in the price of shares. A great deal had been said as to the extraordinary nature of the agreement between the Government and the telegraph companies; and the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) said they would have to dip their hands should be carried out; but to show how ill-founded these fears were he read a letter from a very eminent firm of capitalists in the City, dated the 21st of July, as follows: I beg to inform you that we shall be glad to guarantee to the Post Office a yearly income of 4 per cent on the capital proposed to be raised under the provisions of the Bill now before Parliament, for the purpose of purchasing the property of the different telegraphic companies, on the understanding that we are to receive the net income from the telegraphs for fifteen years. We are ready to deposit with the Bank of England such guarantee as may be necessary." He hoped this offer of 4 per cent would tend to allay any apprehensions existing in the minds of hon. Members. He did not wish to detain the Committee any longer, although it had been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. LevesonGower) that his speeches upon this matter were too short. That was not a common complaint in the House of Commons, and he thought he might venture now and then to indulge in brevity, if only for the sake of example. after the completion of a line of railway to take it into their own hands. But this provision only applied to railways constructed after the passing of the Act of 1844; and, consequently, the parties who made those lines did so knowing that they were liable to have that Act put in opera-into the Consolidated Fund if this Bill tion as against them. Those parties had therefore no right to complain; but there was no such Act as that of 1844 applying to telegraphs. The persons who constructed railways after that Act knew that the undertakings might be taken up by the Government, and yet they were to have twenty-five years' purchase on a three years' average. Again, as to competition, there was nothing in the Act of 1844 to prevent the railways from being subjected to competition; nor was there anything in any Act referring to railways of which he was aware which laid down that the Government must not compete in railways. It was said that the Postmaster General might obtain an Act to enable him to transmit telegraph messages, and otherwise to carry on the business of a telegraph company without purchasing the interests of the existing companies. No doubt he might; but would not the whole House come down and resist such a proposal did any Government venture to make it? Let him take the price of the shares in those companies. At the time when this bargain was made the price of the shares of the principal company was, he thought, £172 108. He believed that was on the 25th of May, though he was not quite sure. Now, he did not think the arbitrator would give less than the price of the shares in the market, and certainly he would add something on account of the purchase being a compulsory one. The compensation would be twenty years' purchase of the net profits of the companies, and the question as to what the net profits amounted to would be decided by the arbitrators, who would, of course, take into consideration the depreciable nature of the property and the sum laid by for repairs. Mention had been made of the immediate rise in the price of the shares as soon as the negotiations had assumed a definite shape. But the certainty attaching to a Government offer almost amounting to a Government guarantee, coupled with the establishment by a Parliamentary Committee of the soundness of the various undertakings it was proposed to purchase, would naturally cause an immediate and no inconsiderable rise Amendment negatived. In reply to an hon. MEMBER, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER explained that the Government had agreed to grant liberal compensation to those officers of the telegraph companies who were not re-employed by the Post Office. Clauses 5 to 14, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 15 (Postmaster General to make Regulations for Conduct of Business, and to fix Charges). MR. AYRTON objected to the clause, on the ground that it was really not appropriate to the present Bill, but properly belonged to the Money Bill which was to be introduced next Session. Besides, at present messages were forwarded from one part of the metropolis to another for 6d., and if this clause passed in its present form it would be tantamount to charging the people of the metropolis for the benefit of the rest of the country. He moved that at the end of the first paragraph the fol lowing words be inserted :-"Except for the transmission of messages within the limits of the metropolis." This would allow the rate of charge for the metropolis to be in the hands of the Postmaster General, and he hoped that official would keep the price as it was at present--namely, at 6d. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, although the messages from one part of the metropolis to the other were only charged at the rate of 6d., yet in most cases the companies charged porterage, and the price was thus brought up to 18. Now under the Post Office system no porterage would be charged, therefore the people of the metropolis would be in no worse position than they were at present. The hon. and learned Member forgot that if they left out this part of the Bill they would leave out the consideration to the public. The Select Committee had considered the matter, and their decision might be taken. MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, that messages were carried from one part of the metropolis to another for 6d. MR. NORWOOD observed that the only company he found to carry them at that rate was the Electric and International. MR. AYRTON said, as the clause stood the Postmaster General could not make an exceptional rate for the metropolis. He wished to have power given to the Postmaster General to do so. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE. QUER said, that there was no compulsion on the Postmaster General in respect of the price to be charged, further than that 18. was to be the maximum. The Post Office attached great importance to uniformity of charge. He was aware that the nominal price for the transmission of messages from one part of the metropolis to another was at present 6d., but porterage brought the price up to 18. in most cases. It was desirable that no change should be made which would alter the financial bearing of the Bill. MR. HARVEY LEWIS objected to an increase of 100 per cent being put on the charge for local messages in the metropolis. MR. LABOUCHERE complained that the metropolis, like the Jews in the Middle Ages, was looked upon on all occasions as a fair object of plunder. He protested against its being taxed for the benefit of Scotchmen and Irishmen. There was no doubt that under the clause metropolitan messages might be charged 18., and he VOL. CXCIII. [THIRD SERIES.] objected to such a system being introduced. He desired to forward his messages for 6d., as he was able to do at present. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would divide upon his Amendment. MR. KARSLAKE hoped that hon. Gentlemen would bear in mind that 1s. was to be the maximum price. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN called attention to the fact that the metropolis was not the only place where a message could be forwarded for 6d., because you could send a telegram from Dublin to Bray, or Dublin to Kingstown, for 6d., and he should not like to see that charge increased. MR. LEVESON-GOWER said, he was anxious that telegraphic communication should be made cheap to the entire country; but he did not think it would be fair to raise the price paid for the transmission of messages in the metropolis. MR. TURNER believed that the 6d. rate in the metropolis was charged in very few instances compared with the 18. rate. Uniformity of rate was so essential to the success of a measure of that kind that he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. If, however, it was pressed, he must vote against it. The benefit which the tradesmen as well as the merchants of London would derive from that Bill would be very great indeed; and he did not think the metropolis would lose anything by it. MR. CANDLISH said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider the question of a reduction of rate for short distances as applicable to towns. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he held in his hand the rates of porterage charged by the Electric and International Telegraph Company for the delivery of messages. Those rates were as follows:-Under half a mile, no charge; over half a mile and under one mile, 6d., and by express messenger, 18.; over one mile and under two miles, 18., and by express messenger, 28.; over two and under three miles by messenger on foot, 18. 6d., and by express messenger 3s. Under that Bill the people of London would in all cases get their messages porterage free. He could not consent to depart from the principle of uniformity of rate. MR. WATKIN said, he thought that the principle of the reduced rate ought to be applied to all those large towns in which it was at present adopted. 3 F The Committee divided:-Ayes 25; Noes 68: Majority 43. MR. AYRTON said, he was willing to have the scope of his Amendment extended so as to embrace all other places besides the metropolis, which now enjoyed the advantage of the 6d. rate. MR. CHILDERS said, he could not concur in the objections urged to the uniform rate by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. Still he confessed he was one of those who believed they would ultimately come to a uniform 6d. rate, though at first it might be expedient to charge 18. The argument now was precisely the same as that used against Mr. Rowland Hill's Post Office Reform. MR. E. POTTER appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to a reduction of the rate to 6d., which would at once settle the question of uniformity. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 16 to 21, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 22 (Postmaster General to pay Rates, &c.). COLONEL BARTTELOT said, it was proverbial that both railway companies and electric telegraph companies had ment had not been carried out and was either never been assessed, or the assessstill pending. He wanted to know whether it was the intention of his right hon. Friend to leave things as they were or to have the property assessed, though such assessment had not been made up to the present. MR. HENLEY pointed out that the clause would require amendment, otherwise this property would enjoy a permanent exemption. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHETHE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that it was intended to have QUER said, he was a great believer in the the property pay the rates on assessment 6d. rate, and so also was Mr. Scudamore, as Government property. who might be said to be the author of the Bill. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that they must ultimately come to it; but that it would not be prudent to begin with so great a reduction. They ought to afford themselves an opportunity of seeing their way in that matter, and they ought not to make too great and sudden a jump. Amendment negatived. Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 27, after the words "part of five words," to insert the words “Provided always, That for messages sent and delivered within the limits of all corporate towns and all cities having a population of more than thirty thousand, the rate for the first twenty words shall not exceed six pence."-(Mr. Watkin.) MR. BAZLEY said, he saw no just ground for making a distinction in this matter between persons living in a town or city above 30,000 inhabitants, and those residing in a city or town with a population below that number. He cautioned the Committee against establishing any such system of discrimination. COLONEL SYKES feared that a 6d. tariff would result in a burden being imposed on the Consolidated Fund. MR. MONSELL recommended the immediate adoption of a 6d. charge, the examples of France and Switzerland having shown that a reduced price led to a great increase in the number of messages. Question put, "That those words be there inserted." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would look to it. MR. BAZLEY moved to leave out in line 6 the words "the passing of this Act," and insert "such purchase or acquisition." Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 24 (Providing for Payment of Costs to Railway and Telegraph Companies if Objects of Act not carried out). MR. AYRTON asked how contracts entered into by the telegraph companies would be enforced against them when the telegraphs were vested in the Crown? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would consult the Attorney General on the subject before the next stage of the Bill. MR. AYRTON said, that a similar question had arisen when the Government undertook to grant annuities. The proper course would be to have the Postmaster General liable to be sued as a subject in any place where the contract had been made or damage had arisen in violation of the contract. Clause agreed to. Schedule and Preamble agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. POOR RELIEF BILL.-(Lords.)-[BILL 186.] Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 4 (Consent of Meeting of Guardians sufficient for the Formation of a School District). Government to withdraw the Bill; and said he must support the Motion to report Progress, although it was with great regret that he opposed a Bill which had come from the Lords, and had been carried through the Upper House by the noble Earl at the head of the Poor Law Board (the Earl of Devon). This House had in former Sessions rejected the obnoxious clauses of the Bill. MR. LABOUCHERE said, it was too late in the Session to discuss these religious MR. SCLATER-BOOTH explained that last year certain portions of the Poor Law Bill were withdrawn because there was not time for their discussion in the other House, although they had been discussed in this; but in the present Session the Bill had gone through the other House first, so that there was not the same reason for withdrawing the Bill that there was for withdrawing part of last year's Bill; and there was only one recommendation of the Select Committee embodied in this Bill upon which the House had not already expressed its opinion. MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, he wished to make an appeal to the Secretary of the Poor Law Board against proceeding further with the Bill. It contained several ob-clauses. jectionable clauses, which had been repeatedly brought forward, and as often withdrawn. They had now come to the fag-end of the Session, sitting till three o'clock in the morning, the only object seeming to be to hurry through Business in a manner which would certainly bear bitter fruits hereafter. There could be no satisfaction in going on with this Bill at this period of the Session, and it was most remarkable that the Government should now change their tactics on the Bill, and attempt to rush it through the House, simply on the ground of the House of Lords having made some supposed improvements in it. He would suggest that it should be withdrawn, and brought forward early in another Session, when it might receive due consideration. He should move that the Chairman report Progress. MR. KINNAIRD reminded the Committee that the Scotch as well as the metropolitan Members strongly objected to the Bill, and expressed a hope that the Government would not prolong the Session by pressing forward so obnoxious a mea sure. MR. SYNAN hoped the Bill would be proceeded with. MR. T. CHAMBERS said, the Government had felt, on former occasions, that the objections urged against the clauses were such as they could not resist, and had therefore withdrawn them. These objections remained in full force, and why should not the Government then give way? The Bill introduced entirely new principles into the administration of the Poor Law. Was it to the credit of the Government that those clauses should be introduced within five days of prorogation, and that the Bill should be pressed forward in such a state of the House as this, when half the Benches were empty, and every Member who took an interest in it had left town? VISCOUNT GALWAY appealed to the MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he hoped the Committee would not be led away into reporting Progress on an occasion which did not call for it. Already half an hour had been wasted in fruitless speaking. The Bill did not relate to Scotland; but it involved an Imperial question on a subject that had been carefully considered by a Committee which sat three years, and which agreed upon clauses mainly to the effect of those before the Committee. The circumstances of past Sessions had prevented clauses being discussed in this House in time to get a Bill through the other House; and therefore the Department had wisely begun this year in the other House. There was abundance of time for the discussion necessary now, and therefore he hoped Progress would not be reported. MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, it was admitted that there had been a deviation from the regular course of proceeding, and that this Bill came cut and dry from the other House at a time when there was not a fair opportunity to discuss it in this. The Act which brought so much credit to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) was discussed in this House first. He must continue to offer such opposition as he could to the progress of this Bill, against which the Guardians of his borough had petitioned. MR. C. P. VILLIERS said, the clauses | Catholic religion. If that was so, what objected to were before this House in 1865; change was necessary as regarded adults? they had been well-considered, and nothing had been said on the subject now that had not been said before. The only object of the clauses was to provide a means of giving effect to the law, which had been evaded. The arguments for reporting Progress were used three years ago, and no doubt would, if the occasion should arise, be repeated three years hence. MR. THOMSON HANKEY said, that there were many useful provisions in the Bill, and he hoped that no obstruction would be offered to its consideration. Motion negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Clause 6 (A separate Creed Register to be kept in every Workhouse and Pauper school). MR. T. CHAMBERS moved the omission of the clause. The professed object of it and of the following clauses to Clause 12 was, he said, to secure religious liberty in workhouses and workhouse schools. If the present law did not secure that religious liberty, he, as a strong Protestant, would desire to see the law altered; but the change now proposed would interfere with religious liberty. Already adequate protection was given by law to the religious liberty of the inmates of work houses, whether adults or orphans. In the Act of last Session additional provision had been made for the education of orphan children according to the religion of the parents or guardians. And as regarded adults, every person who went into a workhouse, or who was on the relief list, was entered as of a particular form of religious persuasion. Was not that a Creed Register? The provisions of this Bill were perfectly unnecessary. Even Dr. Manning himself declared in a letter to the poor Catholics of his diocese, which he caused to be posted on the chapel doors in Westminster, that the Catholic inmates of workhouses had their rights under the existing law of the land. It depended on themselves whether they should enjoy or be deprived of them. They had nothing to do but to ask for them. If they demanded them respectfully and firmly, those rights would not be refused. And what were those rights? Every adult in the workhouse might demand the visit of a Catholic clergyman and the ministrations of the If they did more, they would not be protecting but interfering with religious liberty. If that was so, the adult Catholic inmates of the workhouse had no ground of complaint. Then with regard to the Catholic children, power was given for their removal to the Catholic school certi fied under the Poor Law. What more could be done? But a perfectly novel provision was made in this Bill, introduced for the first time into English law. If they desired to alter the law, let the Government bring forward their Bill at the beginning of the Session, when there was time to discuss it. For these reasons he asked the Committee to refuse at this stage of the Session to enter into the controversy which must ensue if the clauses were proceeded with. SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH said, perhaps it would be convenient were he to state the reasons which had induced the Government to bring forward these clauses. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) had stated that the Bill of 1834 contained a clause which provided that no persons should be compelled to attend against their will any religious service of a religion different from his own; but he had not stated that the order of the Poor Law Board, of which he approved, was identical with the clause in this Bill. That order provided that the religion of the father and mother should be that of the child, and that no orphan should be instructed in any religion against the wishes of its relatives. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also omitted to state that every impediment had been thrown in the way of that intention being carried into effect, while the clauses now proposed were the same as those which were approved by the Committee of 1864. These clauses did not merely apply to Roman Catholics, because they equally concerned paupers of every religious persuasion, although certainly a large proportion of the inmates of our workhouses were Roman Catholics. It was true, as was stated by the hon. and learned Member, that under an order of the Poor Law Board a register of the religion of every pauper was kept in workhouses; but that register was not open to public inspection, the Guardians alone being permitted to examine it. The fact was that the paupers frequently did not know their legal rights, and even those who did did |