few years, if this Bill passed, it would | Commerce represented by the hon. Membe found that the Canal Companies in the West of England were unable to communicate with the Docks in the East of London. He therefore thought that those who opposed this Bill were justified in departing from the usual custom of the House; and he entertained a strong hope that the Bill would not be allowed to pass in its present shape. If the Railway Company wished to construct a new line in this direction, let it avail itself of the usual course, and bring in a Bill for the purchase of the land and the construction of the line. The only explanation given to the House by the Chairman of the Committee for granting this concession to a Railway Company was that it would save the Company a sum of £2,500,000; and for the sake of effecting that saving the whole of the Canal traffic of the West of England was to be sacrificed. He trusted that the House would divide against the unjustifiable mode of action proposed by the Bill.

MR. ROBERTSON said, he intended to be very brief in his remarks, as he knew the House did not regard with much favour a protracted debate upon a Private Bill. All he wished to call the attention of the House to was that this was not the absorption of a Canal by a Railway Company. It might be so according to the letter, but it was certainly not according to the spirit. This was a case of an existing Canal which had already a railway constructed along a portion of its banks, and it was now desired to utilize the whole of the property not only as a Canal, but as a railway. By sanctioning the construction of the railway the Canal would not be destroyed; but it would be converted into a better Canal for the purpose of traffic than it was now. He spoke from facts that were proved before the Committee, and from facts within his own knowledge; and he altogether repudiated the assertion that the passing of this Bill would involve the destruction or even the slightest injury to the Regent's Canal. The question, however, was whether the House in this case was to be governed by its ordinary Rules, or to establish a new precedent in the interest of special constituencies either in the West of England, Warwickshire, or any other part of the country. With regard to the resolution of the Chambers of

ber for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he cer-
tainly could have no great feeling in its
favour when he found that it was a
general resolution respecting Canals
generally, and calling upon the House
to pursue a certain course in regard to
them. The hon. Member for Glasgow
(Mr. Anderson) said that the public were
not represented before the Committee.
He evidently was ignorant of the fact
that 76 Petitions were presented against
the Bill, and that the Committee sat for
20 days upon it. He had never seen so
many counsel assembled, and, so far as
he was able to judge, every interest was
represented and fully inquired into.
Then, in regard to the Report, all the
special recommendations of the Board
of Trade were given effect to in the
Report of the Committee. The hon.
Member for Glasgow said they made no
special Report; that was altogether a
mistake. They not only made a special
Report, but they reported that they had
inserted clauses in the Bill to carry out
the recommendations of the Board of
Trade. Under these circumstances, he
would ask the House, in justice to those
who had obtained a decision of a Com-
mittee upstairs, not to be tempted to
enter into an analysis of the composition
of the majority by whom the Preamble
was passed, but to adopt the recommen-
dations which were arrived at. If they
were to enter into an analysis of this
kind, where were they to stop?
Were
they to inquire into the character of the
Chairman? If so, the character of the
hon. Member for Herefordshire (Sir
Joseph Bailey) was above all suspicion,
and were his views to have no effect at
all? He contended that this was too
late to discuss the general merits of the
Bill. The House had assented to its
principle on the second reading, and had
referred the consideration of its details
to a Committee upstairs; and they were
bound now to support the decision their
own Committee had arrived at.
hoped the House would adhere in this
case to the ordinary practice and custom,
and would allow the Bill to be read a
third time.

He

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY said, he knew that important Business was about to be brought before the House, and the value of the time which was now at the disposal of the House; and he would, therefore, not occupy the attention of the

Y 2

House for more than a few moments. | on an ex parte statement, either from the He thought, however, that the House hon. Member for Cheltenham (Baron ought to consider that a grave question De Ferrieres), or the hon. Member for was raised when they were asked to re- Gloucester (Mr. Monk), or the hon. Memject a Bill which the Committee and the ber for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel), or from House had sanctioned. He had heard hon. Members who were interested in the statement of the hon. Baronet who the West of England; but to sustain the presided over the Committee (Sir Joseph decision arrived at after careful inquiry Bailey), and also that of the hon. Mem- by an able and impartial Committee. ber for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel), who admitted that a more able Chairman could not have been appointed, although he advocated the other side of the question. The whole of these matters had been fully investigated. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) said the Committee was a Hybrid Committee. No doubt, it was a Hybrid Committee, but that made the decision of the Committee of greater importance. The Bill was not submitted to an ordinary Committee of four Members, but to a Committee of nine, five of whom were added by the Committee of Selection. The hon. Member said that the Bill was passed by the casting vote of the Chairman. It was not passed by the casting vote of the Chairman; but the fact was that, when the numbers were equal, the Chairman voted in the majority. Therefore, the majority was five against four. Then, what was the result? The result was, that they were having the whole matter argued out again on the floor of the House by the advocates of both sides of the question. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Baron De Ferrieres) came forward, and without any experience of the investigations of a Select Committee -for he believed the hon. Member had never sat on a Select Committee in his life-came forward now and asked the House to constitute him a Court of Appeal, and on his representation to throw out the result of an inquiry by a Committee which had sat for 16 days, and had inquired most carefully into the whole of the questions submitted to them. If the House would only consider the labour and difficulty the Committee of Selection had in getting hon. Members to undertake the onerous duty of serving upon Select Committees, he thought they would see the necessity of supporting the Committee when they had arrived at a conclusion. If the Committee had exercised their discretion wrongly, there was still a Court of Review in "another place." He called upon the House not to reject the Bill

Sir John R. Mowbray

MR. W. M. TORRENS said, he wished simply to bear his humble testimony to that which had been so well expressed by his hon. Friend opposite in deprecating most earnestly this new practice. The House was sought to be seduced into putting great questions of legislation regarding traffic and property literally to a Whip" on both sides of the dispute as a Court of Appeal. Was this a time to ask the House that they should subject themselves even to a suspicion of such a mode of dealing with public interests? There had been the greatest difficulty in getting the House to agree to a decision on the second reading of the Bill, and it was at his instance that it was referred to a Hybrid Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel), than whom there was no sounder authority in the House, came down on that occasion and opposed the Bill on general grounds of public principle. His hon. Friend opposed its reference to an ordinary Select Committee; but, on the other hand, there were very strong representations made of public interests that required the Bill not to go to a Committee in the ordinary way. The House was in a state of doubt, when he (Mr. Torrens) humbly suggested, with the entire concurrence of the Government, who approved of the course taken, that there should be an appeal to that peculiar tribunal called a Hybrid Committee. The Committee of Selection were able to introduce a certain number of men of experience and ability to act along with the four Members usually appointed to inquire into a Private Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Warwick acquiesced in that course, and he believed that his hon. Friend was satisfied that there was reason and justice in that alternative. Well, then, having used that mode of arriving at an independent conclusion, were they now to throw over all that the Committee had done? Were they to disregard all the evidence that had been taken? Were they to set aside

their own decision on the second reading, | Mullingar. A few years ago the Railand by merely appealing to votes in the way Company sought to obtain posLobby, whipped up on behalf of the session of the Canal from Dublin to great Companies concerned, were they to Mullingar. It succeeded in doing so, say they were not really capable of giving and what had been the result? The Railan independent judgment themselves way between Mullingar and Dublin had on the second reading? There was no monopolized the whole carrying trade of doubt whatever that the public at large the district of the whole of the West of would regard with great doubt and mis- Ireland from Dublin, and the Canal was giving such a course on the part of the left absolutely idle. And when he said House. He hoped he would not be mis- that the railway had monopolized the apprehended when he said he thought whole trade of that great district, it was the present moment peculiarly unfitted scarcely necessary that he should add for taking such a course, because, if he that as there was no competition it was not greatly misinformed, something had increased its carrying prices nearly of a similar kind had been done "else- double. where," and from somewhat similar reasons. If Parliament was to follow that course and set up that new system of a chance-medley tribunal, he believed they would soon lose the confidence of the country. Before he sat down he would mention one point which he thought the House did not thoroughly appreciate. It was said that the traffic of the Western Canals might be injured by the control that would be exercised by this Railway Company if it obtained dominion over the Regent's Canal. Now, the truth was this-the great bulk of the Western traffic went into the Thames at Brentford, and therefore there would be no injury to that traffic at all.

MR. CAINE remarked that this was a Bill to enable the Regent's Canal to acquire one of the most important waterways of the country. Now, he had sat upon a Select Committee of that House during the greater portion of the Session, and the whole of last Session, to inquire into the question of Railway Rates. Witness after witness had come forward to complain of the great evil inflicted upon the trade of the country by enabling Railway Companies to acquire waterways. On that ground he should vote against any measure brought into that House to enable a Railway Company to acquire the waterway of any Canal.

MR. LALOR said, he wished to warn the House against the great danger of allowing Railway Companies to monopolize the waterways of the country, and he would give a reason from what had occurred in his own country a few years ago. There was a Canal in Dublin which ran to the West of Ireland, and the line of the Great Western Railway ran by the side of the Canal down to

MR. HICKS said, that many remarks had fallen from hon. Members on both sides of the House as to to the propriety of the question being entered into by the House. They had been told that the Committee was not a Private Committee, but a Hybrid Committee, and that the Report of the Committee was only carried by a majority of 1, and, further than that, there ought to be a full Report of their proceedings. Now, he would like to ask the House what was the use of having a Report of the proceedings of the Committee if they were not allowed to consider it? He was of opinion that the questions raised. by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) affected the whole of the waterways of the country. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Baron De Ferrieres) had stated with great force the way in which the handing over of the Canals to the Great Western Company would, in effect, place the whole of the Canal system of the West of England at the mercy of that Company. But in pointing out the effects which would result from such a course, the hon. Member had omitted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the evil did not stop with the West of England, but that it would extend to the whole of the Canal system from London to Liverpool and Manchester, and also from London to Hull. In point of fact, the whole network of the Canal and water system of this country was to be handed over to one railway, in order to enable that railway to save a small sum in the cost of constructing a new line. He trusted the House would never consent to do that, but that, bearing in mind the great and serious complaints that were made by all the trading and commercial Associa

MR. MITCHELL HENRY also asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received information to the effect that in the course of a few days processes THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY- would be issued against nearly 500

Session. The matter is not very urgent, | pared to remove any just cause of com

as was explained in the statement of the Secretary of State.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — THE
DERRY CITY BENCH.

plaint, and to consider the claims of any eligible Roman Catholic gentlemen whose names may be submitted to him for appointment to the Commission of the Peace.

MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot say. MR. CALLAN: Is it the fact that the recommendation for appointments to the borough magistracy in Derry rests, not in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, but in those of the Liberal Irish Executive?

MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Se- MR. REDMOND: Is the telegram to cretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- the effect that the Government have apland, Whether the attention of the Go-pointed a stipendiary Catholic magisvernment has been directed to the com- trate correct? position of the Derry City bench of magistrates; whether it is a fact that, while the Catholic inhabitants of the city number 18,000, and all other denominations only 12,000, there are only two Catholic magistrates upon the Bench; whether these two gentlemen, Mr. P. T. Rodgers and Mr. John O'Neill, since the 15th of May last, have refused to sit upon the Bench, in consequence of their opinions being systematically ignored and overridden by their Protestant colleagues, who for the most part attend only when party cases are to be tried; and, whether any steps will be taken to increase the confidence of the Catholic inhabitants in the administration of justice?

[No answer was given to the Ques

tion.]

LAW AND

POLICE (IRELAND)-REMOVAL OF PLACARDS.

MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the following placard has been torn down by the police in various places in Ire

land:

"Labour Question.

MR. MACARTNEY also asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant "The Labourers of this district are called of Ireland, Whether the record of the upon to attend a preliminary meeting on Londonderry Magisterial Court would at to form a branch of the Irish not show that Mr. John O'Neill, a National Labour League.' All persons wishing to further the cause of Irish industry will, by Roman Catholic magistrate, had not sat their presence, show their desire to forward the in that Court on four out of six days above much wanted movement. when Sessions were held; whether 75

per cent of the crime committed in Londonderry was not committed by Roman Catholics; whether, granting that there might be in that city 18,000 Roman Catholics, 19-20ths of the employers of labour were not Protestant, and mostly Liberals; and whether the majority of the Londonderry Bench were not Liberal Presbyterians and not Tories?

MR. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) only wishes to state the counter view, it can hardly be expected that I am at the present moment prepared with the information asked. The Catholics of Derry number 16,000, and the Protestants 13,000. There are at present only two Catholic magistrates on the Bench. I am aware that in consequence of some difference of opinion on the Bench, there has been unwillingness on the part of the Catholic magistrates to sit, which I hope will not be permanent. I am sure the Lord Lieutenant will be quite pre

"God save the People;"

and, whether, if so, the police acted in accordance with his instructions?

MR. TREVELYAN: The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that possibly the police may in some cases have torn down some of these placards; but he thinks it unlikely that they have done so. If the placards were torn down

in

acted altogether on their own responsiany instance, the local constabulary bility. A Circular is being prepared on the subject.

ARMY-COST OF SALUTES.

COLONEL NOLAN asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Secretary to the Admiralty, How much is expended annually by the Army and in the Navy on salutes ?

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: In reply to the Questions which my hon. and gallant Friend addresses to the Secretary to the Admiralty and myself, I have to