expected that the work will continue?

It is proposed that the Commission shall proceed with the delimitation this autumn, so as to make definite progress before the winter sets in, when it may be difficult to carry on the work. But I am unable, at present, to state the precise date when it will commence its work, or the period during which it will continue.

rose to ask the honourable Member for Swansea, Whether, seeing that the Bishopric of Bristol Bill, if it became an Act, would, in the opinion of members of the Church of England, promote the spiritual benefit of the Church, that it would take no money from the State, that it would not add to the number of Spiritual Peers, and that it would in no way interfere with the rights of Nonconformists, he will consider the propriety of withdrawing his Notice of opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill?

I would like to ask whether this Question is in Order? Does it not contain debateable matter by stating that the Bill "would in no way interfere with the rights of Nonconformists?"

The preamble of the Question contains debateable matter, and is not in Order. The hon. and learned Member who proposes to ask it ought to confine himself to asking the direct Question with which the Notice ends.

I will withdraw the preamble, and put the Question in its most simple and naked form.

In answer to my hon. and learned Friend, I may say that, rightly or wrongly, I hold the opinion that the Bill would be injurious to the rights of Nonconformists, and I do not think it is advisable that such a Bill should pass. As to the general opinion of the members of the Church of England—[Cries of "Order!"]—at this late period of the Session it would be impossible properly to discuss the Question, and I must, therefore, decline to withdraw my opposition to the Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be the fact that the Ballyshannon Board of Conservators are in the habit of handing over their funds in many cases to the different proprietors of rivers for the payment of water bailiffs, or, in other words, restoring in many cases to the proprietors the amount of licence duty paid by them; that no receipts are produced as vouchers for such sums having been paid to the bailiffs, and, on a late occasion, they were not paid by the proprietor who had received this money from the Board until a long time after it had been due to and earned by the bailiffs; that one of the Conservators, a Mr. Hugh M'Intyre, has ineffectually remonstrated against this state of things, not only with the Board of Conservators, but with the Inspectors of Fisheries, and if he will give powers to the Inspectors of Fisheries to prevent this abuse of public funds, some of them being contributed as licence duty by poor fishermen, if they have not already sufficient powers, and also state what steps have been taken by the Inspectors since receipt of Mr. M'Intyre's communications; and, if the accounts of this Board are examined periodically by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries?

The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that the Ballyshannon Board of Conservators are in the habit, in some cases, of entrusting to proprietors of rivers funds for payment through their hands of the water bailiffs. No receipts have hitherto been produced as vouchers for such payments. I am informed that on a late occasion a proprietor did not hand the money over to the bailiff till a considerable time after it had been earned. Mr. M'Intyre remonstrated with the Board and Inspectors; but the Conservators have complete control over their own funds, and the Board can only give advice and make representations. The Inspectors, in this instance, have advised the Conservators to discontinue the practice. The accounts are examined periodically by the Inspectors.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House information as to the present relations between the French and Chinese Governments, and especially as to the causes of the dispute, and as to the action of the French Fleet at Foochow; and, what steps Her Majesty's Ministers are taking to prevent the grave injury to British trade which a war would cause?

It is not desirable that I should enter into the Question of the causes of the dispute between the French and Chinese Governments, as to do so might imply the expression of an opinion; but I may state that the French Yellow Book, recently laid before the French Chambers, contains information up to the end of last month, and I have placed a copy of it in the Library of the House. Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the French Squadron commands Foochow and Keelung, in Formosa; but it is believed, from information received from Paris, that negotiations are still proceeding, and it is hoped that a friendly settlement may yet be arrived at. I beg to refer the hon. Member, in answer to his last Question, to the reply I gave on the 10th of July, and to say that the instructions given last year for the protection of neutrals to the Naval Commanders of the Neutral Maritime Powers, in case of hostilities, have been recently renewed.

asked the Postmaster General, If he would consider the advisability of forwarding the night mails to Tuam by rail, and thus facilitating postal communication in the large district which receives its letters through Tuam?

The night mails arrive at the present time at Tuam in time to be delivered the first thing in the morning, and they are not despatched till 9.20 at night. I do not think it would be possible to have more convenient hours. There is no passenger train running on the line which would bring the night mails at a suitable time to Tuam; and I have no doubt if the Company were asked to run a train specially for mail purposes they would expect a considerable payment, and no postal advantage would result.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a telegram published in this day's Daily News, from the Teheran Correspondent of that newspaper; whether the information in possession of the Government gives them any reason to doubt the accuracy of the information contained in that telegram; whether Russia is now in occupation of both North and South Sarakhs, and within what distance of Herat does the occupation of these places bring the armed Forces of that Empire; and, whether this occupation is consistent with the explanation offered by the Russian Government?

I have seen the communication in The Daily News referred to. The information contained in it is hardly accurate. The Tedjent River flows northward, and consequently the West is the left, and not the right bank, as stated. Moreover, the two places called Sarakhs are on different sides of that river, and not both on the West bank. I stated, on the 9th of June, that the Sarakhs on the Western bank of the river has not been occupied by Russia, though a report reached us that the Russian Commander-in-Chief contemplated taking possession of land on the right bank at Old Sarakhs, and making them over to the Turkomans. The distance from Old Sarakhs to Herat is 166 miles. I am not quite aware what explanation the hon. Member refers to in the concluding paragraph of his Question; but the Afghan frontier question is the subject of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of Russia.

I wish to ask the noble Lord whether the duties of the Aghan Limitation Commission will extend to the boundaries between the Persian and the Russian Empire?

That raises a totally different matter, and I think the hon. Member had better put the Question on the Paper.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has yet determined to insist on the Portuguese Government either giving redress or consenting to arbitrate, in respect to the wrong done to British subjects by the Portuguese Courts in the City of Mecca collision case; or in what other way these British subjects are to have their wrongs redressed?

Her Majesty's Government have not yet renewed their proposal for an arbitration in the case of the City of Mecca. The question is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to state the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to take in this matter, which is one of great difficulty. The Portuguese Government have already rejected our proposal for arbitration, and therefore a second had to be made. The manner of framing the arbitration is a matter of great difficulty and delicacy.

Is the noble Lord aware that this matter has already been pending for four years, during which British subjects have been deliberately robbed by the Portuguese Government?

I am painfully aware that this question has continued for a considerable time; but the House must not be under the impression that it has continued for four years, and that nothing has been done. There has been this proposal for arbitration, which itself followed attempts to settle the matter by the ordinary diplomatic course.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether this House may separate in the confident assurance that Her Majesty's Ministers will seriously consider the expediency of advising Her to use all Constitutional means to insure, as far as possible, that, before the end of the year, the Franchise will be extended by legislative enactment?

The Government have already seriously considered the expediency of advising Her Majesty to use all Constitutional means for the purpose of securing the speedy consideration, and, I hope, the speedy passing, of the Franchise Bill. I do not know of any fresh advice that we can give to Her Majesty during the Recess to promote that object. But I think the answer to the Question is to be found in the advice already given to Her Majesty, and graciously accepted by her, concerning the early re-assembling of Parliament in the autumn.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the National interests involved in the question of the Science and Art Museum and National Library in Dublin, and in consideration of the fact that sixteen years have passed away since the first hopes were held out of their being established, he can state definitely when the design is likely to be decided upon, and when the building will be commenced?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. Yes, Sir. The Science and Art Museum and National Library in Dublin will be commenced at once; but the delay which has taken place since last year has been, in my opinion, unavoidable. The facts are simply these. Competition was invited for designs for a new Museum, to be erected at a cost not exceeding £110,000. The Consultative Committee recommended a design by Messrs. Deane; but when the cost of this came to be worked out it was found to amount to £140,000. It then became necessary to ascertain whether any other design came within the prescribed limits as to cost. The Consultative Committee recommended a second and a third as admissible; but the cost of these has been estimated, and we have to-day learned that each of them would be slightly in excess of £140,000. We are thus reduced to the position of abandoning the designs altogether, or of consenting to accept Messrs. Deane's design, with a possibility of effecting some economies in its details; and although we cannot but deplore the excess above the limit in which the competitors indulged, it has been determined to accept Messrs. Deane's design.

asked how much the Consultative Committee calculated for contingencies?

I cannot say.

asked whether the plan of Messrs. Deane had been accepted in toto?

said, he had stated that it was accepted subject to the possibility of effecting economies in its details.

was understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that at a conference between the architect of Messrs. Deane and the architect to the Treasury it was represented that the cost of the design could be reduced without impairing the architectural details?

said, that he had no information on that point.

, in whose name the following Notice stood upon the Paper:—

"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is proposed to postpone any attempt to relieve the precarious condition of Egyptian finance until the Government shall have received and considered a Report from Lord Northbrook; and, if any steps to afford that relief are contemplated as urgent, in what way will Her Majesty's Government engage the credit of the country without the consent of Parliament?"

I dare say that we shall be able to put down the Appropriation Bill as the first Order on Monday, in order to meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but I cannot say positively. As regards the Question on the Paper, as at present advised, we have no intention of adopting any scheme, either of action or counsel, with regard to Egyptian finance before we have received the Report which Lord Northbrook may make. But we are not in a position at this moment to say whether occasion may not arise during the interval for either counsel or action upon points of an incidental character. In any case, with regard to the latter part of the Question, we shall be most careful to preserve the Privileges of the House of Commons.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now state to the House that the Ottoman Porte has been consulted as to the despatch of a High Commissioner to inquire into and report to Her Majesty's Government upon the disorganised condition of a portion of the Sultan's dominions; and, if so, whether the Government of the Sultan have claimed the right of limiting the scope of the instructions to be given to the said High Commissioner?

In our view, it would be entirely premature to enter on the discussion of any subject connected with Lord Northbrook's Mission, which would be only partial, and, therefore, misleading.

I simply asked whether any reference has been made to the Ottoman Porte?

That is precisely the Question which I decline to answer, because I could only give partial information.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What arrangements are proposed for the conduct of the affairs of the Admiralty during the absence of the First Lord as High Commissioner in Egypt?

The Question has, perhaps, been framed in partial forgetfulness of the fact that, as a matter of form, the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty is in no manner necessary to the business of the Board. It is by the authority of the Board that the business of the Admiralty is carried on. The Question on the Paper, however, is one of a practical nature, and I am not sorry that the hon. Member has asked it. Speaking generally, the arrangements of the Admiralty for the remaining portions of the year are complete at this time of the year, and in any case there would now be a period of vacation and comparative recess. The current business will thus be carried on for a certain time almost in the same manner as if Lord Northbrook had been in England, and no inconvenience will be caused to the Public Service.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Representatives of Russia, Germany, and Austria, declined to give any opinion upon the differences between the French and English Governments; whether the Plenipotentiaries of those Powers expressed their willingness to support M. Waddington in his proposal to adjourn the Conference till October the 20th; and, whether Lord Granville, as President, declined to allow the Conference to vote upon this and other questions, and himself, proprio motu, declared the Conference adjourned sine die?

I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen the Protocols, which were published and circulated some days ago in French. They will be circulated in English this evening, and they contain all the information which the hon. Member seeks.

I have seen the Protocols, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be so good as to point out the portions in which there is any evidence to show that the Representatives of Russia, Germany, and Austria declined to give any opinion on the differences between the French and English Governments. I have been unable to find it.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been so unfortunate. He is the only person I have heard of who is in that position. Here is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was himself one of the Plenipotentiaries, and who is ready to support me when I state that, according to our appreciation of the matter, it is fully explained in the Protocols.

Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman gives his assent to the last two paragraphs of the Question?

I have disposed of the last paragraph but one. As to the last paragraph, I do not know whether it is stated in the Protocols that Earl Granville made statements proprio motu; but I believe that they were as much proprio motu as those of any of the other Plenipotentiaries.

Were the Protocols verbatim reports of the speeches delivered?

The Protocols in this case follow the ordinary rule.

Are they précis or verbatim?

I believe they are précis, except the portions given between inverted commas.

I desire to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which I have been unable to give him private Notice, but which he may be able to answer now. If not, I shall repeat it to-morrow. I wish to ask him, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in a speech reported to have been delivered on the 4th of August by a Cabinet Minister—

"During the last 100 years the House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse, and sheltered every privilege. It has denied justice and delayed reform. It is irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judgment, and arrogant without knowledge."

I will not give the noble Lord the trouble of putting that Question on the Paper, for I could not add to my reply to-morrow anything that I cannot say to-day. The noble Lord appears to think that I have some jurisdiction over the minds of my Colleagues, and some title to pronounce upon the exact degree in which any expression they may use, or any picture they may draw, or any historical view to which their judgment may incline, is in precise harmony with my own. I decline entirely that task. If there is anything in the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) which exceeds the liberty which he has thought himself qualified to use in reviewing the conduct and recent history of the House of Lords, my right hon. Friend is responsible for every word he has spoken, and his words can be challenged in this House; but I entirely decline to recognize the principle that would seem to imply that every word spoken by a Minister is to be brought to account by all his Colleagues, and that no man is to say anything except the very words which every other Member of the Cabinet would say. There must be some liberty of judgment, and the only limits to that liberty of judgment are those Rules which may be applied by this House in case they deem that that just freedom has been exceeded.

asked, Whether he was to understand that the second reading of the Appropriation Bill would be taken on Monday?

The proper stage will be taken on Monday, and I hope it will be committed.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman expected to take the second reading before Monday?

Yes; on Saturday.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it would be possible for him to announce to the House before the Prorogation the names of the Royal Commissioners on Shipping, and the terms of the Reference?

I quite acknowledge the importance of this matter, and the great interest that is felt in it outside, and I shall be very glad if I am able to make the statement the noble Lord has asked of me before Parliament is prorogued; but, unfortunately, it is not in my power to name a day when I shall be in such a position. Communications are going on. I am inviting various Gentlemen to allow me to submit their names to Her Majesty; and until these communications are complete, and the recommendations have received the assent of the Queen, it is not possible for me to make any statement.

said, he observed the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) in his place; and as the Question standing in the hon. Member's name referring to him had not been put, he desired to ask the hon. Member whether he intended putting it?

I intend to ask it on Monday. I have postponed the Question until that day, as I purpose supplementing it with the names of some individuals who, I believe, are as respectable as myself or the right hon. Gentleman, and who were arrested at the instigation of Mr. French under warrants signed by the right hon. Gentleman.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice. In the morning papers there appears a telegram from Major Kitchener, giving the text of a letter from General Gordon to the Mudir of Dongola, as follows:—

"Khartoum and Sennaar are still holding out up to the present, and the messenger who brings this, Mohammed Ahmed, will give you news of me. When he arrives give him all the news you have, and tell him at what place the expedition coming from Cairo now is and the numbers coming."

I cannot tell what reports may have reached General Gordon, or what he refers to as coming from Cairo. It is possible he may have received reports of the movement of troops both of the Egyptian and British Army up the Nile, and it is also possible that he may have heard something of the movements of the Bedouins under Major Kitchener. It is impossible for me to more than conjecture what rumours and reports have reached him. The noble Lord and the House have been informed of every movement of troops that has taken place, and I can add nothing to what is already within the knowledge of the House.

Is it the intention of the Government to send any answer to that letter of General Gordon which, I understand, the noble Lord states has been already reported in the public Press; and, if so, whether the Government will inform General Gordon that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make preparations for his relief?

I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would place that Question on the Paper for to-morrow or Saturday, and I think that course would be more convenient.

I will give Notice for Monday; but, in the meantime, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Foreign Office has received a copy of that letter; and, if so, whether he will lay it on the Table?

Yes; the Foreign Office has received substantially the same information as that which appears in The Times this morning in regard to General Gordon. There are four telegrams, which I will read to the House. They are all from Mr. Egerton to Earl Granville. The first (received on August 6, 1.28 P.M.) is as follows:—

I notice that in one of the telegrams reference is made to the desire of the people to have the old Government back. Can the noble Lord inform us what is meant by that—whether it is the people of Khartoum and neighbourhood who desire the old Government back, or whether it is the desire of the people generally?

This is, as I read it, an expression of the opinion of the messenger who brought this message. It appears to be general in its terms, and to relate to the places through which, I suppose, the messenger passed.

I will ask on Monday whether Her Majesty's Government will consider that desire before deciding that Khartoum and the district shall be evacuated?

said, the date of the Mahomedan month Shaban was given, and it corresponded with the 25th of June, which tallied with the date of the first telegram he had read to the House.

said, that, as the Prime Minister had stated on Saturday that the Representatives of Germany, Austria, and Russia had declined to give any opinion as to the differences between the English and French Governments, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could point out any evidence in the Protocols which substantiated that assertion?

asked the hon. Member to repeat his Question, as he had not the Protocols with him.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether the statement is correct which appears in the Press to-day to the effect that the Transvaal Volksraad have been considering the Convention with closed doors, and there is a doubt as to its ratification?

We have no intelligence on the subject. The consideration of the Convention was delayed till the return of the Delegates, and they have only just returned to the Transvaal. The period for the ratification or rejection is to the end of this month.

said, he had been under the impression that the first Vote about to be taken was that for the Post Office Department.

No; the Inland Revenue Department.

said, he believed that several hon. Gentlemen desired to call attention to various details connected with that Vote. There were certainly some Members of the House who were under the impression that the first Vote to be taken that day would be the Post Office Telegraph Vote; and, consequently, those who were anxious to raise questions upon the present Vote were absent. He was afraid, in consequence of a statement made in answer to a Question he had put, that he had been the means of conveying that impression to more than one hon. Member; and he had certainly been told that the first Vote to be taken would be the Post Office Telegraph Vote.

said, he should be sorry if any hon. Members had been misled; but, at that period of the Session, it was necessary that the order in which the Votes were presented should be adhered to; but any hon. Gentleman could raise a question about the Vote upon Report.

asked if the Government intended to take the Revenue Votes in their order?

said, that, in regard to the Post Office Vote, he had certainly intimated to the hon. Gentleman that, if the time was convenient, he would take the Telegraph Vote before the ordinary Post Office Vote; and, for the convenience of the hon. Member, when they came to the Post Office Vote, he would be ready to postpone that until they had taken the Telegraph Vote.

asked if he was to understand that these Votes included the Supplementary?

Yes.

said, he would like to address a question to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in regard to a certain branch of the Revenue Department. Was the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had had a Motion on the Paper for a considerable time, asking for a Select Committee to be appointed to consider the grievances under which certain officers of the Department considered they were labouring? He should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would give some assurance, on behalf of the Government, that these assumed grievances—for he would not express any opinion himself as to their reality—would be inquired into, and that next Session a Select Committee would be appointed.

said, he could not make any pledge as to next Session; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the grievances of the Inland Revenue officers had been carefully considered already, and an elaborate Report had been presented to the House bearing upon their case. He believed that the attention given to the subject had been exhaustive; but if there were any further remonstrances they should be considered.

asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he was prepared to take any step towards the amalgamation of the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, with the view of saving a number of commissions? He was of opinion that a considerable amount of saving might be effected to the country by such an amalgamation.

said, the amalgamation of the Customs and of the Revenue Departments was by no means a novel question; it had been considered by a Select Committee many years ago, which was specially appointed to inquire into the question, and various steps had been taken to promote the fusion of these two branches of the Public Service. Warehouses had been amalgamated, and the same rules of administration adopted; and the object of the union was being kept steadily in view, in order that it might be realized as changes occurred. There had really been an amalgamation of the two branches at many ports, although not at the principal ports, and the fusion of Departments was being carried out as rapidly as circumstances would permit.

said, he would now propose to take the Post Office Telegraphs Vote.

asked if he was to understand that the question of the salaries paid in the Post Office would be included in this Vote?

No; that will be taken under the Post Office Vote. I propose now to take the Vote for completing the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.

I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House take great interest in the question of telephonic communication; and I think it would conduce to the convenience of the Committee, and also save time, if I at once proceed to explain to the Committee the decision which has been arrived at by the Government upon this subject. Throughout we have been most anxious that the public should enjoy all the possible facilities, with regard to telephonic communication, which are compatible with due regard to the interests of the Revenue. I am free to confess that, during my short official experience, no question that I have had to deal with has presented so many difficulties; and I trust the Committee will accept the assurance that, in attempting its solution, I have been actuated by no other motive than a desire to do what I believe would most conduce to the advantage of the public. I feel that no good would result from occupying the time of the Committee by going over bygone controversies; and, therefore, I will at once state that, after taking into consideration all existing circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that, in order that the public may enjoy the facilities with regard to telephonic communication which, in my opinion, they may fairly claim, it is desirable to give greater freedom to private enterprize by relaxing some of the conditions contained in the licences which have been granted to private Telephone Companies. That being the case, I at once proceed to state how we think that these facilities could be given, so that, on the one hand, the public may have these facilities with regard to telephonic communication, which they have a right to demand; whilst, on the other hand, the Revenue is properly protected. In order to assist me in arriving at a decision on this subject, I, some weeks ago, asked the Telephone Companies to send me a statement of their views upon the matter, stating to me in what respect they considered that the conditions now contained in the telephonic licences ought to be relaxed in the public interest. In reply to that application, I received a statement from the United Telephone Company, and its affiliated Companies, containing three distinct proposals, which I will now proceed to explain. Before doing so, however, I may state that from other Companies, not connected with the United Telephone Company, I also received statements of their views which, except in one particular, did not vary in any important respect from those of the United Telephone Company. The point which they specially insist on demanding is, that they should be secured against competition in those towns in which they have been carrying on telephonic exchange business. I may at once say that that request is one which I do not think for one moment ought to be entertained. Reverting to the three proposals which were submitted to me by the United Telephone Company and its affiliated branches, I will briefly describe them. The first proposal was that the Telephone Companies, in the various localities in which they had been licensed, should be allowed to carry on their business in any manner they might think fit, and that, in lieu of the royalty of 10 per cent now paid to the Post Office on their gross receipts, the Companies would undertake to make good to the Department any loss which the local telegraph revenue might suffer from the development of telephonic communication within such district. They offered to guarantee the Post Office against loss in its local telegraph revenue; from carrying on an unrestricted telephonic business; and they further proposed that, in estimating the telegraph revenue, account was to be taken of its normal growth by estimating what had been its growth during the previous three years. The second proposal contemplated, not the entire abolition of the present royalty of 10 per cent, but its reduction to 5 per cent; that the same guarantee against the loss of local revenue to the Department as that contained in the first proposal should be entered into; and it was further proposed that the present radius for carrying on a telephonic exchange business, which is now usually restricted to four or five miles, should be extended to 15 miles; and that, in other respects, restriction should be removed, which, in all essentials, gave the same freedom as that embodied in the first proposal which I have just described. I think it will conduce to a clear understanding of the subject if, before proceeding to describe the third proposal, I say at once that, at first sight, I was considerably attracted by the proposal of a guarantee, and thought it might offer a solution of the question. When, however, I examined into the matter more closely, I came to the conclusion that it would prove inadmissible. I will explain to the Committee why I came to that conclusion. If we had accepted from any Telephone Company such a guarantee as that which they now propose, it would be obvious that they must be secured against future competition in their business; because, having accepted a guarantee, it would have been palpably unfair immediately to license another Company to compete against them. [Mr. GRAY: No.] Well, that is my opinion; and I think the Committee will agree with me that if there is to be monopoly in telephonic communication, or in any other communication, it had better be in the hands of the Government, which can be controlled, and which is directly amenable to public opinion, rather than that a monopoly should be vested in a private Company. Besides this objection there was another which, even if it had stood alone, would, in my opinion, be quite sufficient to prevent the idea of a guarantee from being entertained. If the Post Office had once accepted the principle of such a guarantee its discretion would have been fettered in introducing any change in the telegraph tariff. That being the case, I have to consider the third proposal of the United Telephone Company, and I will briefly describe it to the Committee. It contemplates no guarantee, but proposes that the existing royalty of £10 per cent should continue to be paid, and that the Companies should be freed from all restrictions in carrying on their business, much in the same way as is contemplated under proposal No. 2. I may add to that, that the Telephone Companies laid great stress, with regard to all these proposals, upon the Department relinquishing the condition we have inserted in private licences, which enables the Post Office to demand an unlimited supply of the patented instruments used by the Telephone Companies. For the reasons I have already stated, I came to the conclusion that proposals Nos. 1 and 2, the essential feature of which was the guarantee, could not be accepted; but I also came to the conclusion that proposal No. 3, the essential feature of which is a continuance of the royalty of £10 per cent, affords the basis for a settlement; and the terms which the Government are now prepared to offer I will now describe under eight heads—(1.) That the Post Office should reserve its right to carry on telephonic business on its own account, or to give licences to any responsible persons to carry on such business in any part of the country, whether in that part of the country a licence had or had not, been, previously given; (2.) That the Post Office would no longer maintain the condition which has been inserted in recent licences, which called, on the part of the Post Office, for an unlimited supply of any patented instruments used by Telephone Companies; (3.) That, as the same objection in principle to a radius of 15 miles applied to a radius of four or five miles, all limitations as to area should be swept away; (4.) That with this abolition of the limitation of radius, and with the extinction of area, the distinction as to the conditions on which Telephone Companies were allowed to carry on business on telephone exchange and trunk wires should not be maintained, and that the same conditions be applied to trunk and exchange wires alike; (5.) That call offices for the despatch of oral messages should be allowed; (6.) That, in lieu of the concessions just described, and with the object of securing a greater simplicity of accounts, the royalty of £10 per cent, now paid on gross receipts, should be extended to receipts from private wire buisness; (7.) That the Post Office should be under no obligation to provide way-leaves, or to erect wires for the Companies; (8.) That, in order to maintain the distinction between the written telegraphic message and oral messages sent by means of telephones, the Telephone Company should not be permitted to receive or deliver a written message at any point. Now, I think it will be obvious to the Committee that so anxious have I been to redeem the pledge that no unnecessary impediment should be thrown in the way of telephonic communication, that in some respects I have conceded more than has been asked for, either by the Companies or by the public. I can only say that I hope the terms which I have offered will be received in the same spirit which has prompted me in making them; and if they are unreservedly accepted as a settlement, I have nothing more to add than this—that all existing licences, as soon as they are returned, shall have the new terms introduced in them, and in any new licences which may be granted the terms which I have just described will be embodied. I have now only to thank the Committee for the patience with which it has listened to a statement which I fear may have been somewhat prolix.

I wish to ask for an explanation in reference to exchange and trunk wires. The present rule is, I think, to charge 10s. a-mile to subscribers for trunk wires; but it is necessary that the subscriber entering into that arrangement should make a deposit of so much a-year. Is that included in the present arrangement?

No. All those conditions will be got rid of.

That being so, I may say to my right hon. Friend, on the part of persons who have asked me to take their cases in hand and lay them before the Committee, that I think they will be perfectly satisfied with the arrangements proposed. Indeed, it appears to me to be as generous an offer as any of the Companies could expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) is, however, connected with the Telephone Companies, which I am not. I have nothing to do with any Telephone Company, and he probably will be able to represent their views more than I can; but, from representations which have been made to me from Manchester, I think the statement of my right hon. Friend will be regarded as satisfactory.

Perhaps, unfortunately for myself, I am connected with an Irish Telephone Company; but I certainly shall not venture to discuss the question before the Committee in that capacity. I have not sought to advance what I considered to be the interests of the Telephone Companies except as connected with the interests of the general public. Now, Sir, I have listened with great interest to the very clear, although very elaborate, statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has made; and I say at once that, as far as I understand the speech—and there are certain slight matters which I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain, and I do not doubt that he will be able to explain them—I think his statement is highly satisfactory, and an exceedingly fair one. In regard to the observations he has made as to the protection of the public and the protection of the Post Office Department, I heartily agree with him, and I think that the provisions he has sketched out in that respect are quite as necessary as he thinks himself. I have no doubt that the arrangement he has sketched out will be fully carried out, not merely in the letter, but in the spirit, and I have no doubt that it will be accepted by the Telephone Companies. I also agree with him that to go back upon old controversies and to reopen old sores is totally unnecessary. I do not think it at all necessary to discuss the reasons which have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman as to why he has been unable to accept proposals Nos. 1 and 2 made to him on behalf of the Telephone Companies. As the matter has now passed beyond that stage, I do not think it is necessary to occupy either the attention of the right hon. Gentleman or that of the Committee by going back to it. I myself think the first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that the claim of any Company to receive a monopoly could not be entertained for a moment, is perfectly just. Such a claim would be as unjustifiable as a claim to restrict the undoubted right of the Post Office to erect and maintain wires itself for the Public Service. There can be no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the Post Office Department, and in the service of the public, is bound to reserve to himself the fullest possible rights, both as to the Post Office Department in competition with existing Companies and as to licences for new Companies. The claim of any Company to establish anything in the nature of monopoly, of course, cannot be conceded. The Companies connected with the United Company have always claimed the right of free competition; and the only objection they have raised has been to an unfair competition on the part of the Post Office Department using the rights and privileges of a great public service to their detriment. I do not think that I need occupy the time of the right hon. Gentleman by discussing those of the eight points he has submitted to the Committee, and of which I thoroughly approve. In regard to most I only ask for a little further explanation, especially in regard to No. 4. The right hon. Gentleman says that, with the abolition of any limit of radius and consequent extension of areas, the distinction between the conditions on which the Companies have hitherto been allowed to use trunk and exchange wires will not be maintained, the Companies being in future able to provide themselves with trunk and exchange wires alike. Then, when I come to No. 7, I find the right hon. Gentleman says that the Post Office incurs no obligation to provide way-leaves, or to erect or maintain wires for the Telephone Companies. I may point out that, of course, there is no obligation at present upon the Post Office to erect wires, either for Telephone Companies or for private individuals. So far as I know, the Department has aright to erect them; but I am not aware that any person has a right to compel it to erect them. But if, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Department shall be under no obligation to erect wires under any circumstances—if he means to convey that the Department will not erect wires under any conditions, the result would be one which I know the right hon. Gentleman, in his present frame of mind, does not contemplate; for instance, I believe, although whether it is in actual work or not I cannot say, that there is a trunk wire between London and Brighton. Now, it would be actually impossible for any Company or private individual to run wires between London and Brighton, or generally between town and town, simply because the Post Office, not as a Department of the State, but as a private purchaser, has obtained the monopoly of way-leaves along all railway lines; and it is only along railway lines that telephone wires for long distances can be run. Therefore, if the Post Office say they will not erect wires between town and town, that would be, in effect, the same as to say that they will not permit the public at all to have the advantage of telephonic communication between town and town. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not contemplate that. But what he means to convey is that the Companies shall have no right to seek to compel the Post Office to erect trunk wires, but that the Post Office shall be free to do so, if they think it advantageous to the public. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance to that effect I think it would be perfectly satisfactory; but if the right hon. Gentleman means to convey that, under no circumstances, will the Post Office run a trunk wire for the service of the public along its different lines, why, then, he simply shuts out the public of the United Kingdom from an enormous advantage. I believe that, at this moment, telephonic communication is carried on in America between towns 300 and 400 miles apart. I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit of fairness which he has manifested; and, in regard to trunk wires, I say that telephonic communication by trunk wire between London and Liverpool, or London and Manchester, or between London and Brighton, cannot be carried out, except with the assistance of the Post Office Department; and if the opposition of the Post Office were pushed to a vexatious extent, the result might be very disastrous to the public interest. No doubt, it is perfectly right for the Department to protect its telegraphic revenue. As I understand the view of the Companies, there is no desire on their part to secure a revenue from trunk wires. What they are desirous to secure is, that those who use the telephone wires shall have facilities in regard to trunk wire communication between town and town; and I am quite certain that they would be perfectly willing, if the Post Office will consent to erect trunk wires, to secure the Post Office from loss by giving to the Post Office all the profit of those trunk wires. I believe they would even go further than that, and guarantee the Post Office a certain amount of revenue from such trunk wires. All I want is some assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will not draw a hard-and-fast line which may deprive the public of the United Kingdom of the advantage which the people of every other civilized country either have, or are about to have, of carrying on conversations freely between persons living in towns at a considerable distance from each other. I am sure that he does not desire to punish the inhabitants of the United Kingdom for having given a monopoly of telegraphic work to the Government by saying—"You shall not have the facilities of this wonderful invention, although the people of Germany, of France, of America, and of every other civilized country in the world enjoy it." Let the right hon. Gentleman protect the public Revenue in the most careful way possible, and let the Department make all the profit they can out of an enterprize which cannot be carried out by other persons, owing to the fact that the Department has purchased the exclusive way-leaves over railway lines; but do not let him, because he has a monopoly, punish the public by not allowing them to derive advantage from a great discovery. The right hon. Gentleman proposes, in consideration of the undoubtedly substantial, and, I may go so far as to say, generous concessions he has enumerated—he proposes, as a condition for those concessions, that the Post Office should receive a royalty upon private wire business. Now, that involves a principle which the Companies may have some difficulty in acceding to. The right hon. Gentleman might as well ask the Companies, or private individuals who run private telegraph wires, to give the Post Office a royalty upon them. He might ask me for a royalty upon erecting a wire to communicate from my own private house to my stables at the end of the garden.

Yes; if a profit was derived from the transaction.

Precisely; but the right hon. Gentleman might just as well ask me for 10 per cent on the rent of the house I occupy, because the Post Office have never pretended that they have any direct or indirect licence to interfere with the erection, by any individual or Company, of a telephone wire between house and house. Surely, if I own a house, I would have the right to run a wire between the house and any portion of the grounds connected with it, and to use there either a telegraphic instrument or a telephone, or both. Who on earth has a right to interfere, or to step in and say that I must pay for it? But if I use a patented instrument, whether a patented telephonic instrument or a patented telegraphic instrument, and I pay the person who belongs to it a royalty for the use of it, the right hon. Gentleman says that he must have a share of the revenue thereby derived. Now, this is not, as far as the profit derived from it is concerned, an important question. The concessions given by the right hon. Gentleman would even be cheaply purchased by assenting to that proposal, if it did not involve an exceedingly dangerous principle; because the right hon. Gentleman says—"If I do certain things in the interest of the public, I ought to be allowed to step in and obtain a portion of the private property of the individual," to which the State has no more right than it has to my hat or coat. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider that point; and, if he does so, I think he will see that his position, whether he claims 10 per cent or ·0001 per cent, is altogether untenable; and I do not see how any Company or private individual could consent to recognize that claim. If once recognized, it might be pushed very much further, and the Government would be able to say to any private individual—"As a concession for giving you certain facilities, we lay claim to a portion of your property, although we have no right to it by law." I do not think it possible to admit that principle; and although it is not of importance financially, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it, and I think he will come to the conclusion that it is quite untenable. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Telephone Companies are not to be permitted to transmit anything in the nature of a written message. I think that is a poor kind of condition to impose, and scarcely worthy of the attitude the Government now take up. At the present moment, the Post Office authorities have a certain number of Telephone Exchanges, and any person subscribing to those Telephone Exchanges has now two privileges which the Post Office refuses to the subscribers to private Telephone Exchanges. One is the privilege of sending a written message, say, to Newcastle or anywhere else where the Post Office has, at this moment, a Telephone Exchange. Say, for instance, that the subscriber desires to send a message to his grocer, or his wine merchant, or anybody else who is not a subscriber to the Exchange. The Post Office officials will transcribe the message for him, and will forward it, charging only 3d. for doing so. Now, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should deprive the subscribers to a Telephone Exchange of this great convenience. I can easily understand how, in any circumstances, it must be an enormous convenience to any subscriber to an Exchange to "ring up" a clerk from the office and say—"Write down a message to so-and-so, next door to the Exchange office, and toll him to attend my sick child, or to supply me with any particular article I want." I do not think it is good policy on the part of the Department, and I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point. I do not think it is good policy for the Department to restrict, in any way, the facilities which are given to the public. I think the policy of the Department ought to be confined, in the first place, to protecting the public, as far as it is in their power, against the evils of monopoly; and, in the next place, to protecting the revenue of the Department against loss. I do not think the policy of the Department should be, in any way, to interfere with the convenience received by the public from the use of the telephone, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to provide a condition, by saying that if the Telephone Companies send written messages for their subscribers, such messages should be recognized as in the nature of telegrams, and a rate charged for them which the Post Office Department charges in its own Telephone Exchange for similar services. The revenue derived from them, after a reasonable deduction for outlay, should be the property of the Post Office. I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the distinction between the Telephone Companies wanting to make a revenue out of a matter of this kind, and rendering their service more attractive to the public. They would willingly, I believe, yield to the Department any revenue they might derive, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would protect the Post Office by saying that written messages should be regarded as telegrams, and that they should only be sent on certain conditions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the suggestion in the same good spirit as that which has actuated him in connection with other details. What I really want to see in this matter is, that the public shall be served in the best possible way. There is one point of detail to which I wish to direct attention. At the present moment, subscribers to the Post Office are permitted to be put in communication with the Telegraph Department of the Post Office; and if they want to send a telegram to Australia, America, or any other part of the world, they can take their telegram to the telephone without quitting their rooms. Subscribers can dictate their messages by telephone to the clerk at the Post Office, who takes them down in writing, and charges them with the cost. I do not see why the same facility should not be given to all those who use the Telephone Exchanges. If the telegraphs, instead of being a Department of the State, were a private trading concern, and any other trading concern offered to erect a wire in connection with the Telegraph Office, so as to give the public greater facilities for sending telegrams, surely any responsible manager in charge of such telegraph business would say that he was very much obliged, and would willingly fall in with such proposal, because it would be to his own advantage. But the Post Office say—"We will not permit anything of the kind, except you charge to each subscriber £5 per annum for the facility of sending telegrams," for which he is, of course, to pay the full price charged for the telegraph system. I recollect the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) saying, upon the question of sixpenny telegrams, that he would demonstrate that the Post Office telegraph wires were only used to the extent of one-third of their capacity.

If you take the number of messages, and spread them equally over the 24 hours, no doubt that would be so; but it will be found that, in the day time, the greatest number are sent, and that many of the more important wires are very much crowded; and before it would be possible to bring the reduced tariff into operation, it would be necessary to lay down 15,000 miles of extra wires.

I do not dispute that. All I suggested was, whether the Post Office was in such a position, and had so much business, that it did not want any more. If the Post Office wants more business, why not facilitate those who wish to bring business to their doors? What I contend is that it is not a reasonable arrangement to impose a preposterous charge of £5 5s. or £5, which no ordinary subscriber will pay. But, on the other hand, it would be perfectly fair to allow the Telephone Companies to give facilities to their subscribers for sending telegrams, simply allowing them to charge the actual cost to them for taking down and transmitting. If that is not done, the public are deprived of a great convenience which they ought to enjoy. I will put it to the Committee what an enormous advantage it would be if a person residing two or three miles away from a telegraph office, who wanted to send a message in the middle of the night through a telephone, were able to say—"Take down that message for such-and-such a place, and send it off by your telephone to the telegraph wire." That would be an enormous advantage; but a subscriber would only want to send a message in that way occasionally, and he would never dream of paying £5 a-year for the privilege. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he imposes a similar charge on his own subscribers; but it is only a nominal charge, and does not really exist. He divides his charge under two heads—one for the use of the telephone, and one for the use of the telegraph. I believe he makes a charge in Newcastle of £14 or £15. He says—"I charge £9 for one service, and £5 for the other;" but if the subscriber says he will give me £9 for the one service, and that he does not require the other, for which he would have to pay £5, the right hon. Gentleman says—"No; you must pay £14." It does not, therefore, become a question simply of £ s. d. It is not a reality, but a mere formality; and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman to take it into his favourable consideration in the interests of the public. If there is any charge made by the Telephone Companies for this additional service, let the revenue go to the Post Office. The Companies do not want it. But what they want is that they should not be impeded in serving the public. I have directed attention to these two or three points, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to arriving at some reasonable arrangement upon them. With regard to the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman generally, I trust and believe that they will be accepted by the Telephone Companies in the generous spirit in which they have been offered. Personally, I think they are fair and reasonable; and if the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that he will himself insist on them, and see that they are really carried out fairly, and in a straightforward manner, without the old policy being pursued of the officials of the Department racking their brains to invent impediments, and to create causes of delay, I believe the public will heartily welcome the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the matter. I might give instances to show the preposterous manner in which the Department has interfered with the working of the Telephone Companies; but I do not wish to rake up old sores. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that he will see his proposals carried through fairly and properly, and in the spirit in which he has spoken to-night, I think the public will have every reason to be satisfied, and I am convinced that experience will show that the Post Office will gain largely and directly, both by way of royalties, and by the increase of business in connection with the ordinary telegraph. The invention of the telephone is one of a marvellous character, and I believe it will, in the future, be of the greatest possible service both to the commercial and the general community. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in conclusion. I have, no doubt, somewhat warmly taken up the question of telephones in this House. Possibly on some occasions in debates, or in written communications with the Department which I have had occasion to make, I may have used irritating words in regard to what appeared to me to be unnecessary and vexatious delays, and which may not unnaturally have been calculated to cause irritation or impatience on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I can only say, on the other hand, that those who have been interested in the working of telephones have within the last few years been irritated at what they deemed the obstructive attitude of the Post Office Department. If, in my language or acts, I have given any offence to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry for it. I, for one, have had the fullest confidence from the beginning that if, as contra-distinguished from some of the officials who naturally, although well-meaning, are too much inclined to take a purely official view of a matter of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman had been able to fix his attention himself to the subject, and had been induced to give it his study, he would be prepared to deal with it in a broad and statesmanlike manner; and while, of course, protecting the Department, and seeing that the public Revenue did not suffer, that he would give the facilities which the public with perfect confidence had a right to expect. I think he has now done so, and I think that our exertions are justified by the result. I therefore offer our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has dealt with the matter, and for the exceedingly fair and straightforward offer which he has made.

There can be no doubt that the use of the telephone is greatly increasing; and, from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and other hon. Members, I am convinced that there is likely to be a very great development of this new means of communication. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General will, I have no doubt, remember that with reference to monopolies Mr. Mill used these words—

"A Government is more often chargeable with interfering to make things dear, than with interfering to make things cheap."

I agree with every word which has been used by previous speakers, as to the appreciation of all those who take an interest in the matter of the very liberal concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General. I am sure we were right in expecting and believing that the time would shortly come when some concession would be made; because our experience, and the experience of the country, has been, in regard to the administration of the Post Office Department, such as could lead us to no other conclusion. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to open the debate, and that, by doing so, he has prevented the possibility of any acrimonious discussion taking place. Reference has been made to the use of the telephone in the United States. I happen to know this important fact, which I may mention to the Committee—that, in proportion to the facilities which have been given for the use of the telephones in America, so have the revenues of the telegraph business increased, and very largely too. I ventured to say something of the same kind when seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), in favour of sixpenny telegrams; and after the concession now made in regard to the telephone I am certain that the business of the telegraphs will also be largely increased, and that our experience will be similar to that of the United States—namely, that just in proportion as the telephone business increases, so the revenue received from telegrams will also increase. I fully agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) as to the desirability of giving facilities for the erection of trunk wires, in order to send messages by telegraph, after having conveyed them, in the first instance, by telephone. I see no particular reason why there should be no extension of area, or why the whole business should not be carried on upon a sort of Free Trade principle. Take the instance of Brighton. The public are well cared for there, but are not able to hold communication with London; and I hope my right hon. Friend, when he rises to reply, will kindly say a word on that point. To give an illustration of some of the past difficulties, I may say that in the towns of Plymouth and Devonport, the latter of which I represent, there have been difficulties which will be very familiar to the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, it has been impossible to have any telephonic business done there at all in connection with the Post Office. All those difficulties are now entirely set at rest. As I understand now, any Company—the United Telephone Company, for instance—may open an Exchange anywhere. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government opened their telephonic service at Plymouth with something like 150 subscribers; but that the number has since been reduced to something like 40. The general experience of the system was that the business conducted by means of private enterprize there was very much more successful than the efforts of the Government. Although I do not take exception to the statement of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), that the time may come when the Government may possibly compete satisfactorily with the Companies, I agree with him that the public ought to have the facilities they demand supplied to them in the cheapest way, whether by the Government or by private enterprize. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clear way in which he has given these concessions; and I trust we may hope that there will be no serious delay in putting them into execution.

I desire to join with other hon. Members in recognizing the importance of the concessions made by the Postmaster General. It is well known that considerable dissatisfaction has prevailed in regard to the present arrangements for telephonic communication, and there are reasons why that dissatisfaction should now cease, after the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I think some allowance ought to be made for the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, on account of their being hampered with the burden of the large expenditure incurred when the Government took over the telegraphs. We all know that the price paid for the telegraphs was enormously in excess of their value, and the Government have had to contend for years with that difficulty, and therefore have been unable to make any steady advance in the improvement of telephonic communication. But now, I think, we are in a position, after a relaxation which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make, to expect that the public will be satisfied with the telephonic communication, and to see that other advances are made in the same direction. I can only repeat that the public will recognize and thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done on their behalf.

The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has very properly deprecated our going into any byegone stories; but there is one point to which I must direct the attention of the Committee. Telephones were not invented until long after the Government acquired the Post Office Telegraphs. Therefore, they did not purchase any rights in connection with telephonic communication. Towards the end of last Parliament a Bill was introduced by the Postmaster General, which contained a clause giving the Government a right over the telephones which had been invented and brought into use since their purchase of the telegraphs. Now, that appeared to me to be the confiscation of the invention. I strongly opposed that clause, and, with the assistance of some of my hon. Friends, managed to induce the Government to drop it. Since then, however, in consequence of some judicial decision, the Post Office have acquired a legal right; but I do not think they ever got a moral right; and they ought to treat the Telephone Companies, as far as possible, as if the Government had not violently, and, in my opinion, not very honestly, laid hands on this invention. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that one of his proposals is that the difference between trunk lines and local lines shall be done away with; and he proposes that the Post Office shall not be compelled to put up wires for the Telephone Companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) criticized this proposition, and he has said that the Post Office ought to be willing to give facilities for erecting trunk lines, if the Companies themselves are not able to put them up. Now, I have no unfavourable criticism to offer on that part of my right hon. Friend's proposals. It seems to me that if the Post Office place a Telephone Company in the same position, as nearly as possible, as they would be if the Post Office had not seized hold of the invention, we have no right to ask the Post Office to do anything for them in aid of their requirements; and it is for the Post Office to consider carefully the propriety of setting up trunk wires between the large towns.

I only suggested that they should erect them on the railway lines over which they have the right of way-leave.

In addition to railway lines, there are the roads and canals of the country. It must be remembered that the Post Office pay, in many cases, under the Act for way-leave along the railways, a yearly charge of about £1 per mile. I know that way-leave and maintenance is a very important item. There is one point on which it appears to me the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman should in fairness be modified, if the Committee regard it from the standpoint from which I look at it. What we should aim at appears to me to be to place the Telephone Companies, as nearly as possible, in the position they would have occupied if the Post Office had not violently laid hands on the invention. I do not disapprove of competition on the part of the Post Office. By all means let us have competition. But how can we have free competition if the Post Office charge private Companies with a royalty of 10 per cent? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot, in fairness and in the interests of the public, reduce that royalty? I am satisfied the telephone business would be greatly increased in the country by a reduction of the royalty now charged. There was one point which my right hon. Friend did not make as clear as I think he ought. He said that call-houses were to be permitted. These call-houses are places where any member of the public can go and communicate with any member of a Telephone Exchange. Is there to be any limit as to the price to be charged? [Mr. FAWCETT: No.] I think that is perfectly right, and perfectly satisfactory. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in the disputes which have existed between the Post Office and the Telephone Companies, has endeavoured to meet his adversaries in the fairest and most conciliatory spirit. In the interests of the public, all I would suggest in addition is, that he should consider the propriety of reducing the royalty, which, at present, prevents the Telephone Companies from competing with the Post Office.

I wish to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) to the way in which the Post Office Accounts are given. At page 127, it seems to me that the Votes present two different systems of making out the accounts, especially in regard to the items for labour.

The explanation is, that the persons enumerated in the Estimate are persons employed and paid by the Postmaster General. They are, as a matter of fact, upon the Staff, and receive definite wages for definite work, and the other item is a lump sum for local labour where it has been necessary to employ local labour.

In reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), as to the policy of the Department, imposing a heavy royalty of 10 per cent on the gross receipts, I should like to say a word. No doubt, that is an enormous royalty. I do not press it upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman; but, of course, he fully understands that in insisting upon that royalty he is virtually imposing a tax upon the public. The Telephone Companies are like a tea merchant, who has to collect the duty upon tea. He cannot pay it out of his own pocket; and, therefore, he must pay it out of the pockets of the people who buy the tea. I have no doubt that the Telephone Companies, when they come to consider the new basis of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, will ask for a reduction of this enormous royalty of 10 per cent on the gross earnings, and probably they would ask to have it reduced by 5 per cent. What they will say will be this—that if the Government grant a reduction of this enormous tax, the whole of that reduction which the Government concedes to them will immediately be given to the subscribers. For instance, if the Government reduce their demand from 10 to 5 per cent, whatever that 5 per cent yields will instantly be handed over to those who use the telephones. The Companies themselves have no wish to put it in their own pockets; but, of course, the right hon. Gentleman will not permit the Telephone Companies to do their work as cheaply as they could do it, if he insists upon retaining this charge. I wish the Government and the Committee thoroughly to understand that the claim of the Telephone Companies to a reduction of the royalty is not made on their own behalf for the purpose of putting that which they now pay, in the shape of royalty, into their own pockets, but in order that they may be permitted to give the full advantage of it to the public.

I hope it will not be thought that I am insensible to the manner in which my proposals have been received by the Committee if I refer, for one single instant, to a somewhat personal remark of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). Nothing could be more kindly than the way in which the hon. Member spoke about my personal endeavours; but in some remarks which he let fall he tried, I think, to draw a distinction between the officials of the Post Office and myself. [Mr. GRAY: Hear, hear!] Now, I do not think anything could be more unfair than for the head of a Department to allow such a distinction to be drawn. I look upon myself as being absolutely and unreservedly responsible for everything that has been done. I do not mean to say that there have not been any mistakes or delay; but my short sketch of the matter will show that it is an extremely difficult one to deal with. Whatever mistakes have been committed, and whatever delay may have taken place, I hope the hon. Member, and other hon. Members who are interested in this subject, will blame the Postmaster General, who is responsible to Parliament, and not the officials of the Post Office, who, I can only say, work with unwonted zeal to serve the public to the best of their ability. With regard to the remarks which have been made in the course of the discussion, I will deal with them, as far as I can, seriatim. In saying that no obligation should be imposed upon the Post Office to erect wires or provide way-leaves, I think it only fair to be as explicit as possible; but I do not mean, in making that statement, to say that, under no circumstances whatever, would the Post Office erect wires for the Telephone Companies, or under no circumstances whatever grant a way-leave at a proper rent; but it must be borne in mind that the Department representing the public have paid a heavy sum for the way-leaves they possess over the railways, and they are, therefore, bound not to give any general right, but to consider every application strictly on its merits. With regard to whether any greater facilities can be afforded for allowing messages which are sent, in the first instance, by the telephone, to be forwarded by telegraph, although I do not see my way at present, I will again look into the subject. I recognize the principle that all I have to do is to afford the utmost facilities to the public, with due protection to the Revenue. On the subject of the royalty of 10 per cent, I understood that that was an essential feature of one of the proposals of the Telephone Companies. Of course, they invited us to reduce it. There is this disadvantage in a Government having a monopoly of any sort which presses on any particular industry—for instance, it might be for the interests of the public for any person to come forward and offer to deliver letters in London at the charge of a half-penny, or one-half less than the charge now imposed by the Post Office; but the Government monopoly must be taken with its disadvantages as well as its advantages, and it is not necessarily an objection to it that any part of the service may be done more cheaply. I have already answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). We do not propose to regulate the charges to be made for the use of call offices when established by the Companies. We allow the charge to be fixed by the Companies, on the understanding that they hand us over a certain portion of their receipts. [Mr. GRAY: That is 10 per cent.] Yes; 10 per cent. Why it is proposed to extend this royalty to private wires is not so much with the object of increasing the Revenue, which would be very trifling, but for the purpose of simplifying the accounts, and thus obviating disputes. I think the hon. Member for Carlow is under an error in putting the point he did. Suppose he laid down a telephone wire from his house to his own stables, that would be a private arrangement. What we propose to do is to levy this royalty on the receipts handed over to the Company. I now think that I have answered all the points which have been referred to in the course of the discussion; and I can only thank the Committee for the way in which the proposals of the Government have been received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the point raised in reference to written messages?

I must confess that I do not see my way to making any concession upon that point. I think that an essential distinction must be maintained. It would make, I am afraid, a serious hole in the telegraph revenue if written messages were allowed to be sent. I think the hon. Member will see there is an essential difference between telephone messages and telegraph messages.

An oral message would not be objected to?

No; I said that all the telephone messages would be oral, and the only distinction would be that a telephone message must be spoken, not written. That is really the cardinal point of difference. I have only, in conclusion, to repeat the statement I made at the commencement of this Sitting—that if the Companies will accept these terms as a final settlement of the question, there is no reason whatever why the licences should not be amended at once. Of course, it would take some time to put it into legal form; but there will be no delay in considering the changes it will be necessary to introduce; and, in regard to any new licences to be granted, they will include the new terms.

I have no desire to prolong the discussion; but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this one point, and to include it with the concessions and arrangements he has already proposed. The right hon. Gentleman has disavowed any responsibility in reference to the procuring of way-leaves; but I understand that one of the greatest difficulties met with in reference to the development of the telephone is the granting of way-leaves. Will it not be desirable to consider, before next Session, or any other time, some means of providing, by Bill or otherwise, for the Post Office Department to be able to take even compulsory powers?

Nonsense.

Although my noble Friend says "Nonsense," I think that something should be done for reducing the difficulty now experienced in obtaining way-leaves.

Private individuals must expect to have difficulties in reference to the granting of way-leaves. The only difficulty that ought to be considered by the Government is where, as between town and town, the only method of communication is along the line of a Railway Company. The Government have purchased exclusive way-leaves over all such lines; and however willing a Railway Company might be to permit telephone wires to run along their lines, the Post Office might positively prohibit it. I think the Government ought to say—"We will be prepared to grant these way-leaves, if a proper consideration is paid for them." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to insure that his propositions, which must already have been drawn up in black and white, should be sent out immediately; and if they are accepted by the Companies, that then, even pending the completion of legal formalities, they may be adopted, although, perhaps, without conferring absolute rights, without interfering with the rights and privileges which the Post Office propose to reserve for themselves. Pending the completion of the formalities that may be necessary, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman might be virtually put in force. Sometimes, as he is aware, a question of this kind does not mean a week or two, but months, and sometimes years. There have been some cases in which there has been a delay of a year and a-half over a simple question which, in the first instance, appeared as though it might be settled in five minutes. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give the Committee some assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay.

I think, in a matter involving many business details, it would be unwise to give an assurance like that, except the pledge on my part that everything will be done on the part of the Department to prevent unnecessary delay.

I am quite content with an assurance of that nature.

With regard to the important question of way-leaves on railways, the Government are bound not to grant such a number as would cripple the business of the Department. At the same time, I am not desirous of pursuing anything like a dog-in-the-manger policy; but it must be borne in mind that many of the railway lines are at present almost fully occupied by wires, and there is no more room for additional ones. Suppose along a particular railway—and this is no imaginary case—there is, at the present time, only room for a certain number of additional wires. Owing to an increase in telegraph business, arising from a reduction in the tariff, or from any other cause, the Post Office may probably have to erect these additional wires. If, however, they had leased the remaining way-leaves to a private Telephone Company, we should find ourselves in this difficulty—there being no room for the additional wires the Post Office might require, no other alternative would be open to us but to put the wires underground; a large additional expense would have to be incurred; and the public would, I think, have a right to complain that their money had been wasted in order to promote the interests of a private Company. I mention this as an illustration to show that we are bound in these matters to proceed with extreme caution; therefore, while we must be careful not to give everything a Company may claim as a right, we shall be perfectly prepared to inquire fully into every application that may be made to us.

All I wanted was some assurance that impediments of a purely obstructive nature would not be imposed by the Post Office. Of course, any provision of a reasonable or protective nature they are entitled to make. The right hon. Gentleman has given me an instance; let me give him another. I am acquainted with the case of a Dock Company which owned a certain piece of ground, and they gave to a Railway Company the right of running a tunnel under it. They said—"We will not give you the property; but we will only allow you to run your line under the tunnel." A short time afterwards a Telephone Company proposed to carry telephone wires over the railway, and the Post Office were prepared to accede to the proposal on exacting payment for the privilege; but the Dock Company said—"No; this property is ours, not yours," and they refused permission. The right hon. Gentleman stepped in and said—"Unless we get something from the Company, which involves the recognition of a legal right —which legal right, however, the Company did not possess—we will cut down the wires." Now, that I call obstruction, and not a protection of the property of the Government in their own interests. At the same time, I am desirous of saying that I fully recognize the fair spirit manifested by the right hon. Gentleman in the concessions he has made, and I thank him most cordially for them.

criticized the manner in which the accounts connected with the Post Office and Telegraph Service were presented, and asked the Postmaster General whether, in future, in giving the results of the working by means of a capital account of the Post Office Department, he could not present them in a better form than at present?

I believe that these accounts are considered by experts; and, so far as appears to myself, they are very clearly given. We have no separate capital account at the Post Office; but if my hon. and gallant Friend will speak to me upon the subject, I will carefully consider any suggestion he may make.