MR. BARROW said, this question was not now mooted for the first time, as he had a few years ago pressed it on the attention of the then Government; but because he was a humble Member of that House he had not been successful. He saw no reason why the parties who had inclosed lands under the Inclosure Commissioners Acts should not be called upon to pay the expense. These exchanges of land were not generally for the public benefit. It did not matter to the public whether two fields were close together or not; but it was a great benefit to individuals, and those individuals ought to pay for what was done. The greater portion of the land had been inclosed, and he did not think the public should have to pay for the benefit of individuals.

the community, which had a large and could act upon any large scale. If, as he special interest; and there was likewise understood the hon. Member, the words the community at large, which had a gene-relating to the Land Registry Office were ral interest in the passing of good laws. to be left out, he should certainly give the He quite admitted that when Bills of this Motion his support. kind were introduced, it was often prudent and politic to throw the charge upon the public, because it was the only mode in which to pass the measure; but of that policy there was no question in this case, because the system was established, and the benefit accrued to a particular class; and it was unfair that, simply on account of the general advantage which in all cases resulted to the public, that particular class should be exempted. With respect to the question of charities, it was always difficult to argue it; on this ground, that the case was so bad, and that it invariably ap peared that the proposition which was made was totally insufficient, and that in order to meet the merits of the case they ought to go a great deal further. That was an argument of which he had felt the force when it was used against himself; but at the same time they should not, because they ought to go a vast deal further, refuse to make any step at all. Let them take the clear and definite step which had been proposed by the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, there was only one sentence to which he would be disposed to take exception, and his exception was more verbal than substantial. The hon. Gentleman said, "Let us not deal in general words; for there is no real way to procure economy except by particular propositions." He (Mr. Gladstone) granted that they were most fortunate in having a Gentleman thoroughly qualified, and one politically at tached to the Government of the day, who was disposed to make a definite proposal of economy. They would always find him ready to lend his support to any proposition of that kind. He could not subscribe to the general doctrine that the House should not use words of a larger kind. It was impossible for the House to secure economy by fighting in detail; and circumstances sometimes arose in which, if the House intended to have economy, it must have it by general declarations for the guidance of the Government. Such Resolutions had been passed in former times, and such Resolutions were not unlikely to become again necessary, perhaps, at no distant date. In principle they were perfectly defensible, and in practice they formed the only mode in which the House

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that in the spirit of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Goldney's) Resolution he willingly concurred; but the terms were too broad and comprehensive, and he felt some difficulty in assenting to the Motion exactly as it stood upon the Paper. In this Resolution they found drawn into one category "the expenses of the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission, Inclosure and Drainage Acts, Charity Commission, and Land Registry Office. These could hardly be considered as all coming under the same principle. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended that the Land Registry Office should be omitted from the Resolution. If the Land Registry Office were to be continued exactly in the same condition as at present-that was, that no other business should be introduced into the office than had been the case of late years-then he doubted whether it would be proper to exclude those words from the Resolution; but he understood it was in contemplation either to annex some other duties to the head of that office, or to amalgamate it with the Middlesex Registry Office. Under these circumstances it might be expedient to exclude the Land Registry Office from the Resolution. With respect to the Charity Commission, for his own part, he perfectly concurred in the view that the expense of the administration of charities should be borne by the income of charities, and he did not himself dissent from the view put forward by the right

hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire as to the propriety of making charities pay income tax. At the same time. public opinion had been exceedingly strong against the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore it was a question whether it was expedient to press the more limited proposal now under discussion for imposing upon charities the cost of their own administration. The principle that the expenses should not be borne by the public was sound, and the only question was how the charge of the administration should be borne. With regard to the other heads of the Resolution, there could be no doubt that a great part of the duties assigned to these Commis sioners were for the benefit of individuals. At the same time, he believed that but for the Copyhold Commission, the copyhold tenure, which was better suited to a past age than to the present, would not bave been broken up, and it was thus a question whether the entire expense should be borne by individuals or the public. The Motion of his hon. Friend was couched in very general terms, and while assenting to the principle of it he took exception to those terms. The whole matter required careful revision and consideration; but he was perfectly ready, on the part of the Government, to assent to the Motion if the word "entirely were added before the word "borne. If the hon. Member would agree to this, the House need not be put to the trouble of a division.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the expenses of the Copyhold Inclosure, and Tithe Commission, Inclosure and Drainage Acts, and Charity Commission, ought not to be borne by the public.

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

GENERAL POST OFFICE-CASE OF
A. J. DUFFY.

MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN said, he rose to call attention to the circumstances connected with the removal of Anthony J. Duffy from his appointment of permanent clerk in the Circulation Department of the General Post Office; and to move for a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. Baronet said that the father of the gentleman whose name appeared on the Notice was induced to give his son such an education as would fit him for the Civil Service. In the year 1865 Mr. Duffy having received, through the intervention of a noble Lord, a nomination to a clerkship in the Post Office, was appointed to the Savings Bank branch of that Department. Having served some three months in the Savings Bank branch, he received a nomination to compete with MR. GOSCHEN said, he hoped the sug- eleven other gentlemen, and in that comgestion for the insertion of the word "en-petition he obtained the second place. tirely" would not be agreed to, as that insertion would invite the inference that the charge should be borne partly by the public, and thus the value of the Motion would be destroyed.

MR. GOLDNEY said, he was entirely in the hands of the House. He was ready to strike out the words as to the Land Registry Office, but if the House thought that the principle of the Motion should be affirmed he should press it to a division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided :-Ayes 104; Noes 105 Majority 1.

Question put, "That those words there added."

After the competitive examination he entered upon his duties in the Foreign Office branch of the General Post Office. Both in the Savings Bank and Foreign Office branches Mr. Duffy's conduct was such as to merit the encomiums of all his superiors in the branches-so much so that they felt it but right that he should be appointed a probationary clerk in the Register branch of the General Post Office. He was then appointed a permanent clerk in that trol of this Department (Mr. Boucher) branch. The gentleman who had the con

seemed to have entertained an unaccountable prejudice against Mr. Duffy, and when it became necessary to revise the Departbement Mr. Duffy's name was omitted from those who were to be employed in it. inquiry as to the reason of this, he (Sir

On

The House divided:-Ayes 106; Noes Patrick O'Brien) received the reply that 105: Majority 1.

Words added.

Mr. Duffy was not suited to this particular office. He then wrote to Mr. Scudamore

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, the Duke of Montrose had made inquiries into the case, and had satisfied himself that it was his duty to dismiss Mr. Duffy from his situation.

The offences charged against

in probably rather strong terms; but Mr. Duffy knew nothing of the letter, and there was no reason why this young man should be punished for any mistake he had made in the exercise of his duty as a Member of Parliament. Contemporaneously with the Mr. Duffy arose from irregularity and a receipt of the letter of Mr. Scudamore this want of punctuality. He did not think young man was removed from the Post the character of Mr. Boucher was before Office. After having served for three years this House, and therefore he would not enter and passed an examination for which he on that subject. Mr. Duffy was nine times had received a special education, he was cautioned for those offences in 1866, and turned adrift on the wide world at the bid-eleven times between February and July ding of a subordinate. He (Sir Patrick in 1867. There was nothing against the O'Brien) addressed the noble Duke (the moral character or the ability of Mr. Duffy; Postmaster General) and received an an- but repeated errors and mistakes arising swer to the effect that Mr. Duffy was from irregular habits and unpunctuality relieved from his appointment both for the were very serious matters in an establishinterest of the department and for his own. ment like the Post Office. Mr. Duffy had The young man had been dismissed by the sent letters by the wrong mails, and had noble Duke without any opportunity having made mistakes with respect to Post Office been afforded to him of bringing forward orders and registered letters. It was found evidence in his own behalf, or of hearing at last impossible to submit to these things, the case against him. He regretted that and Mr. Duffy had to be dismissed. the Postmaster General had not a seat in that House, for the hon. Gentleman who would reply to the question was not an officer representing the Department, but simply the organ of those officers whose fairness was impugned. Mr. Duffy, who was a clever, well-educated young man, with no stain upon his character, had not been allowed to defend himself in the matter. The whole proceeding had been. most unfair, and would deter parents from bringing up their sons for the Civil Service.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " "a

Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the removal of Anthony J. Duffy from his appointment of permanent clerk in the Circulation department of the General Post Office," (Sir Patrick O'Brien,) -instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTIN had known Mr. Boucher in his capacity of public servant and also in private life, and he felt sure that on consideration the hon. Baronet would not make such an attack on his character. [Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN: I did not attack his character.] The hon. Baronet stated that, from prejudice and other causes, Mr. Scudamore swayed the mind of the Duke of Montrose to dismiss this young man. Mr. Boucher might make a mistake, but he would not act from such a motive.

COLONEL FRENCH thought his hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had made out a good case for the appointment of the proposed Committee of Inquiry. He (Colonel French) thought the Post Office Department ought to have given his hon. Friend the explanation which the Secretary to the Treasury had just given to the House.

MR. CHILDERS said, he hoped that after the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury the hon. Member for King's County would withdraw his Motion. There was no occasion on which the Government more required to be supported than in dealing with such cases as the present. It was easy enough to get rid of officers who had been guilty of some actual offence; but very difficult to clear the Civil Service of persons who are, like this gentleman, complained of twenty times in two years, and really not worth their salaries.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA-MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.

OBSERVATIONS.

MR. STANSFELD said, he rose to call attention to the circumstances under which the sum of £600,000 was agreed to be advanced on loan, in May, 1866, to the Madras Irrigation Company, by the then Secretary of State for India (Earl De Grey), and to make an explanatory statement. He would have been in his place on the evening when the hon. Mem

ber for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) | applied again to Lord Halifax in October, brought forward this subject had not the 1865, and asked that the obligation they terms of the Notice which the hon. Member were under to re-pay out of the profits the had put on the Paper been such as to con- advances of guaranteed interest to the vey to his mind the impression that the Indian Government should be postponed to hon. Gentleman excepted from that Motion the right of the guaranteed and unguaran. the period during which Earl De Grey filled teed shareholders to earn 12 instead of 5 the office of Secretary of State for India. per cent. This proposal was left by Lord He found that there existed in the minds Halifax to be considered by Lord De Grey, of some persons an idea that, under the who declined to accede to it. But it was original agreement made with the Com- obviously the policy of the Secretary of pany by Lord Stanley in 1858, the Com- State to secure the completion of the works pany were, in the first instance, to take a by this Company for a limited sum and profit of 25 per cent, and that not until within a reasonable period, or else to acthat profit had been earned were the Go- quire the right of paying off the Comvernment to share in the returns. That pany, and taking the works into the was an entire misconception. The profits hands of the Government of India. That were to be divided equally between the policy was carried out in the proposal Company and the Government, after the which was made to the Company and acpayment of the guaranteed interest of 5 cepted by them, and by which the Governper cent. Next, as to what had been said ment acquired the rights and advantages about Lord Halifax having allowed interest they at present possessed. By the conto be paid from the moment the capital was tract under the seal of the Secretary of paid into the Indian Treasury, he must State, he undertook to advance to the observe that, under the agreement made Company sums of not less than £5,000 on by Lord Stanley with the Company, the demand on their debenture notes payable payment of interest was to commence from five years after date on the whole, to an that moment. Coming to the charge that extent not exceeding £600,000; these when the £600,000 was agreed to be ad- amounts to be applied to the completion of vanced in 1866 the Company had collapsed, of the irrigation canal between two speciand the Secretary of State bolstered them fied points-on the understanding that, in up with that loan, he had to say that un- case of the non-completion of that section doubtedly no profits had been made by the of the works in five years, and for the sum Company up to that time, and for this rea- to be advanced, the Secretary of State for son-that their works were not completed. India should have the right to enter upon But the only way in which the Company these works and oust the Company, paying had collapsed was, that the rough estimate them in Indian stock at market price for the for the works had been exceeded; that capital invested in the works in question; the £1,000,000-the amount at which but, if the Company succeed in completing they had been estimated-had been spent; the works in the time specified, the whole and that money was required to finish the profits accruing to it, from whatever source, undertaking. He denied that Earl De would be liable, in the first instance, to Grey had yielded to the demands of the payment of the interest due to the SecreCompany. On the contrary, he made a tary of State on the debenture debt; and, counter-proposition, based on a true con- secondly, falling back on the contract of ception of the interests of the Government 1863, the irrigation profits would be liable and the people of India. It was well for the guaranteed interest of 5 per cent, known that Lord Halifax had always been and next to pay the Secretary of State the opposed to the undertak ng of works of long standing and very considerable arrears irrigation by private companies, and the of guaranteed interest which he had been same view of the subject was taken by compelled to advance; and then, and not Earl De Grey. The Company came to till then, would the Company be entitled Lord Halifax in 1863, and requested as- to earn more than 5 per cent. He believed sistance or facilities for raising further he had demonstrated that the proposal capital. By the terms of the contract which had been made by Earl De Grey made in 1863, the Company were to be at was a wise and prudent arrangement for the liberty to raise more capital, though with- Government and the people of India. The out guarantee; but, under such circum-word "swindle" had been applied to the stances, they failed in their attempt to Madras Irrigation Company, and it had raise additional capital, whereupon they been said that the India Office was sur

time been derived from these works, and
no one who knew anything of India would
be deluded by the statement that if we
would wait a while, profits would come.
Irrigation works yielded profit immediately
on their completion, if they were well-con-
But these
structed and well-conducted.
works never would yield any profit, be-
cause they were ill-devised, ill-engineered,
and conducted by men who could not
realize profits.

MR. SPEAKER intimated that the hon. Member was out of order in referring to a speech in a previous debate.

rounded with jobbers. He protested against the application of such reckless and unfounded expressions to honourable men engaged in a work of great public utility. The directors were bound to look to the interests of the shareholders; but they had met the Secretary of State frankly, and should not be grudged the assistance necessary to enable them to complete the work. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman deprecated the harsh remarks applied on MR. KINNAIRD said, he had never Monday evening to the directors of the Madras Irrigation Company. heard a speech-to use the mildest termMR. SMOLLETT said, that the Reso-so full of inaccuracies as that made the lution which he had moved on Monday last other night by the hon. Member who had was not precisely the same in terms as the just spoken. They could not be sustained one which he had placed upon the Notice before a Select Committee. Paper some time previously, inasmuch as it implied the adoption of a certain course of policy by Lord Halifax instead of by Earl De Grey, and that was perhaps the reason why the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had not on that occasion come down to the House to answer him. The House had, however, now heard the explanation of the hon. Member, and so far as it went it was satisfactory. He (Mr. Smollett) would take a future opportunity of moving that the proposals first made to the Irrigation Company by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) should be laid upon the table of the House. His (Mr. Smollett's) statement was that in 1859 a deputation of adventurers proposed to the Secretary of State for India to relieve the Government of India from making large irrigation works out of the Government Treasury, and solicited permission to make the works by means of a company which should simply reap the profits of the undertaking. Nine years elapsed, and it appeared that not a shilling had been advanced bond fide by the Company, but that these irrigation works had been paid for out of the public treasury, and not a sixpence of interest on the Government advances had been received.

MR. STANSFELD said, that the money had been advanced by the Company.

MR. SMOLLETT: Yes; advanced by the Company on a guarantee that the Government would pay 5 per cent interest. This was, in reality, a Government loan. He contended that at the end of 1871 the Government will have made themselves answerable for £2,000,000 sterling and upwards, while these private adventurers would not have made themselves answerable for a single shilling. No profits had up to this

MR. KINNAIRD said, he would add nothing to what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), except with regard to what the Company asked for from Earl De Grey and Lord Halifax. All that they had asked of the Government was a slight relaxation of the contract, in order that they might raise unguaranteed capital to enable them to complete works that had proved to be of enormous difficulty. The Government had guaranteed £100,000,000 for the construction of railways in India, and could it grudge to guarantee £600,000 for the construction of works which would save the lives of millions of our fellowsubjects? The works were now progressing rapidly, and the result would be most beneficial to India.

Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn. Committee deferred till Monday next.

House adjourned at a quarter before
One o'clock, till Monday next.