Battersea. He was glad that the hon. By the Act of 1882 the companies for Member, instead of making vague charges, the mere transport of the parcels took 55 had been able to quote chapter and verse, per cent. of the postage, while the Post as to the actual relationship of some of the Office, who collected and delivered, only persons who had been appointed as clerks took 45 per cent. But under Section 2 in the Customs to the officers in the of the same Act, the Treasury could at service. He thought the hon. Gentle- any time revise the rates of postage. man was going a little too far when he That was to say, the rates being fixed by extended his complaint to the appoint- percentage, if the Treasury revised the ment of friends, but with regard to the rates for postage, it was evident that the appointment of relations of the ap- rate which the railway would receive pointing authority he, to a certain would diminish at the same time as the extent, agreed with the hon. Member. rate which the Post Office received. The Great care should be exercised in the second reason given by the Secretary to Civil Service, if anything was done the Treasury was that the sea passage towards removing the essential qualifi- had to be taken into account. Now, cation of an effective examination, to they knew that the charge for sea passee that there was no suspicion of a sage was in all cases less than that for "job." ["Hear, hear!" And, after land carriage, and the rate paid by the hearing the statement of the hon. Mem- Post Office for crossing the sea was 21d. ber for Battersea, he was bound to say per parcel. Averaging the parcels at that he was not quite satisfied with the 6 lb. weight each, they had the exexplanation — [“Hear, hear!"]-that traordinary result brought out of those men were only temporarily en- 76s. 8d. per ton. He imagined that gaged. He was glad that the hon. the rate which ought to be paid was Member had brought forward a case of about 10s. per ton. The railway rate this kind, into which he should look worked out at about £8 5s. per ton. very carefully. He submitted that the Post Office, having made an extremely bad bargain both with the railway companies and for the cross channel service, ought to bear a portion of the loss and reduce the rates of postage. Resolution agreed to. 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,442,120 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue," MR. W. A. MCARTHUR (Cornwall, St. Austell's) from his own connection with the Treasury, thought there was a great deal to be said for the view which the hon. Gentleman had put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would probably find nothing more fruitful in saving to the country, and in advantage to the manufacturing and agricultural community, than a thorough investigation, conducted by himself or some other man of business who was not an ordinary head of a Department, into the transactions between the Post Office and the various railway and steamship companies with whom it made contracts. Resolution read a second time. *COLONEL VICTOR MILWARD (Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon) called attention to the excessive parcels post rates in this country. For the carriage of an 11 lb. parcel in England the charge was 1s. 6d. ; in France, 10d.; in Paris only 2d.; and in Germany, within a distance of 60 miles, only 7d. As to international parcels post, the differences were even more striking. For an 11 lb. parcel the charge from England to France was 2s. 2d. ; from England to Germany, 2s; and from France to Germany only 91d. He had been told by the Secretary to the Treasury that the main reason for these differences was, MR. C. SHAW (Stafford) said, that first, the very bad bargain made with since last Thursday country Members the railway companies by this country; had been cut off from the use of the and, second, the cross-channel passage. telephone from the trunk lines. He was He agreed that the bargain with the informed that this was in consequence of railway companies was a grievous one. the Post Office taking over the trunk Secretary to the Treasury. MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick's) asked how long these contracts had to run? lines of the telephone. He should like to have an explanation as to the reason why the Post Office had deprived country Members of this privilege. MR. T. H. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.) complained, on behalf of the County Council of Fife, of a difficulty in which that body had been placed by the handing *MR. HANBURY said, that if a ques- over of the trunk lines to the Governtion was addressed to him on the subject ment. Under the old arrangement they he would endeavour to obtain informa- had the privilege of sending police tion. The operations of the parcel and messages for a fixed price per annum— penny post were so mixed up that it was about £60. This had proved an immense difficult to know how far the parcel post advantage to the police, and had aided was being worked at a profit or not. them in the arrest of many criminals. The impression at the Post Office was Under the new arrangement a charge of that the parcel post was just paying its 3d. a message was to be made, and it was way, and therefore there was an objec- estimated that the cost would be some tion to lowering the rates. It might be £500 a year, instead of £50 or £60, the possible to draw a distinction between cost under the old arrangements, and those parcels which were paying and that would be a prohibitive price. He those which were not. The loss was on hoped that the right hon. Gentleman reprethe smaller parcels; the larger ones were senting the Post Office would look into paying fairly well. But the origin of the question with a view to redressing the difficulty was the agreement with the the grievance. He had already been in railway companies which lasted until communication with the Post Office on 1903. It was inferred by the Post the subject and had received an unfavourOffice that the railway companies were able answer. conscious that they had made a very MR. W. J. GALLOWAY (Manchesgood bargain, and he should think that ter, S.W.) said, he wished to refer for in 1903 the rate would probably be a moment to what had been said by the reduced. As to the Foreign Parcel hon. Member for Stafford. Post, the chief reason why it was carried *MR. SPEAKER: That is really a on at a cheaper rate than the English matter that should be brought on under Parcel Post was that on the continent the Telegraph Service Vote. Still, as almost the whole of the railway service so much has been said upon it already, was provided for nothing. Nearly the I will not interrupt the hon. Member. entire charge for a parcel on the continent was available for the postal service. In most continental countries, excepting Russia, 50 or 75 centimes covered all the expenses of the inland service for parcels not weighing more than 11 lbs., and the whole charge went to the Post Office. [Mr. FIELD: "What ratio does that bear to the charges you are paying to the railway companies?"] The ratio was as nothing to 55 per cent., because Foreign Post Offices paid nothing, and in this country the railway companies were paid 55 per cent. Then, under the Postal Union arrangement, there was rather a heavy charge of 25 centimes for sea carriage across the channel. Of course, the Government had not a monopoly in the carriage of parcels as they had in the carriage of letters, and private traders compete with the Post Office for the more lucrative part of the work, the costly portion of it being thrown on the Post Office, which thus found difficulty in making any considerable reduction in the rates. VOL. XXXIX. [FOURTH SERIES.] MR. GALLOWAY said, he only wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would make inquiries into the matter and endeavour to make such an arrangement as would allow private Members to use the trunk lines of telephones as they had previously done. Resolution agreed to. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL. Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock. PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL. Second Reading deferred till To morrow. 20 LONDON VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT BILL. Second Reading deferred till Friday 22nd May. SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO Second Reading deferred till Friday. BOROUGH FUNDS ACT (1872) Second Reading deferred till Monday 27th April. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) Second Reading deferred till Monday 27th April. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, (LONDON) (No. 2) BILL. Committee deferred till Wednesday. METROPOLITAN SEWERS AND DRAINS ¿BILL. Second Reading deferred till Wednes day. FISHERIES ACTS (NORFOLK AND next. LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. morrow. TITHE REDEMPTION BILL. Second Reading deferred till Friday. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, etc. Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit until Three of the clock this day during MARRIED PERSONS' SMALL INDUS- the Sitting of the House.-(Sir James TRIAL INCOME TAX RELIEF BILL. Second Reading deferred till Wednes day. Fergusson.) Adjourned at Ten minutes before One o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, 14th April 1896. The House met at Two of the clock. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (IRELAND). Return [presented 9th April] to be printed. [No. 136.] ALIEN IMMIGRANTS. buildings had to borrow water from those on the lower floors, and another stated that for the same reason an offensive and dangerous nuisance was caused by the unflushed condition of the water-closets. The widespread interest which was taken in the question was shown by the fact that almost every local authority in the East of London had urged the London County Council to remedy the existing evil. The reason why the East London Water Company was singled out was because they had a lower statutory obligation imposed upon them in regard to the pressure of their supply than any other metropolitan water company. The general law was that every water company should be Return [presented 13th April] to be required to provide such pressure as printed. [No. 137.] ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL Copy ordered, "Of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill."--(Mr. Ritchie.) would supply water to the top floors of the highest building in the district, but by the private Act of the East London Water Company, which was as old as 1853, it was prescribed that the statutory height of the pressure should be The only 40 ft. above the pavement. New River Water Company, which practically supplied the same district as the East London Water Company, had a statutory obligation to provide a pressure of 70 ft. The secretary of the Peabody Trust, which erected a number of blocks of buildings in Glasshouse Street, stated that at first the East London Company agreed that the New River Company should supply the buildings, and while the supply came from the New River Company there were no complaints. But after a while the East London Company withdrew Copy presented accordingly; to lie their consent and supplied the buildings upon the Table, and to be printed. themselves. "Then,' said the secre[No. 139.] Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 138.] Copy ordered,— "Of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill."-(Mr. Ritchie.) PRIVATE BUSINESS. tary, "my troubles began. His name appeared first on the back of the Bill. The Vestry of Bethnal Green asked him whether he would be willing to back a Bill about to be introduced by the London County Councill dealing with OF Water Company. the height of supply of the East London Knowing the vital interests of his constituents in the EAST LONDON WATER (HEIGHT SUPPLY) BILL (BY ORDER). Order for Second Reading read. matter, he gave his consent. He reMR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Beth-ceived no communication from the nal Green, S. W.) said, the sanitary London County Council, and he was officers of East London bore testimony not consulted in drawing up the Bill. to the mischief against which the Bill But even if the form of the Bill were was directed. One officer stated that better, even if it were less controversial, owing to the insufficiency of the pressure he could not ask the House to read it a the tenants on the upper floors of Second time in face of the extraordinary VOL. XXXIX. [FOURTH SERIES.] 2 P was no reason why he should not defend them when he believed that they were right. Every dweller in the East end, even at the height mentioned in the Bill, was well supplied with water. The County Council had attempted to repeal a public and private Act without making any expert examination of the facts, and in doing so they had not raised themselves in the estimation of those who would like to support them when they were serving the public. fact that, although the Bill was pro- | He was bound to admit that he had a moted by the London County Council, small interest in the company, but that and although the Parliamentary Committee of the Council had approved it and instructed the agent to introduce it, yet not a single member of the County Council who was also a Member of Parliament, was willing to back the Bill. He did not think that the House and those Members whose names were on the back of the Bill had been treated with proper respect. In these circumstances it was inevitable that the Bill should be withdrawn. A good cause would be prejudiced by going to a Division, for he, MR. H. S. SAMUEL (Tower Hambelieved that there was urgent need for lets, Limehouse), said, that he had been a regulating Bill in this matter. The asked by the sanitary authority of his House, by its recent action, had in-district to support this Bill, and he condefinitely postponed the purchase policy; sented because he believed that the and there was a fair and open field for public welfare demanded a water supply that policy of regulation to which a large to the greatest height which buildings section of the London County Council were allowed to attain. But he recogwere willing to agree. If the Second nised that Her Majesty's Government Reading had not been formally moved, had introduced a Bill creating a water he should have wished to have moved trust whose first care would be to look for the discharge of the Order and the after matters of this kind; and as there withdrawal of the Bill. was not a single member of the County Council whose name was on the back of the Bill, he must join with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green in his protest against the treatment which the backers of the Bill had received at the hands of the Council. COLONEL A. LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping) protested against the manner in which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green had made a violent ex-parte statement against the East London Water Company at the same time that he withdrew the Bill on which it was founded. He protested, too, against the East Motion made, and Question, "That London Water Company being branded the Bill be now read a Second time," as unwilling to supply the wants of the put, and negatived. Bill withdrawn. poor people in the East end of London. The height of the pavement in the metropolitan area varied enormously-from 10 to 110 feet above Trinity House high water mark; and the 40 feet above the LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN pavement, which was the height to RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER). which the East London Company had to Order for Second Reading read. supply water, was equivalent to a height of 150 feet above high-water mark. He Motion made, and Question proposed, held a letter from the valuer of the Lon-"That the Bill be now read a Second don County Council thanking the Com-time." pany for what they had done to supply MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarthe Capel Street Dwellings. The recent von Boroughs) said, he found that the Inquiry by the Local Government Board Bill proposed that further facilities had shown that the charges previously brought against the company were unfounded; they had done their best to give a continuous supply to dwellers in the East end, and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green was exceeding his rights when, in withdrawing the Bill, he attacked the company as he had done. Mr. E. H. Pickersgill. should be given to the London and North Western Railway with regard to the Chester and Holyhead Railway, and that in respect of a proposed extension of that section, the same rates and charges should be allowed as the company had power to charge at present under the Act of 1891. Now, by the Act of 1891 |