Commons Sitting of 13 June 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Salmon Acts Amendment* [163].
First Reading—Ecclesiastical Patronage Transfer* [160].
Second Reading—Merchant Shipping Code [24]; Merchant Shipping, &c. Acts Repeal [55]; Board of Trade [56].
Committee—Report—University Tests [105]; Stamp Duty on Leases [59–161]; Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose, &c.) Act (1860) Amendment*[62–162]; Protection of Inventions* [157]; Magistrates in Populous Places (Scotland)* [121]; Wages Attachment Abolition* [181].
Third Reading—Jewish United Synagogues* [151]; Saint Olave, &c. Charities* [152], and passed.

SPAIN—TREATY OF COMMERCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will be good enough to inform the House what progress has been made in regard to a new Treaty of Commerce with Spain; and, whether the Fishery interests of British North America have been duly and favourably considered, and what prospect there is of a reduction of the Duty now levied on dry cod fish imported into Spain?
  MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, he was unable to say that any progress had been made with regard to the proposed Treaty of Commerce with Spain since a Question had last been addressed to him upon the subject. Objections had been made with reference to the proposed reduction of the wine duties, which had

  1941
  not yet been overcome. Neither could he say at present whether there was any prospect of a reduction being made by the Spanish Government in the duties now levied on dry cod fish.

ARMY—13TH LINCOLNSHIRE RIFLE VOLUNTEER CORPS.—QUESTION.
MR. WELBYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Messrs. John Preston and Alfred Woodrow have been dismissed from the 13th Lincolnshire Rifle Volunteer Corps without either a court of inquiry being held or an opportunity of explanation or defence being afforded them; if so, whether he will state the circumstances under which they were dismissed, and say if he is willing to grant a court of inquiry, or in some other way to give them an opportunity of being heard?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, a controversy having arisen in the corps which led to the removal of a quartermaster-sergeant, an unauthorized meeting of more than 30 members of the corps was held, at which resolutions were carried condemnatory of the course pursued towards the quartermaster-sergeant, and a committee appointed by whom those resolutions were signed. The Lord Lieutenant said—
"He could only suppose that the meeting had erred through ignorance; and, if he was assured that such was the case, he would take no further notice of its proceedings. But if a similar case should occur again it would be his duty to take such severe measures as would probably result in the disbanding of the corps."
The Lord Lieutenant reported the case to the War Office, and their services have been dispensed with. Their proper course is to apply to the Lord Lieutenant, and put themselves in a proper position before him. This course has been pursued by one of the number, and he has been reinstated on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant.

KEBLE COLLEGE.—QUESTION.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Solicitor General, Whether a Charter has been granted by the Crown incorporating a new College in the University of Oxford called Keble College; if so, whether by such incorporation the Keble College will come within the operation of the Bill now depending for the repeal of Religious
1942
Tests in the Universities; and, whether there will be any objection to lay a Copy of such Charter upon the Table of the House?
THE SOLICTTOR GENERALsaid, in reply, that it would be seen that the Question of the hon. and learned Member was three-fold. In answer to the first and the last part of the Question, he begged to state that he had every reason to believe that it was true that a charter had been granted to Keble College, and he saw no objection whatever to laying that charter upon the Table of the House. It was at present, however, accessible to all who were desirous of ascertaining its contents. He had some difficulty in replying to the second part of the Question; but his impression was that, as Keble College was now a College having a charter, it would be a subsisting College within the meaning of the Bill.

BRITISH REGIMENTS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether with reference to the expenditure for recruiting the British Regiments in India, and for Transport of Troops to and from India, any steps are being taken by the Home Indian Government to reduce the amount?
  MR. GEANT DUFF: Sir, the reduction by every proper means of the Indian military charges constantly occupies the attention of the Secretary of State in Council; but my hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that in all matters relating to the European troops, the views of the War Office and the interests of the British Exchequer count for a great deal. A Committee, composed partly of gentlemen belonging to the War Office and partly of gentlemen belonging to the India Office, is at this moment carefully considering the question of recruiting, with a view to coming to some arrangement which may be advantageous alike to the British and to the Indian taxpayer.

BRAZIL—CREW OF THE "MARY HAMILTON."—QUESTION."
MR. FINNIEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any further information has been received at the Fo-

1943
reign Office, since the 20th March last, respecting the fate of the crew of the "Mary Hamilton," who have been detained in prison in Bio de Janeiro on an unsubstantiated criminal charge, since the date of their trial and acquittal on the 20th December 1869?
MR. OTWAYreplied, that the matter referred to by the hon. Member had been made the subject of various communications addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Rio. The facts of the case were these—and he hoped his statement would be received by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Grieve) as an answer to his Question on the same subject, which appeared at greater length on the Paper than that of the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Finnie). On the 26th March the crew of the Mary Hamilton were arrested at Rio, at the instigation of the British Consul, on a charge of mutiny and of having murdered their captain. At the inquest several witnesses were examined, some of whom were Englishmen and captains of ships in the harbour. The statement made by the murdered man when he was dying was read. The result of the inquest was that the prisoners were put upon their trial, and were acquitted. It appeared that, according to the Brazilian law, the Judge of a Criminal Court, if dissatisfied with the verdict in a particular case, could direct an appeal to another Court; and in the present instance he had exercised such power, the Judge being of opinion that the statement of the dying man was deserving of much more reliance than the conflicting testimony of the witnesses examined. The men were, therefore, awaiting a new trial before a new Judge, which trial was to take place in the course of this month. The delay in the hearing of this case before the new tribunal was occasioned by the fact of seven other cases of importance standing for trial before this one; and also was caused by the difficulty of getting together a jury. But those difficulties having now been nearly surmounted, there was no doubt that the trial would take place without any further delay.

CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the
1944
Order in Council, dated 4th June, Upon what system the selection of the Government Offices to be thrown open to public competition has been made; and why certain Offices—viz., the Home and Foreign Offices have been omitted, whilst others such as the Treasury, Colonial Office, and Admiralty, have been included? He would further beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in his opinion, the duties of the clerks in the three last-mentioned Offices are of the same important and confidential character as that of the two others that have been omitted?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Government has thought it to be its duty, and to be in accordance with sound policy, not to give at once an authoritative decision, binding the head of every Department in his separate capacity, but has considered that it would act more in the interests of this important question, and more to the satisfactory working of the system, if it allowed the heads of Departments to speak upon the applicability of the new system to their own Departments. It must be recollected that this is, to a considerable degree, an experimental matter, and cannot be treated as if all the questions connected with it had been completely solved by experience. Some have considered that the head of each Department is, in the main, the best judge of the advisability of immediately adopting the new question. The exception of the Foreign Office rests upon the peculiar nature of the duties of that Office. With regard to the Home Office, it is proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary immediately to adopt the new system of open competitive examination in all the sub-departments that are placed under the Home Office—such as the Survey Board, the Police, and other Departments. As to the Home Office itself, it is the opinion of my right hon. Friend that, from the highly confidential and delicate nature of a large portion of the duties that are performed in that Office, it would not be wise, without further information and experience, to adopt the new system which is about to be put in operation in the other Departments of the State.

FOREIGN POSTAGE.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, Whether, when the intended reduction of Postage

1945
on Letters passing between this Country and France has been carried into effect, it will not be fair and equitable to make a corresponding reduction on the Postage of Letters passing through France by the Overland Mails to and from the East?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the additional Postal Convention agreed upon last September, which would come into operation on the 1st of next month, provided only for a rate for international letters, and was not connected in any way with the transit rate payable for mails conveyed through France. It was not, therefore, proposed that any reduction should be made in the inland rates.

COST OF INK FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, To state the quantity and cost of the ink annually purchased for the public service; and, whether it is supplied by private contract with any one or more firms, or by public tender?
MR. STANSFELDreplied that the quantity of ink purchased was 7,916 gallons of liquid ink and 169,392 lbs of ink powders. The cost was £3,212 6s. 6d., of which amount £1,500 was purchased and paid for by the East Indian Government. The whole was supplied by private contract.

INDIA—INCOME TAX.—QUESTION.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that the Act raising the Income Tax from one per cent to three and one-eighth per cent received the assent of the Governor General of India on the 5th of April 1870; and, whether the report is correct that the salaries of public servants in India have been taxed at the rate of five and a quarter per cent for the month of April last, the additional Income Tax of two and one-eighth per cent being thus doubled for that month; and, if so, what is the reason for such a course of proceeding?
MR. GRANT DUFFstated with regard to the first Question of the hon. Baronet, he had to say that his statement was correct. With regard to his second Question the Government had no
1946
information; but as the Act, although, passed on April 5, took effect from April 1, it was quite possible that in respect of payments of salaries made between the 1st and the 5th some arrears of income tax might have to be subsequently recovered.

SCOTLAND—ABERDEEN POST OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a report from the Inspector he deputed to visit Aberdeen to ascertain the capabilities of the present Post Office to meet the requirements of the business; and to ask with what result?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he was aware that the Post Office at Aberdeen was insufficient for the requirements of the place, and it was thought better to build a new office. No site, however, had yet been obtained for the purpose; but he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that the accommodation would be increased as soon as possible.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would beg to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he intends to proceed with the Committee on the Elementary Education Bill day by day—that is, during four days a week—and to commence Morning Sittings?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am very glad to interpret the Question of the noble Lord as a guarantee on the part of those who sit beside him that they think the time has now arrived for holding Morning Sittings. I am very much disposed to agree with the noble Lord that, considering the great importance of the Elementary Education Bill, and the desirableness of expediting its passing, the time has now arrived when we may ask the House, from Friday next, to have Morning Sittings, especially for the purpose of prosecuting that Bill. It is our intention to go on with the Bill without interruption as a general rule; I cannot say absolutely without any interruption, but it will be proceeded with, so far as we can, with rare interruptions

TURKEY—THE FIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement published in some of the newspapers that the British Embassy House at Constantinople was totally destroyed by the disastrous fire that had recently occurred there, was actually the case? He hoped that the Under Secretary would be able to state the precise extent of the damage done by the calamity.
MR. OTWAYregretted to say that very great damage had been done to the British Embassy House at Constantinople, although it had not been totally destroyed. There had also been great loss of life; but the life of no one connected with the British Embassy had been sacrificed. Every precaution had been taken to prevent the destruction of the Embassy House. The fire engines were in order, and everyone was stationed at his post; the iron shutters were closed, the seamen of the Antelope were landed to assist, and every means was taken to extinguish the fire, but without any good result. A telegram from Sir Henry Elliot stated that the ground floor of the Embassy House was comparatively little injured, but above that the walls only remained. It was not possible to save anything from the bed-room floor, all personal effects and clothing having been abandoned. The loss of life was greater than on any previous occasion, and numbers of victims were hourly discovered. The archives and plate belonging to the Embassy had been saved.

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL— [BILL 105]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL— [BILL 105]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Interpretation of terms).
  MR. J. D. LEWIS, who had given Notice of an Amendment, in line 27, after "professorship" to insert "other than a professorship, assistant or deputy professorship of divinity, theology, or ecclesiastical history," said, his object was the same that was aimed at by other Amendments which were shortly to come on, and which would make the Bill really
  1948
  what it professed to be, by throwing open offices in the Universities to all persons without distinction of creed. If, however, those Amendments were passed as they stood, Divinity Professorships might be held by laymen. Now, he thought they ought to be excepted. He had, therefore, given notice of this Amendment; but if the subsequent Amendments placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and himself were not accepted, it would be wasting the time of the House to discuss the matter now. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment for the present, and bring it up, if necessary, on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD EDMOND PITZMAUEICE, in rising to move the Amendment which stood in his name, said, it had originally been his intention to discuss the question his Amendment related to as one of principle; but it would now be unnecessary for him to do so, as the Solicitor General had stated, in the course of the debate upon the second reading, that Heads of Colleges were excepted from the Bill not upon principle, but in consequence of practical considerations which, in fact, resolved themselves into a feeling of deference to the deputation from the Universities which waited upon the First Minister of the Crown in December last. The hon. and learned Gentleman omitted, however, to state the circumstances under which the deputation made that request, and he would, therefore, briefly refer to them. When the great meeting in favour of the abolition of tests was held at Cambridge in November last certain "grave and reverend seigniors" came in and gave their assistance. These formed an important part of a Committee appointed to investigate the subject, and it was, at their suggestion, agreed to recommend the exemption of Heads of Houses from the operation of the measure. Subsequently, the Oxford portion of the deputation was induced to give way to Cambridge on this point, although the idea had never been originally entertained at the former University. In confirmation of this, he desired to call attention to a statement which many Members had no doubt seen in that morning's papers. At a meeting held at Balliol College, Oxford, on the 4th of this month, and

  1949
  presided over by Professor Jowett, a resolution was moved by Sir Benjamin Brodie, in favour of including Heads of Houses in the Bill. It was further stated that although the requisition to that effect was only in circulation for a week, it received no fewer than 66 signatures of gentlemen occupying the highest positions in the University. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that the real feeling of those who represented the Liberal party in that University was not in favour of excluding Heads of Houses from the operation of the Bill. But, however this might be, it was the duty of the House of Commons to consider the feeling of the country at large on the subject, and also to look at the practical results of this omission. What the opinion of the country was was well known. As regarded the practical results, they would be to perpetuate those religious differences which it was the object of the Bill to destroy. The Heads of Houses, assisted by the clerical Fellows, would form a garrison in every College. Hon. Members doubtless recollected that it often happened that in ancient treaties clauses were inserted by which one state retained the right of garrisoning the citadel in a town belonging to another. The usual result was a bombardment on the earliest occasion. The example would not be lost. A clerical bombardment would ensue. On the other hand, if the Heads were inclined to act loyally, they would be the continual objects of suspicion, especially as the patronage of the Colleges was generally vested in their hands. In conclusion, he hoped that the Government would accept his Amendment, and thus add to the debt of gratitude owing to them by all University Liberals. He begged leave to move, in line 28, after "lectureship" to insert "headship of a College."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have a request to make of my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) which I hope he will not think unreasonable, considering the peculiar circumstances under which it is made, especially as the Government cannot take to itself any blame in the matter. The request is, that he will postpone the raising of this question till the Report of the Bill is brought up, when an opportunity shall be given him of treating it with the same convenience as at the present stage. I will briefly
  1950
  state the grounds upon which I make this request. During the autumn, communications were held between the Government and those whom I may call the Liberal party in the two Universities, through the medium of a deputation which came up to London and conversed with me on the subject of academical tests. The gentlemen who represented the Liberal party at Cambridge made it a portion of their plan that the Headships of Colleges were to be reserved and excluded from the operation of the Bill. As I understood, they had made a sort of compact among themselves, and had been joined in the movement for the general repeal of tests by persons who would not have acted with them except out of consideration for this particular reservation. The gentlemen who represented Oxford never shared in this opinion respecting heads of Colleges on its merits; but, viewing the expediency of obtaining as much union of opinion as was possible, and on other grounds extrinsic to the merits of the question, they likewise concurred in the request made by the gentlemen from Cambridge. Subsequently the Dean of Christ Church, on the part of the academical Liberals in both Universities, forwarded me a draft Bill from the operation of which Heads of Colleges would be exempted. It was in this shape that the subject was brought before the Government; and the Government, having regard to this union of sentiment for the purposes of action, thought that, on the whole, it would be wise and prudent for them to adopt the framework of the measure which had been suggested to them with so unusual an amount of concurrence of opinion. They, therefore, did not enter into a consideration, as a Government, of the intrinsic value of any such reservation, but regarded the matter simply on the ground I have described, and accordingly introduced this reservation into the framework of their Bill. It partook, therefore, of the character, I will not say strictly of a covenant, but of an understanding between the Government and those who had preferred the request—for I must assert, in the strongest and most definite manner, that whatever be the private opinions of any gentlemen in Oxford, including the 66 to whom my noble Friend referred, the request made to me by the Dean of Christ Church in the letter accompanying the Bill was that

  1951
  the Headships might be reserved. I will not say that the Government is bound by that, and still less do I say the House is bound by it, because I agree with my noble Friend that the opinion of no body of men at Oxford or Cambridge can be decisive in a matter of this kind. But although I had been in communication with the deputation from the Universities for six months, it was not till last Saturday morning that I received a communication signed by eminent members of the University of Oxford, who, quite irrespective of this understanding, express a hope that the noble Lord's Amendment will be carried. We had a joint request made to us by two parties—with private opinions we have nothing to do—and that was, that we should exclude from the operation of the Bill that which my noble Friend wishes us to introduce. We have since received a document signed by a large number of those who make up one of the parties, stating that this was not their wish, and that consequently, without being released from the understanding to which we came, they were opposed to our fulfilling it. Now, I have not the slightest wish to make any charge against those gentlemen. I have made a request to Professor Jowett, the chairman of the meeting on the subject, in which I have begged of him to let us know whether we are released from the kind of understanding into which we entered, or, what is the attitude intended to be adopted by the parties in the two Universities with respect, to the matter. I expect to know better in the course of a few days the sentiments of those to whose formal request we acceded in framing the Bill, and I shall undertake to be in a position before the Report to clear up the point. Then, without binding ourselves to any particular course, we shall be in possession of facts which must form part of the materials which we shall have to consider in guiding us to a conclusion. I hope, therefore, my noble Friend will kindly withdraw his Amendment for the present.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUEICEsaid, he would at once accede to that request.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the point was one on which, though it was of great importance, the Government appeared to have no opinions of their own, but were contented to repre-
  1952
  sent the opinions of the extreme section of the Oxford Liberals, a description which was, he thought, by no means too strong as characterizing the meetings presided over by Professor Jowett and others, to whom the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had alluded. He at once admitted it was quite natural that, in the view of those who wished to see University tests abolished, the reservation in the clause should seem untenable, and considering the advance which had been made by the Government on the question, he was not surprised to hear them intimate their readiness that the reservation should be done away with. But the Amendment was one to which he and those who, like him, were altogether opposed to the Bill, could not be expected to give their assent. He looked upon the reservation in the case of the Headships of Colleges as of the greatest importance, because with the Heads of Colleges rested the appointment of tutors. It might be an invidious thing to ask them to select the tutors; but they must make some selection, and he should feel the utmost confidence that they would select those best qualified for the purpose. There was also another point to which the noble Lord had not referred, which he looked upon as of the utmost consequence; he alluded to worship in the College chapel. By Clause 4 of the Bill that worship was to remain untouched, and he supposed it would continue to be conducted according to the rites of the Church of England. Now, he believed it was provided by the statutes of the Colleges that the Heads should attend the College chapel. If they were not members of the Church of England, however, it would not be open to them to do so, and what would, under those circumstances, happen? Would the services be maintained at all, or would they be conducted in accordance with the rites of the Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents, or Unitarians, according to the particular tenets of the Head of the College, and with those of the Church of England by turns? If that were to be the case he could not help thinking that little would have been done to promote that religious harmony which the supporters of the Bill professed it to be one of their main objects to secure. The result would be that the College services would, be alto-

  1953
  gether done away with or become of the most colourless character. Believing the effect of the adoption of the Amendment would be materially to injure the cause of religious instruction, which was already so prejudicially interfered with by the Bill, he should certainly object to it when brought up on the Report.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must protest against the statement that the Government were merely the registrars of the extreme opinions of the Oxford Liberals. They had introduced the present clause into the Bill not at the bidding of the extreme Oxford Liberals, but at the request of the moderate Cambridge Reformers. The hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) considered that it was desirable to maintain the reservation with regard to the Heads of Colleges, because the appointment of tutors rested with them; but did he mean to suppose that the restriction was to be made use of to defeat the very object of the Bill, and that if a large number of persons in a College were eminently qualified to be tutors, they should, because they did not happen to be members of the Church of England, and for no other reason, be precluded from filling such positions? There could be no better argument adduced than that to lead hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House to the conclusion that the restriction was one which ought not to be maintained.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought the interpretation which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) on the language used by the First Minister of the Crown was the only interpretation of which it was capable. The right hon. Gentleman had almost apologized for having inserted the reservation in the clause, and added that before he could do anything further in the matter he must consult Mr. Jowett. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] He had certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he must wait to receive the instructions of the extreme Liberals as to the course he should take. He should like, he might add, to know whether the present movement was one which originated with the University itself, or whether it had not reference to a certain communication with certain gentlemen in London on Saturday, the
  1954
  4th of June. For his own part, he did not believe that it had originated with the University.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he understood the Solicitor General to have stated that the reservation in the clause was inserted to meet the views of the moderate Cambridge Reformers, and he would suggest that they too, as well as the members of the University of Oxford referred to by the First Minister of the Crown, should be communicated with before the Government arrived at a final decision on the point in question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Persons taking lay academical degrees or holding lay academical or collegiate offices not to be required to subscribe any formulary of faith, &c.)
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, that the objects set forth in the Preamble of the Bill could not be attained so long as words were embodied in the clause containing restrictions with respect to dignities in Divinity. In Scotland—at all events, he could speak of Glasgow and Aberdeen—no condition was attached to the grant of Divinity degrees, and any student could present himself for examination. He did not see why the English Universities should not be placed on the same footing, and also why they should not confer honorary degrees on distinguished theologians outside their own Church. Believing the measure to be incomplete as long as these words remained, he begged to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "other than a degree in divinity."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "other than a degree in divinity."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, though he hoped he was not wanting in liberality, he was quite unable to follow his hon. Friend in his extreme liberalism in this matter. Although they freely opened the Universities without requiring tests in regard to all other matters, yet it seemed to him to be essential to preserve Divinity degrees in any University in connection with some definite form of Divinity. To talk of conferring a degree in Divinity without an examination into definite doctrines appeared to be embarking on a course which he would rather some one else followed than him-

  1955
  self. The Universities were not debarred by this section from, conferring, in accordance with former practice, upon distinguished theologians not belonging to the Church of England honorary degrees in. Divinity, and in that case—he spoke, at least, of Oxford—the recipients of degrees had to sign no test. Such degrees had been conferred upon Dr. Chalmers and the Archbishop of Syra. In. his opinion it would not be right to call upon the Universities to examine any person, however different might be his religious opinions from those of the Church of England, who might present himself. That would be by an excessively difficult and impracticable course, and would tend to introduce the evils of religious controversy in the sharpest and most disagreeable forms. Therefore, with all deference to the hon. Member, and with every desire to make the Bill as wide as possible, he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support the Amendment. If what was proposed had been adopted without difficulty in Scotland, he asked why should it not be done in England? He was one of those who held, the opinion that thought should be unfettered, and he would press upon the Solicitor General sentiments he had uttered on previous occasions in favour of the very principle. He did not shrink from the application of thought and of intellect even to matters theological. He stood convinced on certain doctrines contained in the Articles of the Church of England, which some of the supporters of the Establishment repudiated, or durst not act upon them. They must have in this country, and he proclaimed it in the House of Commons, equality of religious rights and religious thought. The First Minister of the Crown had enunciated that principle, and let not his coadjutors flinch from it. He was confident that the stability not only of our institutions, but of the Throne itself, depended upon freedom being given on this great question, and the principle involved in the Amendment must not be concealed out of deference to what was founded not upon Scripture, but upon power and caprice. Whatever the members of the Government, assisted by those of the Opposition, might do, let other Members, at any rate, record their votes truthfully and honestly in favour of the great principle.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished he know up to what point this principle was to be carried. It was proposed that degrees in Divinity should be given irrespective of the religious tenets held by the recipient. This, no doubt, was a great principle, but was it as good as great? It was not possible in University matters to draw a satisfactory distinction between degrees and offices. He was not speaking of honorary degrees. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had explained that part of the case, and the Universities were at liberty to confer such degrees without imposing any test. A degree was supposed to indicate the capacity of the person receiving it to teach; and the proposal of his hon. Friends was that the University should declare, by giving degrees, the capacity of men to teach theology, and then stop them from entering into offices where theology was to be taught. That was practically, as well as logically, an inconsequence which could not be defended. The University could not give degrees in theology, and afterwards say to the recipients—"We refuse to allow you to discharge this teaching duty." Parliament would place itself in a wholly false position if it called upon the Universities to separate capacity in the teaching of theology from the matter and doctrines to be taught, and if, after the teaching capacity of these persons had been affirmed by the Universities, the latter were compelled by law to refuse them all participation in the emoluments of teaching. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) should have "the courage of his convictions," and assert his principle in a logical way by proposing to throw open all theological offices at the University. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend was perfectly ready to do this. If, therefore, the Professorship of Divinity in Oxford became vacant, and Archbishop Manning should be disposed to accept that office, his hon. Friend would be prepared to see Archbishop Manning installed in it. That was the principle asserted by his hon. Friend. It was a great principle, no doubt, but he was disposed to question its goodness.
  MR. MIALLsaid, he did not think the Amendment had been sought for in any of the negotiations between the representatives of the Dissenters and those who had been most forward in promot-

  1957
  ing the Bill. If, indeed, freedom of thought would be promoted by Dissenters taking degrees in Divinity as taught by the Church of England, he should have thought it of great importance that they should claim liberty to take those degrees; but, instead of freedom of thought, they would have only restriction of thought, and would show themselves to be up to a certain standard of attainment in theological knowledge, that being, of course, the standard of the Church of England. While he thanked the hon. Member (Mr. Stevenson) for having brought forward the Amendment, he thought it would be wise not to press it to a Division.
  MR. TIPPINGsaid, that, as regarded freedom of thought, he might observe that, in the case of the body of Dissenters to which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) belonged, that freedom was exercised in reference to Dr. Davidson by his being shown either the front or the back door of his own church.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the objection to granting degrees in Divinity to persons who did not belong to the Established Church would be a valid objection if it were true that Universities were to be considered as being in connection with the Church of England as they had been in the past. But the very object of the Bill was to take the Universities out of that position, and to make them national Universities; and if they were national Universities, he could not conceive why those who took even degrees of Divinity should be subjected to any particular test. For a long time in Scotland University degrees were connected with a test which made it necessary that those who took them should be members of the Church of Scotland; but this test had been abandoned, and now the degrees were given to those who could pass an examination in the extensive range of subjects included in a four years' curriculum of theology. The degree is viewed as certifying to the candidate's theological knowledge, not his theological belief. The latter was looked to by Presbyteries in Scotland, and would be by the Bishops in England. Part of the examination was in the evidences of Christianity, and this, though not necessarily, was found practically to exclude candidates who did not profess Christian faith. In all other
  1958
  respects the examinations were open to the members of any Church, and members of Dissenting bodies often passed them. The examiners were chiefly Professors of the Church of Scotland, and there might be a leaning towards that Church in the examinations; but the degrees might be taken by candidates irrespective of their belonging to that Church. If the Amendment were pressed to a Division he would vote for it.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, as regarded what had just been said respecting an eminent Nonconformist divine, he denied that there was anything in the case which the hon. Member (Mr. Tipping) alluded to justify a statement that Dr. Davidson was turned out either at the back or the front door. As a personal friend of that gentleman, he protested against the use of such language.
  MR. TIPPINGsaid, he should be the last person to east any reflection on Dr. Davidson. If there were any reflection to cast, it must rest upon the body to which the gentleman belonged, and not on himself.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that as regarded the Scotch Universities the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Dr. Playfair) admitted that the examination was limited to the question whether persons presenting themselves were Atheists, for the hon. Member had said that it turned upon a knowledge of the evidences of Christianity. What the members of the Church of England desired was a definite system of theology. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) talked of equality; would he give them equality on the other side? Would he allow members of the Church of England to present themselves for examination at London University? He apprehended that that University knew nothing of divinity, and did not exclude Atheists.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He understood what was meant by secularizing the Universities; but not what was meant by secularizing religion. He did not understand on what principle a degree of Divinity could be given to a man simply because he had an acquaintance with the reasons which could be urged in favour of a system without intimating whether he considered them of any value. A degree which attested a man's fitness to teach should

  1959
  not be given without any regard to a man's belief in the doctrines he was authorized to teach. Nothing could be gained to freedom of thought, or to truth, or any other good thing, by granting degrees of Divinity to persons wholly irrespective of the divinity they professed.
  MR. RAIKESexplained the operation of the clause as it affected the University of Cambridge, in respect of the circumstance that it was not necessary for a man to take any degree other than the ordinary M.A. degree in order to become a Professor of that University.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, the real question before the Committee was, whether or not an earnest man who did not belong to the Church of England should have an opportunity of supporting the doctrinal articles of the Church, and whether eminent Nonconformists should not be allowed to compete with old rotten Professors of Theology. The Bishop of Chester was taught theology so well by Dr. Pye Smith, who became Professor of Theology at Homerton College, that the pupil was thought worthy of a Professorship at Oxford.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, he regretted that the Government had not seen their way to adopt his Amendment. He would ask leave to withdraw it.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he wished to inquire of the Solicitor General the nature of the test taken by a Bachelor or Doctor of Divinity. His impression was that there was no test at all in the case.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, an erroneous impression, seemed to prevail—namely, that a man could obtain the degree of Bachelor of Divinity at Edinburgh by a sort of negative theology. He was anxious the Committee should know that every candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh must attend the Faculty. He had to go through four courses of lectures, to pay the fees, do all the exercises, and pass a creditable examination. But no declaration was required. Neither was there any attendance at church or chapel or any profession of faith. If the Committee adopted the Amendment they would place Oxford and Cambridge in this respect on the same footing as Edinburgh University.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment, although a
  1960
  very small one, involved a very important principle. He could easily understand how hon. Members opposite were unanimously against the Amendment; he thought they were bound, in conformity with their opinions, to oppose it. But he could not understand the opposition on the Liberal side of the House. What was the object of the Bill? It was to change the character of the old Universities of England, and to make them national, instead of Church of England institutions. The wish was, by making them great national institutions to attract as many subjects of Her Majesty as possible to study in the Universities, irrespective of all opinions which they might appear to entertain on religious, scientific, or any other subject. It appeared to him to be a case of extreme hardship that young men, who would by this Bill be entering the Universities, and who did not belong to the Church of England, but were anxious to study theology, should be prevented from showing their knowledge of the subject by an examination. An examination was not a test of opinion, but of knowledge; and if a Nonconformist or a Roman Catholic chose, of his own accord, to go into an examination at Oxford or Cambridge not to show his opinions, but to show the knowledge he possessed of theology, whether the theology of the Church of England or otherwise, to prevent him from doing so was to contradict the principle of the Bill.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought that the statement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr.M'Laren)was calculated to lead the Committee into an error, when the hon. Member said it was only necessary to adopt the Amendment in order to put Oxford and Cambridge exactly on a level with the University of Edinburgh. What he (Sir Roundell Palmer) proposed to do last year would have effected very much what the hon. Gentleman described; because he proposed to adopt a declaration for Professors at Oxford and Cambridge similar to that at present imposed upon all lay Professors in the Scotch Universities. The old tests as to Theological Professors at Edinburgh remained in their original integrity as prescribed by the Act of Union.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had alluded to the case of Bachelors of Divinity, who took no declaration at Edinburgh. The

  1961
  Bachelors of Divinity had nothing whatever to do with the Professors.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had placed the matter in its true light, when he stated that an examination must be regarded as a test of knowledge, and not of belief. He should support the Amendment.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 262; Noes 101: Majority 161.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he had put two Amendments on the Paper; but as to the first of them, the Solicitor General had privately assured him that it was not necessary. As to the other, it must have appeared remarkable to anybody who had read the Bill, that it was applied without remorse to all existing institutions, but was not to apply to those which were in the future to be created within the Universities. Why was there to be that distinction? It was impossible not to ask—"What is the principle which justifies this Bill?" because he supposed that no hon. Member wished to deal with property of any description without having some strong ground of justification for the interference. He supported the Bill because it dealt with the Colleges, which were part of what he regarded as a national establishment—the University into which they were incorporated partly by charter and partly by Act of Parliament. He should not have had a word to say in defence of this Bill; but, on the contrary, would have voted against its second reading, if he had not so regarded the Colleges. The Bill did not propose to deal with Stonyhurst, Oscott, or any of the Nonconformist Colleges, because interference with them would be wholly unjustifiable, for they were not affiliated to, or incorporated with, any national establishment such as a University. Last year he voted for including the Colleges in the Bill—although the Solicitor General was reluctant to deal with them—because he regarded them as part of the corpus of the estate, which was within the control of Parliament. How did Parliament propose to distinguish between existing Colleges and those which were to be founded? He regarded it as a great
  1962
  mistake that Keble College was not by name incorporated into the University; it would, however, still come within the operation of this Bill. If a private person chose to attach a College to a national institution, like a University, that College must follow the fate of the University, he was unable to read the Preamble of the hon. and learned Gentleman's (the Solicitor General's) Bill, and at the same time to understand the exemption of future Colleges from its operation. The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that there should be two sets of Colleges in the Universities—those founded in past times, open to the nation, and those founded in the future, confined to a particular class. It was difficult to understand the principle upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman had proceeded. Had the Colleges failed in the proper discharge of their obligations there might have been some excuse for the course adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but that charge could not be brought against them. In every sense, they had fully carried out the intentions of their founders, and, as far as he was personally concerned, he confessed that he owed everything to them. But the Bill proceeded upon the ground that the Universities being national institutions, every part of them ought to be open to the nation. The course that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken appeared to him to be extraordinary. Colleges already in existence, the founders of which were without any notion of the present course of legislation, were to be dealt with by the Bill; but Colleges established in the future, when the views of Parliament and of the nation were known to everyone, were to be specially exempted. Supposing the Irish Church Act of last Session had said—"We will disendow and disestablish the Irish Church, but if the Protestants of Ireland choose to endow a new Archbishop of Armagh, then the principle of disen-dowment and disestablishment shall not apply, but the new Archbishop shall have all the rights and privileges of his predecessor," what would have been thought of the measure? It had been said that the measure, although not to be strictly justified upon this point, was at all events expedient. He, however, did not agree with the proposition. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern-

  1963
  ment had stated that he had been in communication with the Universities upon the subject of certain of the Amendments proposed with reference to this Bill; but this question of the exemption of future Colleges had not been alluded to by either party of either University. The House had been informed that this Bill was to apply to the Keble College, which was founded yesterday, but that it was not to apply to the College that might be founded next week. And here he could not refrain from pointing out the peculiar and unexampled terms of the charter under which Keble College had been incorporated. Under that charter a majority of nine of the council of twelve, would have power to turn out the remaining three. In no other charter had such a power been given to the majority over the minority. Was the Bill, in its present form, likely to conduce to the peace of the Universities? It proposed to set up fresh sectarian fortresses to form a barrier to the rest of the Colleges, and would thus perpetuate that religious discord, to get rid of which was one of the objects of the Bill. Nobody had forgotten the remarkable scene that had occurred in that House when the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) brought forward the question of the establishment of denominational Colleges in the University of Dublin. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had claimed the confidence of the House, and had asked them not to bind the hands of the Government in dealing with this question. There ought, however, to be some reciprocity in the matter, and if their own hands were not bound, they should leave free the hands of those who thought differently from them upon this question. Were the House deliberately to decide that the Colleges which might hereafter be affiliated to our Universities were entitled to exemption from the provisions of this Bill, what would be their situation with reference to the University of Dublin when it was proposed to found Roman Catholic Colleges attached to that institution? It would be impossible to refuse charters to Roman Catholic Colleges in Ireland if the Bill passed in its present shape. He begged to move, in page 2, lines 12 and 13, to leave out "subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that it was impossible for him to accede, on the part of the Government, to the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) that these words should be left out of the clause. He passed at once to the second of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments, because he understood him to be satisfied that no necessity existed for putting undergraduates and students into the Bill, because their case had been already sufficiently provided for. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him upon what grounds he proposed to apply a different principle to Colleges to be established in the future from that which was to apply to the Colleges already in existence. He denied that the hon. and learned Member had put the matter fairly by the issue he had raised. He denied that in the present measure there was any difference whatever in the principle to be applied to existing and to future Colleges. He had always maintained in the House that everyone who gave property in mortmain or founded a College, or gave property to a corporation, whether ecclesiastical or lay, did so with the knowledge that from the very earliest times the Parliament of England would from time to time deal with those institutions as it might think fit. The two Universities themselves had been so dealt with by the Parliament of this country over and over again, and notably on the occasion when the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity were passed. He, therefore, denied that they were about to apply a different principle of legislation to the Universities from that which the Parliament of England had always proceeded upon in dealing with many of the Colleges, both in Oxford and Cambridge. He did not hesitate to say that anyone who founded a College, however exclusively denominational, in either of the two Universities in 1870, did so with the full knowledge that if it should seem good to Parliament hereafter—should a Parliament then be in existence—the purposes for which he gave his property would be modified according to the principles of future times. The broad principle upon which the Government proceeded was this—that through lapse of time these great institutions had, in all cases, acquired so thoroughly national a character, and had become in point of opinion so far separated from those who

  1965
  founded them, that it was but just they should be thrown open to a wider range; and he freely admitted that when it seemed good in the eyes of Parliament; to deal with Keble College upon that principle the policy of 1870 would be pronounced sound. His hon. and learned Friend desired not merely that the Colleges and Universities of England should be thrown open to persons of all kinds; of religious opinion, but that, if persons wished to endow Colleges to disseminate particular religious opinions, they should be prevented from having the advantages of association with Oxford and Cambridge because they maintained those opinions.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, his Amendment was that every College incorporated with the Universities should be open to persons of all religious opinions.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that of course no one stated his proposition exactly in the terms of his adversary, and no doubt his hon. and learned Friend preferred his mode; but if, in the case of a man who was willing out of his own pocket to found a College for the maintenance of a particular set of religious opinions, his hon. and learned Friend said the students in that College should not have the advantage of an Oxford or Cambridge degree, he said that which was thoroughly illiberal. He proposed to exclude persons who were willing to come into the University, and to conform in all respects to its enactments, simply because their religious opinions differed from his. Taking the example of Oscott, Stonyhurst, and Homerton Colleges, upon which his hon. and learned Friend chiefly based his argument, he contended that the London University was in every sense of the word national—it was founded originally and still supported by the nation; yet these Colleges were associated with the London University. Would his hon. and learned Friend follow up his principle, and do away with this connection? His hon. and learned Friend asked why Keble College was to be dealt with differently from the way in which Colleges founded hereafter would be dealt with. His answer was that the promoters of Keble College had their attention drawn to the Bill, which in all probability they knew would soon become law, and it was their fault if they did not approve being brought within
  1966
  the scope of the Act, for they had come under it with their eyes open. There was no case for putting in the words proposed; it had taken 600 or 700 years to bring the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge into their present state, and he thought new Colleges, provided they were founded for objects neither immoral nor illegal, might be left for a similar period, until their special objects had become obsolete.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the promoters of Keble College did not at all desire to bring themselves under the Bill, but the reverse.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was assured by his hon. Friends around him that Oscott and the other Colleges referred to were not affiliated to the London University. His idea, however, was that as soon as a College was incorporated with the State University, it should be treated as a national institution, and that every one should be admitted to it. But he desired to withdraw his Amendment, and gave Notice that, on bringing up the Report of the Committee, he would move the addition of a clause providing that any charter granted to any College or institution in the nature of a College shall be presented to Parliament, and shall have no force or effect until the expiry of thirty days from the time it shall have been so presented.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he rose to move the omission of the words "or to be, or abstain from being, a member of any particular Church, sect, or denomination," which, he considered, were exceedingly and unnecessarily offensive to the religious feelings of the community. He was willing to accept the decision to which the House had already come on the subject of tests; but he did not see, if the words were retained, how it would be in the power of any College hereafter to exclude, even from offices involving teaching, persons who were the avowed enemies of the Christian religion. He did not believe, however, that that was the intention of the Solicitor General, or of any other Member of Her Majesty's Government who, no doubt, merely wished to promote what was called religious liberty.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from the words "or to

  1967
  be" to the word "denomination," in line 24, both inclusive.—(Mr. John Talbot.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, interrupting the hon. Member, said, he was willing to accept the Amendment. The wording of the clause was not meant by the Government to be offensive to anybody, but was chosen to make clear the intention of the Bill, and to show that offices in the Universities would be thrown open to all persons, irrespective of their religious belief. He should be the last to use words which would give offence.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would remind the Committee that the hon. Member (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had objected to the words not because they were in terms offensive to any denomination, but because they would shackle the freedom of a College to exclude persons who held certain opinions. He understood the hon. Gentleman to desire that a person might be excluded if he did not believe in the Christian religion. If the omission of the words would lead to such a result, he should decidedly oppose the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not think the words carried the matter further than it went before. On the whole, it would, perhaps, be better to leave the words out.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, the hon. Member's (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) objection was analogous to that taken by the Catholic hierarchy to persons of the sect or body of Freemasons. It was not a question of a person's belief, or of his attending certain services, but of his belonging to a particular society. Such a fact ought, in the hon. Member's judgment, to authorize his expulsion. He understood that to be the avowed object of the Amendment, which he should therefore oppose.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the omission of the words, as the Bill had been drawn up with great care. They were, in his opinion, so potent that it would be extremely dangerous to leave them out; but if, in reality, they were of no importance, there could be no harm in retaining them.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 181: Majority 68.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that in rising to move that Proviso 1 be struck out of the clause, he begged to assure hon. Members that he looked upon the Amendment of such practical and immediate importance that he would certainly take a Division upon it. If his Amendment were not carried the Bill would be inconsistent in its principles, and its Preamble would not be just or true. The Committee would, he was sure, be very generally surprised to hear that there were in the two Universities 150 or 160 Fellowships which would be left in the same position after the Bill passed as they were now, if it became law in its present shape. He had in his pocket at that moment a letter from an Oxford tutor, who informed him that, so far as he could make out, one-half the Fellowships at the University were clerical Fellowships—that was to say, Fellowships the men holding which must be in Holy Orders. Their number was at the lowest estimate 130; and there were also 30 similar Fellowships at Cambridge. Now, if the Bill passed as it stood, Parliament would be sanctioning the extraordinary anomaly that, in our great national Universities, 160 Fellowships, instead of being freely open to the whole nation, could be held only by those who were willing to take Orders. Few were aware, he might add, how many melancholy instances there were of young men being tempted by the prospect of a Fellowship to take Orders before they could properly make up their minds on the subject. He knew of more than one brilliant career which had been blighted in that way, and if the Bill were permitted to pass as it was that state of things would continue to exist. But its inconsistency did not stop there. At Oxford and Cambridge not only were there a number of Fellowships called clerical, but men were bribed to take Holy Orders by the fact that, if they did so, they could hold their Fellowships for a longer time than if they were merely laymen. He excluded from his observations the case of those Fellows who were allowed to retain their Fellowships through life on certain conditions of doing work for their Colleges. That was a case which no one would wish to touch. But a young man, might take the degree,

  1969
  say, of Senior Wrangler or Senior Classic. He might pursue his studies in science or for the bar in London, and at the end of seven years, after taking his M.A. degree, his Fellowship would be vacated; but if one month or one hour before the expiration of the time he took Holy Orders he could retain it, on condition of remaining unmarried for the rest of his natural life. Was it not, he would ask, inconsistent with the principles of the Bill to try to induce young men to take Holy Orders by offering them such pecuniary rewards? If, therefore, his Motion for the omission of the proviso should be carried, he should bring up two clauses removing all doubt on the subject. One of those clauses would state that no one after the passing of the Act should, as a condition of holding or being elected to any Headship, Fellowship, or Studentship in any College in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or Durham be required to take Holy Orders. The other clause would be to the effect that no one should be permitted to hold a Headship, Fellowship, or Studentship for a longer period if in Holy Orders than he would be permitted to hold it if he were a layman. If those Amendments were carried the Bill would, he believed, fulfil to a great extent the promises of the Government, and make our Universities great national institutions. If not, a great portion of the endowments of Oxford and Cambridge would be left untouched by the measure. Reviewing the history of the question, and seeing how Session after Session the Government had been obliged to give up one feeble compromise after another; seeing how at one time they proposed to deal only with Oxford and not with Cambridge; then with the Universities, and to leave the Colleges as they were; seeing how afterwards they were forced to include the Colleges also, and to acknowledge that those who objected to the permissive legislation which they proposed in the case of those Colleges were right, he trusted they would not refuse to accept his Amendment, and would thus avoid the necessity of being obliged to come down to the House next Session to make the admission that they were again in error, and that in leaving clerical Fellowships as they were they were not in reality making our Universities what they ought to be—great national insti-
  1970
  tutions, in whose emoluments and rewards every subject of Her Majesty should have an equal opportunity of sharing. He begged to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from the word "Nothing" to the word "office" in line 36, both inclusive.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from the word "Nothing" to the word "office," in line 36, both inclusive.—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Bill had been drawn with some care, and the Government were bound to take their stand on it, in substance, as it was. It was true that he had admitted his hon. Friend was right in the Amendment proposed by him last year; and, having made that frank admission, he hoped he should have been spared from making it again. However, he had no objection to repeat the same admission. He must oppose the Amendment; first, because the Bill was in substance one which had been again and again submitted to both Houses, and was the result of the deliberations of leading men at Cambridge and Oxford, in whom the Government placed entire confidence, and who wished that the measure should be that which had been before adopted, with this addition—that Parliament should do certain things absolutely for the Colleges, instead of leaving the Colleges to act for themselves. Further, the Amendment would be a violation of all the grounds on which the Bill was originally put forward. Large bodies of Nonconformists had been in communication from time to time with those who had the conduct of the Bill, and their statement had uniformly been that they had no desire to interfere with the existing arrangements of Colleges, except so far as an unfair exclusion was maintained against them by the operation of Acts of Parliament. But the Amendment went far beyond the proper scope and reasonable object of the Bill, and did not merely open offices in the Universities to the legitimate competition of all alike, without religious tests, but interfered with the internal arrangements of the Colleges, violated their statutes, and repealed their ordinances. Such legislation, if attempted at all, should be contained in a separate measure, and not be introduced in a Bill the single and intelligible object of which

  1971
  was to remove from the path of certain persons at the Universities obstacles which, in the judgment of a great majority of the House, ought not to impede their University career. He would remind his hon. Friend that there was such a thing as practical wisdom in these matters. The supporters of the Bill had to get not exactly what they desired—although he did not sympathize with the object now sought for—but what they could obtain. There was another House of Parliament to be considered, and if these various Amendments were passed, and formed an integral part of the Bill, it would be almost an invitation to those who wished ill to the Bill to obstruct its further progress when it left this House. The Bill as it stood might, he thought, be accepted as a reasonable settlement of this question, and he hoped the Committee would not adopt an Amendment which had no natural connection with the Bill, and which would be fatal to its ultimate success.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the clerical Fellowships drove young men into courses which were against their consciences, and they drove other young men from the Universities. He had himself been obliged to give up a Fellowship because he would not take Orders. He, however, could not vote for the Amendment; because the question with which it dealt was entirely one of internal arrangement in the Colleges, and if they once entered on that subject they would get into a wilderness of questions. He knew, however, that it was of no use asking his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) not to press his Amendment.
  MR. MIALLsaid, he thought that the principle of the Amendment was a sound one, but could not support it, feeling bound by the pledges he had given, in order to induce the Government to take the matter in hand, to the effect that he and those who acted with him would forego asking for the abolition of clerical Fellowships by this Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Miall) had shown the perfect fidelity to engagements and the honour which all who knew him would expect. It was only fair, as this question had been raised, that he should confirm what his hon. Friend had stated. A really representative deputation from the various Nonconformist bodies, with his hon. Friend at its head, had an in-
  1972
  terview with him (Mr. Gladstone) in the autumn. That deputation included his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), Mr. James Martineau, Mr. Reed, Mr. Cook, and many others of the most eminent representatives of the Nonconformist bodies, and, in asking for the introduction of this Bill, they distinctly represented, for the information of the Government, that it formed no part of their request that the Bill should contain any provision for the abrogation of those parts of the College statutes which related to clerical Fellowships.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought the House of Commons ought not to be bound by any compact either with Nonconformists or anybody else. The question was, whether the proposal made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was right or wrong. No attempt had been made by the First Minister of the Crown to show that it was wrong; both the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), and the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall), had approved the principle of the Amendment, and he should certainly go into the Lobby in support of it.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, there was a curious fallacy in the argument of the Solicitor General, who objected to the Amendment because it would interfere with the College statutes. The Bill itself interfered with the College statutes. If you repealed the Act of Uniformity and did not touch the College statutes, Nonconformists would be just as hopelessly excluded from Fellowships as they now were, because many of the Colleges required a declaration that a person was of a certain religious faith. As to the appeal made to him by the Solicitor General to be practically wise, the very same thing was said to him last year; but it had been shown that the practical wisdom was on his side. His view of dealing with the House of Lords was to state precisely what the House wanted and with what it would be satisfied. He much regretted that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) had said he could not vote with him, because of certain arrangements made out of the House; and he was sure much disappointment would be felt throughout the country among those whom the hon. Member was supposed to represent. He

  1973
  was sure his hon. Friend entered into the arrangement from the most honourable motives; but the event should warn them not to enter into arrangements with the Government until it was known what the Government would do, or else it might compel them to vote contrary to the principles they advocated.
  Question put, "That the words 'Nothing in this section shall render' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committeee divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 79: Majority 78.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had to propose an Amendment in the phraseology of sub-Section (1), so as to obviate an objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that it would confer an exceptional advantage on Roman Catholic priests, and to correct an admitted error on the part of the draftsman. It had been forgotten for the moment that a man in Roman Catholic Orders was in Holy Orders within the meaning of English law, and if a priest joined the Church of England it was not necessary to re-ordain him. He proposed to omit the word "layman," and to insert "any person not in Holy Orders in the Church of England."
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he must ask whether the proposed Amendment would not admit a person who had taken Orders in the Church of England, and had gone over to the Church of Rome? Such a person, he thought, ought to be excluded as much as any regularly ordained Romish priest.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was obliged to admit that the case of converts had not been contemplated. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment, and propose one on the Report.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he wished to ask to what offices the 2nd sub-section of the clause was intended to apply. The masterships of the Endowed Schools were dealt with in the Act of last Session.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that wherever by law the holding of a University degree was made essential for the holding of an ex-University office, and where the law had thrown open that office to persons other than members of the Church of England, the sub-section would not apply. It would not touch anything but offices in the
  1974
  University itself; and the Act would not indirectly affect offices which were not fairly within its scope.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT, who had given Notice of his intention to move, at end of clause to add—
  "No College, or similar institution, shall hereafter be incorporated in the said Universities which shall not be rendered freely accessible to the nation under the provisions of this Act,"
  said, he would not propose the addition now, but would reserve it for the Report.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he heard this announcement with regret, because the holding over of a number of discussions for the Report would tend to impede the passing' of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had raised the question already, and why did he not take the question then, instead of postponing it? He (Mr. Gladstone) had been reluctantly compelled to ask for the adjournment of one discussion, under circumstances for which he was not responsible; and now the hon. and learned Member proposed to adjourn the discussion of the important question of the status of future Colleges. The Government had made the best arrangements in their power for getting through as much as possible that evening; and he was sorry to say that, in the pressure of business, if the discussion of this question were postponed, the Government could not be responsible for finding a definite time when it could be taken.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he found a good deal of disappointment expressed at his not having availed himself of a past opportunity to divide the Committee on this question. No doubt he had done wrong in not dividing; but he gave Notice at the time that he would propose on the Report that no charter should be given to any College which was not laid upon the Table of the House; and perhaps that would be the best form of raising the question.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Act not to interfere with lawfully established system of religious instruction, worship, and discipline).
  MR. PARKERsaid, this was the only clause purporting to save the present religious character of University education, and he should like, before giving any further support to the measure, to have some assurance that the words as they stood would have that effect. After

  1975
  the passing of the Act the existing statutes of the Universities and Colleges, as they did not contemplate the admission of Nonconformists, might, of course, require some alteration. He wished to know whether the Universities and Colleges themselves would have power to modify their statutes in order to make them applicable to the new state of things; or, if not, who was to do it, and how? He had supported the Bill always on the understanding that nothing in it would be allowed to override the Christian character of education in our national Universities, although he was quite willing that provision should be made to admit Jews and persons of other creeds to their share in the government and endowments. The general Christian character of the Universities would, no doubt, be sufficiently asserted in their own statutes, if only they were not overruled by Act of Parliament. This clause professed to save them from being so overruled, and if there were any doubt as to whether it actually did so, he hoped that the Government would give it their serious attention.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, this clause was one which he proposed last year, and the Government had adopted it. There could be no doubt that there were in the University and College statutes provisions which, if carefully studied and actually put in force, would go a long way towards excluding any teaching which was inconsistent with a Christian character; and it was to be assumed that all who wished to see Nonconformists admitted into the Universities would regret—and none more than the Nonconformists themselves—if the effect of this legislation were that the Christian religion could be set at nought, and made the subject of attack by persons holding office and authority in the Universities. Nothing would have induced him to acquiesce in the passing of this Bill if he believed that its effect would be anything so disastrous and mischievous as the secularization of University teaching, or the production of that license which would admit of every kind of attack being made, by authority—ex cathedrâ as it were—by those who should be the teachers of it, upon that religion which was sincerely professed by the vast majority of all denominations and Churches in this country. He was bound to say he thought
  1976
  it was a defect in the Bill that it did not deal more boldly with this matter, because there could be no doubt that considerable reliance had hitherto been placed on those tests and restrictions which the Bill abolished, as a means of excluding opposition not merely to the Church of England, but to Christianity itself; and embarrassments might possibly occur, if unfortunately any occasion for discipline on the subject should arise, in arriving at the proper mode of dealing with abuses such as he had referred to, and which in no case ought to pass uncensured or unchecked. If he had received greater encouragement last year he might have endeavoured to offer to the Committee some form of proviso which, without entrenching at all upon the general principle of comprehension, to give effect to which was the essence of the Bill, would have given additional guarantees against the possibility of the formation of an active proselytizing school of irreligion in the Universities—a danger which he was bound to add was not in these days wholly imaginary or chimerical. Nothing more mischievous could happen not only upon religious, but also upon civil and moral grounds; for if any success attended an attempt to introduce into the minds of the youth of this country heathenism as to religious belief, he was sure that heathenism in morals would follow at no great distance. There were not wanting, at this present time, alarming indications to justify those who felt that apprehension, and thought it right to express it. He trusted that would be guarded against, although he was not successful in the attempt he made last year to guard against it; and, as the proposition he then made was not accepted by either side of the House, he could not now venture to repeat it. He did not, on the other hand, wish to run the risk of prematurely provoking objections to any other form of proposition; because if, as he greatly desired, this year should see the settlement of this question by Parliament, and if the Bill in the form which it had now assumed, or with any reasonable Amendments consistent with its principle, should pass in "another place," then and there would be the best opportunity for the introduction of any well-considered clause aimed at that which he was convinced was the common object of religious Nonconformists and religious

  1977
  Churchmen when they agreed to a Bill for opening the Universities to all classes—namely, to effect that so as not to repel cither Nonconformists or Churchmen by opening the way to the teaching and dissemination of infidelity within the Universities.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Repeal of Acts in Schedule).
  MR. SALTsaid, he wished to call attention to what he considered the wide and sweeping enactments of the clause. The last part of the clause provided that all Acts of Parliament, statutes, and ordinances inconsistent with this Act should be repealed. Without wishing to be hypercritical, he might point out, with regard to 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, that it contained a clause imposing some peculiar penalties on Jesuits. By comparing the 3rd clause of this Bill with the latter part of the 5th clause, he arrived at the curious conclusion that a Jesuit would be able to accept even the offices of Divinity Tutor and Professor at Oxford; whereas he would be subject to expulsion from any other part of the kingdom. This was a matter which might lead to misconception, and aggravate a feeling of irritation among those who felt strongly against this Bill; and in so important a measure it was desirable that every enactment which was repealed should be mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill. He was in favour of making the largest concessions to Nonconformists; but he was altogether opposed to extending them to the Ultramontanes or Jesuits. He wished to ask what would be the operation of the last part of the clause?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the only section of the 10 Geo. IV. which was repealed by the Act was the 16th, which had nothing to do with the Jesuits. That was the only section of the Act which referred to Universities or Colleges. He had already explained, to his own discomfiture, that the Bill gave an exceptional advantage to Roman Catholic priests, and he had made one unsuccessful attempt to amend it. He would make another on the bringing up of the Report. Beyond that he was unable to answer the question.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he must also ask for an explanation as to the meaning of the latter part of the clause, for it seemed to him that if in any Act there
  1978
  was a clause which was inconsistent with this Bill the whole Act was repealed.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he thought there was more in the observations of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) than his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) seemed to think. There was a generality about the clause that made it extend far beyond the Acts which were mentioned in the Schedule; and it was certainly desirable that all the Acts which were affected by this Bill should be specifically mentioned. The clause would answer its purpose even if the words that had been objected to were omitted. In the Act of Geo. IV., there was only one section which applied to Universities and Colleges, and why should not that be referred to in the Schedule as sections of other Acts were? When the question of Headships was considered upon the Report, it would be necessary to regard the operation of the repealing clauses of the Bill upon other Acts, if those offices were included in the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the latter part of the clause was open to the objection that had been made to it, and he would, therefore, move to omit it. As the Bill was a substantive measure, it would of itself repeal all previous legislation which was not consistent with it.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, they had been told that the Bill had been drawn up with deliberation, and he protested against the proposed omission of words from this clause. He hoped that words which had been omitted in a previous clause, on the Motion of an hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. G. Talbot), wonld be re-inserted on the Report.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had agreed to the omission of words in a previous clause; because they were not required for any substantial purpose, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no difference of opinion between them. It was now proposed to omit the words, "all Acts of Parliament," from the 5th clause. It being an admitted principle that even an Act of Parliament was repealed by a subsequent Act, without a distinct recital, à fortiori, any statute or ordinance of the University or of the Colleges which was inconsistent with the Bill would be repealed.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he wished to know, that being so, why the Solicitor General had put those words in the clause?
  MR. JESSELsaid, he thought the words ought to be omitted, because they went a great deal too far. As the clause stood, any Act of Parliament inconsistent with that Bill was repealed; but such an Act ought to be repealed only so far as it was inconsistent with the Bill; and no express enactment was needed to do that, because it was already done by implication.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought it would be better when Bills were drawn, whether by moderate or by advanced Reformers either at Oxford or Cambridge, that they should be drawn with care.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he looked upon that remark as a very bad return for his candour.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after the decision which had been come to, he did not intend to press the two new clauses of which he had given Notice, but in withdrawing them he would briefly state their effect. The first proposed that no one as a condition of holding any Headship, Fellowship, or Studentship in any College, House, or Hall should be required to take Holy Orders; and the second that no person hereafter elected to any such Fellowship or Studentship should be permitted, because he was in Holy Orders, to hold the same for a longer period than he would be permitted to hold it, if a layman. Before the Bill went out of Committee he was anxious to point out that it was a very incomplete measure and a compromise. At least one-third of the Fellowships at Oxford would not be affected by the Bill; and unless the Government accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) no one but a member of the Church of England would be able to obtain the Headship of a College at Oxford. He could not help comparing the Bill to what the Irish Church Bill of last Session would have been if it had disestablished and disendowed all rectors, incumbents, and curates, but left all deans and Bishops untouched.
  Schedule.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he would propose in the Schedule, line 37,
  1980
  an Amendment for the purpose of repealing the 44th section of the Oxford University Act of 1854, which, while abolishing the religious test on taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Law, Medicine, or Music, yet enacted that the taking of such degree should not constitute any qualification for any office heretofore always held by a member of the Established Church, and for which such degree had hitherto constituted one of the qualifications, unless the person obtaining such degree should have taken such oaths or subscribed such declarations as were then by law required to be made and taken on obtaining such degree.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, after line 37, to insert,—

  17 & 18 Vic. c. 81

  An Act to make further provision for the Good Government and Extension of the University of Oxford, of the Colleges therein, and of the College of Saint Mary, Winchester.

  Section forty-four

  —(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment, the effect of which would be to leave two directly conflicting enactments in the same Bill. The non-University offices to which the Amendment referred were saved from the operation of the measure.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he thought when they were doing away with tests altogether, it would be very inconsistent to leave untouched the test imposed on a man who took a Bachelor's degree.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 78: Majority 14.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble.
  On Motion That the Preamble be agreed to,
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of assuring his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General), that in the course which he had taken in the Committee, he had not attempted to amend the Bill on his own account, but had endeavoured as far as he could to save the moderate Reformers from being overwhelmed by the advanced Reformers. He congratu-

  1981
  lated his hon. and learned Friend on the majority he had just obtained on the Schedule; but his hon. and learned Friend ought to feel grateful to Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches for having saved him from being overwhelmed by his Friends. He had only to say that they on that—the Opposition—side would wait to see what was done upon the Report, reserving to themselves the right to take any course which they might deem expedient with respect to the Bill for the future.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that in consequence of being a little hard of hearing, he did not clearly understand the Question when it was put on the last Division, and the consequence was that he went into the wrong Lobby.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he regretted exceedingly that the Government should be so much indebted for support in this matter to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked when the Report would be considered.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to offer the thanks of that (the Ministerial) side of the House to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford for the opposition which he had made to Bills on this subject in previous years; for had it not been for the three years' delay they would not now have got such a liberal measure.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) appeared to be over sanguine in drawing his conclusions. He seemed to think that a Bill that had passed through Committee in that House was already the law of the land. The right hon. Gentleman's rejoicings might be premature. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the negotiations between the Government and the Nonconformists, between the Government and the moderate Liberals at Cambridge, and between the Government and the extreme Liberals at Oxford were not yet concluded. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his congratulations were premature.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if consistent, would not only thank the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, but also the Gentlemen below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman must, if consistent, thank them for having uniformly pointed
  1982
  out to the Government what they considered to be their shortcomings, and what, after a certain time, the Government always admitted to be such.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

STAMP DUTY ON LEASES BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stansfeld.)
STAMP DUTY ON LEASES BILL.

  [BILL 59.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, it might be in the recollection of the House that early in the Session he called attention to the change that had been made in the administration of the law with regard to the stamping of certain deeds, and urged the necessity of immediate legislation. On that occasion he was supported in his views by several hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and on his own, and there seemed to be almost perfect unanimity as to the course the Government should adopt; indeed, only three hon. Members differed from him, and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) urged him to bring in a Bill. The observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time showed he had not been correctly informed on the matter; but, as the subj ect was connected with finance, he (Mr. Bourke) waited until the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill, and it was not until he found it was quite inadequate that he placed a number of Amendments on the Paper and obtained leave to bring in a Bill himself. The Bill and the Amendments were substantially the same, and although sweeping in character, they were not more so than the Amendments placed on the Paper by the Secretary to the Treasury. During the past three months the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been urged to proceed with the Bill, but he had excused his delay by pointing to the Amendments. At the eleventh hour, however, he (Mr. Bourke) found the Secretary to the Treasury had put Amendments on the Paper giving everything he had asked for in principle, and justifying the course he had taken. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer; his multifarious duties prevented his making that full inquiry into

  1983
  the stamp duties the occasion required; but now that he had acknowledged the soundness of the principle he (Mr. Bourke) and his Friends had laid down, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do justice to himself by permitting his Amendments to be clothed in workmanlike language. If the Amendments of the Secretary to the Treasury were passed as they stood the Bill would be a most miserable affair, creditable to none concerned. His (Mr. Bourke's) Bill, which stood for a second reading to-night, had been before the country three months, and had been approved by everybody who had given attention to the subject. Almost every legal society in the kingdom, including the Incorporated Law Society, had given to it the most cordial approval. The Bill of the Government, on the other hand, had gained no friends either in the House or the country, nor would it be acceptable to the public unless it was accompanied by his Amendments. The best course, however, would be to adopt his Bill; it consisted of only one clause, and would be intelligible to the meanest understanding. The 1st clause of the Government Bill was cut about in a most extraordinary manner, and the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to insert the words "or of any usual covenant" in the Bill. It was impossible to say what "usual covenants" were; they were most objectionable words, and no words had given rise to more litigation. With regard to the 2nd clause, about which they had been contending for the last three months, various Amendments had been placed on the Paper—one by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), another by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), and a third by the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Stansfeld). There was no provision in the Bill relating to counterparts, which had given rise to much the same doubts. There was another very serious defect in the Bill. He had received a letter from the Secretary to the Law Society of Manchester, describing the kind of tenure which existed there, under which almost all building operations were carried on. That tenure was a grant in fee reserving a rent; and as this Bill was confined to leases, and grants in fee were not leases, it would give no relief to Manchester. Under these circumstances, he
  1984
  hoped the Government would either accept his Amendments which were on the Paper, or allow his Bill to be read a second time. By adopting either course the Government would earn the thanks of the country, which they could not expect to have if they passed this Bill in its present shape.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must support the general argument of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke). He thought this Bill very little creditable to the Government. It would not in its present shape remedy the grievance complained of. For 14 years after the Act of 1854 was passed by Sir Charles Wood, the Stamp Office did not know the meaning of their own Act, and hundreds of thousands of leases were granted in all parts of the country, which, by a recent decision, were invalid on account of the stamp. That was a serious state of things. The stamp duties yielded an enormous income—some £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 a year—and the Government ought to make the law clear and simple, so that everyone might know what stamps Parliament imposed on his transactions. The case at present was so complicated that, to learn what stamp duty the law required, a denoting stamp was permissible at 10 s. or 20 s. duty, to certify that full duty had been paid, and in this clumsy way prevent doubt on the validity of the instrument. Such a state of things was intolerable. He hoped the Bill of the hon. Member for King's Lynn would be adopted. It was good sense, good grammar, and good law. The present Bill was hastily drawn, thrown on the Table in a most imperfect form, and, if proceeded with, certainly must be revised.
  SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSONsaid, he desired to thank the Government for having conceded all that had been asked for, and he also thought much credit was due to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), without whose able advocacy it was doubtful whether so much would have been obtained.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (As to leases made before the 1st February 1870).
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he must repeat that the case of the Manchester deeds was excluded from it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of the Bill was to idemnify persons affected by the decision of the Court of Exchequer as to leases made before the 1st of February, 1870, and then to make the law the same as it was before. The hon. and learned Gentleman now wished to extend the operation of the Bill to transactions with respect to freehold, but that would be going beyond the intentions of the Bill.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, those deeds had always been treated in the same way as leases.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the decision of the Court of Exchequer was confined to the case of leases, and it was not intended by the Bill to go further than indemnifying parties from loss in consequence of that decision.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, if the measure did not apply to the Manchester deeds, it ought to be made to apply to them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not prepared to say that the decision of the Court of Exchequer did not apply to the Manchester deeds, as that question was not argued; but in his opinion it did not.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, if the House did not legislate with respect to these deeds exactly the same doubts would arise in their case as in the case of leases.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the Bill was only intended to remove a grievance caused by a decision of a Court of Law; and he doubted whether it would be competent in them to insert such a provision as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed without a special instruction to the Committee. If, as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Manchester deeds had always been treated in the same way as leases, then the case was met by the Bill.
  MR. JESSELsaid, he concurred in this view. This was a declaratory Bill. The Act 16 & 17 Vict, made the same duty payable upon a fee-farm reservation as was paid upon leases for 100 years; and, therefore the question raised was covered by this Bill. One objection of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bourke) was that counterparts were not provided for in the Bill. Had he, however, looked at the Stamp Act of the 13 & 14 Vict., c. 97, he would find that
  1986
  counterparts bore the same stamp as leases, except that in no case could the stamp on the counterpart exceed 5s. Everything had been provided for that the hon. and learned Member could desire. The same gentlemen who had waited upon the hon. and learned Gentleman had also waited upon him, and he had laid their grievances before the Government, whom he had to thank for the ready ear with which they had listened to his statement, and had agreed to remedy the defects in the Bill which he pointed out. The measure was a fair and liberal one, and the boon it conferred ought to be thankfully received.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he thought that the meaning of the Bill as it stood at present was rather doubtful, and that it ought to be rendered clear and distinct.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, he also thought that the law ought to be clearly laid down upon the point.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that lands were granted at Manchester and the neigbourhood on fee-farm rent, with a covenant to build, and, therefore, he thought that the same question might be raised as in the case before the Court of Exchequer. He hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury would turn his attention to the subject.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he thought that the grievances that had been pointed out had been fairly met by the Bill. The decision in the Court of Exchequer was a most unfortunate one, and a society with which he was connected had been informed that it was very questionable. Some provision ought to be introduced into the Bill giving an appeal from the Court of Exchequer in such cases. He hoped that the question with regard to the Manchester deeds would be set at rest before the Bill left the House.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he had considerable doubts as to whether the Bill would meet the case of the Manchester buildings; but he would leave the responsibility of the matter on the Government, and not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. STAPLETONappealed to the Secretary of the Treasury to consider whether the effect of the Bill in that respect ought not to be made more clear and certain?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Stapleton).
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that after what had been said by the Attorney General, he had no doubt that the Bill would cover the case alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke); but the matter would be farther considered.
  MR. CHARLEY, who had an Amendment to Clause 2 on the Paper, said he thought the latter part of it might be more properly introduced as an Amendment to the 1st clause. He would, therefore, move to add the following words as part of Clause 1:—
  "And any person who, on or since the said first day of February and previously to the passing of this Act, shall have paid, in respect of such further consideration, the said Duty of thirty-five shillings, shall be entitled to claim from, and shall be repaid by, the said Commissioners the difference between such last-mentioned Duty and the duty of ten shillings chargeable as aforesaid."
  He would not press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would promise that the interest of those whom he wanted to protect would not be forgotten.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could give his hon. and learned Friend the assurance he desired. As a matter of course the extra stamp duty, if paid, would be returned.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING CODE BILL.
(Mr. Bright, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Stansfeld.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING CODE BILL.

  [BILL 24.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, that if the House agreed to the second reading he hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would give them an opportunity of debating the measure on the Motion for going into Committee. The shipping interest had for many years urged upon the Board of Trade the necessity for amendment and for consolidation of the laws affecting
  1988
  shipping, and he admitted that the second demand was very largely though not entirely complied with in the present Bill. He gave the hon. Gentleman every credit for the care and ability he had brought to bear on the preparation of the Bill; but some finishing touches to the work was still required, and he trusted the measure would pass the House in so complete a shape that no further legislation on this subject would be necessary for many years to come. The law relating to the settlement of accounts between the shipowner and the shipmaster ought to be very simple; but under the existing system it was complex. There were the amounts due for wages, disbursements, and the liabilities incurred by the master. The Bill gave the master a lien on the ship; but in regard to the second matter he would have to look into the Admiralty Court Act of 1861 for guidance, and in regard to the third he would find there was no statute law affecting it, and that the late and present Judges of the Admiralty Court had given conflicting decisions on the question. He cheerfully admitted that most of the alterations proposed by the Bill were improvements, and would bring the law more in accordance with the circumstances of the present time. He regretted, however, that the Secretary to the Board of Trade had not grappled with the whole subject of ownership of British vessels. The present state of the law, and the rapid development of steam vessels was surely transferring the whole carrying trade to limited liability companies, and he trusted some changes would be made in the law, so that single owners of vessels might not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with shareholders in limited liability companies. It was advisable under these circumstances, that the law should fix the liability on those who should justly bear it. The present state of the law also exercised a deteriorating influence on the quality of British seamen. The Bill required amendment in several points, but he thanked the Secretary to the Board of Trade for many provisions in his measure, and he hoped that when the Bill came into Committee the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would be willing to adopt some of the improvements that would be suggested. He especially thanked the hon. Gentleman for the changes he proposed to make in the

  1989
  laws affecting Courts of Inquiry into the causes of losses at sea, and the courage with which he had dealt with several of the decisions come to by Courts of Inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had, by his action, in this respect, shown that, however bad a law may be, judicious administration may correct it. Errors of judgment were, under the present law, punished as crimes—a practice from which one's sense of justice revolted. He heartily supported the second reading of the Bill.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he desired to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government respecting the difficult position in which this Bill was now placed. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not desire it to be supposed that the Government were indifferent to all measures—however important—which had no connection with party interests. This Bill was of the highest moment. It affected the whole of our vast shipping trade and the lives of our 200,000 seamen. It contained 700 clauses, and he was sure that he should not be misunderstood when he said such a measure ought not to be brought forward except by a Department at the head of which was a responsible Minister of the Crown. No one could possibly lament more than he did the visitation of Providence which had deprived them of the presence of the distinguished Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade. No one could admit more readily than he did the ability with which that Department had been represented in that House by the Secretary to the Board. But, nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was a young and inexperienced Member of the House, and he (Sir John Pakington) submitted that it was not consistent with Parliamentary practice that a Bill of such magnitude as this should be entrusted to any but a responsible Minister of the Crown. Moreover, what prospect was there that, at the present advanced period of the Session—with the Education Bill, and other measures of indispensable importance to be disposed of—justice could be done to a Bill such as this, dealing with a variety of extremely important questions. As far back as the beginning of May he felt it his duty to bring a portion of this subject under the notice of the House, when he made most painful statements, which had not since been
  1990
  impugned, and concluded by moving for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into certain matters connected with this great and complicated question. He was opposed, however, by the Government, who refused to accede to the Motion, on the ground that a Bill relating to the subject was already before the House. On that occasion he might remark several hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), fully agreed with him that an inquiry was necessary, although they thought it could be conducted by a Select Committee better than by a Royal Commission as he had proposed. Six weeks had elapsed since that Motion, and now, in the middle of June, they were asked to read the Bill the second time. That was not the manner in which such a subject should be dealt with. He would beg to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that the most prudent course would be to withdraw the Bill, and to institute an inquiry. If inquiry were now to take place legislation would properly follow in the next Session; and he was convinced not only that nothing would be lost, but that much would be gained by the delay, for hurried legislation was never effective.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, while he felt great sympathy with the hope of the right hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, that an inquiry would be set on foot, he could not see that that was a sufficient reason for preventing the passage of a measure which would confer great advantages on the country generally. The object of the right hon. Baronet, when he brought forward his Motion some weeks ago, was to obtain a general inquiry into all matters connected with the large loss of life which mainly resulted from the overloading of ships and the sending of them to sea in an unseaworthy condition or improperly equipped. He himself believed that enormous loss resulted from this, and, indeed, he laid before the House statistics showing that last year, in the Baltic trade alone, no fewer than 22 vessels out of 282 were lost. He granted that inquiry was needed to ascertain the causes of this loss, but a proper investigation would extend over a long period; and here he might take occasion to remark that whereas the right hon. Gentleman

  1991
  wanted an inquiry in order that it might be followed by restrictive legislation, he wanted it in order that more complete information might be afforded to the shipowners, who would be thereby enabled to take precautions against future loss. The Merchant Shipping Bill would certainly deliver us from some of the great evils which now existed, as it contained clauses which every honest shipowner must hail with satisfaction. First, there was a clause providing that every shipowner who sent a vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition, either from being over-laden or any other cause, should be guilty of a misdemeanor. Another clause provided that sailors should be exempted from the penalty of being declared deserters if they quitted a vessel they believed to be unseaworthy, and which on investigation proved to be so. Again, the iniquity wrought by changing the names of vessels after they had acquired a bad notoriety was fully provided against. It also dealt with an important danger that arose from the practice of placing cargoes on the decks of vessels which had been already loaded below deck to the greatest possible extent. The Bill, however, proposed to enact that, if when a ship was built she was intended to carry a deck cargo, a notice to that effect must be given by the owners, and entered on the register, and the tonnage dues of the vessel increased proportionately, so that both notice of the intention so to use the vesssel would be registered, and the qualification of the vessel to carry such deck cargo ascertained. All these were matters of vast importance, and it would be a hardship on the commercial community if the benefits which the Bill would confer were withheld for a considerable time while an investigation, as desired by the right hon. Baronet, was going on. In almost every instance where those Baltic vessels were lost they were well insured, and he had no doubt that in many cases the loss had been converted into gain. If every insurance were made recoverable only to the extent of two-thirds or three-fourths of the value, the owner would be at no disadvantage with regard to the money which he would have to pay on his policy, while he would himself be the under-writer for the remaining portion of the value of the ship, and would thus become materially interested in the safety of the vessel, and everything that tended
  1992
  to insure it. If this Bill were referred to a Select Committee it would very probably be lost sight of altogether.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he could not help sharing in the regret that there had been so great a delay in bringing the Bill before the House; but while he was sorry that the President of the Board of Trade was not able to be in his place, he thought it fortunate that the measure had fallen into the hands of his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) who he knew had taken the utmost pains to ascertain the feelings of the whole mercantile community on the subject. He must confess that he was anxious to advise the Government to take, if possible, a larger and more comprehensive view of the question. He was afraid that as the Bill stood it would only have the effect of patching up legislation, and of making confusion worse confounded by extending the principles of the present Acts, which were admitted to be very defective and unintelligible. Much of the present legislation on the subject of shipping had been the result of compromise. He was not, however, prepared to deny that the Bill was a great improvement on that which had been introduced last year and withdrawn. It was, however, he thought, susceptible of a greater amount of amendment than could be made in it during the remainder of the already overworked Session. It was the general impression that the wording of some of its clauses was ambiguous, and that it dealt with many points in a way which was too minute. The criticism of the Glasgow Steamship Association, which was well worthy the attention of the House, was to that effect. The first portion of the Bill, which related to the registration of ships, consisted of nearly 100 clauses, and it was generally felt that a considerable reduction might with advantage be made in their number by dealing with the matter either by Orders in Council or by Schedules. Then the question of mortgages, which was very important as regarded registry, and of the precise amount of liability which attached to mortgagees, of the liability of part owners to each other and to the general creditors, were wholly untouched by the measure. The second part of the Bill dealt with the officers and seamen of the Mercantile Marine. There was a very strong conviction that the relations be-

  1993
  tween seamen and the owners and captains of vessels were not what they ought to be; that legislation had done much to separate them, and that our seamen had deteriorated—he did not mean to say morally, but physically. Upon that subject he should be prepared to lay before the House such facts as would, he thought, convince hon. Members of the necessity of further inquiry. The seamen themselves had by a Petition, to which 3,000 signatures were attached, asked for such inquiry. The shipowners had also asked for it, and there was not an association in Liverpool, he believed, which had not, by resolution, at all events, made a similar request. He was, therefore, strongly in favour of referring this portion of the Bill to a Select Committee, and at a later period of the evening he would make a Motion to that effect. As to the question of measurement, the Liverpool sailing and steam shipowners alike objected to the system which was proposed by the Bill; while with regard to casualties, although he had opposed the Motion of his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) when he sought to obtain the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into them, for reasons which he then gave, he stated that if the matter were referred to a Select Committee he should not object to the adoption of that course. He would now come to points which were not in the Bill, but which ought to be in it, if it claimed the smallest title to be considered a Maritime Code. Many important points of Maritime Law were never dealt with in the Bill. For example, bottomry, respondentia, general average, jettison, stoppage in transitu, sale of cargo, barratry, rights and liabilities of part owners, and abandonment of voyage, and other such questions. On these points the laws of England were only to be found in the reports of decided cases or the treatises of text writers, who had endeavoured, with more or less of success, to bring these decisions into harmony. In the last addition of Pritchard's Admiralty Digest, 4,000 cases were collated, so that there was ample material for a Bill which would establish a really valuable code of Mercantile Law if Parliament would only give the requisite time and attention to it. Some two or three years since an Imperial Commission in France had inquired into the Maritime Code of that country; and every one of the
  1994
  points to which he had alluded, as well as all those comprised in the Bill, were embraced in their Report and dealt with in the French Code. There ought to be no difficulty in our adopting the same course. He might be told that the Bill was already too bulky. But in his opinion it might be reduced one-half. For instance, the portions relating to lighthouses and harbours might be omitted, and the Emigration Acts substituted. Lighthouses really had nothing to do with ships, except that the ships were unfairly made to pay for them. And what had the conservancy of harbours to do with a Shipping Code? The Chain Cable and Anchor Act, which should appear, was quietly dropped out. Was it the intention to repeal that Act? If they merely desired to put under one cover all the Acts relating to the shipping interest they might possibly pass a Bill this present Session, though, if with such contracted views, he had great doubts if they would succeed. In the present state of Public Business, however, it was impossible to pass this Session a Bill which should be worthy of the House and of the nation. More care and inquiry should be devoted to the preparation of such a measure. A portion of it should be dealt with practically upstairs, and a large portion of it should be treated by a Royal Commission; not such an one as usually came under this term, but one where all interests were represented, and which should be presided over by one of the Judges, such a man as Mr. Justice Willes, if he could be induced to devote himself to the reform and consolidation of our Maritime Laws. Then, next year, the House would be able to approach this question more satisfactorily, and lay down principles which should guide for all time a great maritime nation like ours.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, the House was much indebted to the care and ability shown by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and while regretting, with other hon. Members, the absence from that House of the President of the Board, he did not think that was any reason why why they should not proceed with the Bill. He thought, however, several portions of it were objectionable, and especially that which made a shipowner liable to the penalties of a misdemeanor for having a ship at sea in an unsea-

  1995
  worthy state. If a vessel were absent from port for three or four years she might become unseaworthy, and it would be very hard that a shipowner should be subject to prosecution for misdemeanor for acts of his servants over which he could have no control. Instead of making the shipowner more responsible than he now was, he thought greater responsibility should be thrown upon the masters and. officers of the ship for negligence in navigating their vessels. He must dispute the accuracy of the statement by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), that most of the vessels lost were insured. The very opposite was the case, for the small coasters which were lost were mostly uninsured, both vessel and cargo. It would be a hardship to oblige such small shipowners to insure a certain amount of the property they sent to sea. If the hon. Gentleman's principles were adopted the small shipowner would be driven out of the trade altogether; and he was sure the House would never entertain a proposition of that kind. He would not detain the House at present; but he would reserve what he had to say on the Bill till a later stage, when he intended to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was in favour of immediate legislation and future amendment, rather than inquiry with a view to future legislation. Although the Bill was voluminous, it was not all new, for it was a measure of consolidation, and therefore the House ought not to be frightened by its magnitude. Respecting nineteen-twentieths of the existing law there was no dispute. The new and important provisions of the Bill had for their object the enforcement of additional precautions for the saving of life. He thought there was great weight in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), and he yielded to no one in the interest he felt in everything connected with the welfare of our sailors. In that part of the Bill which related to the registration of ships the draught of water was to be marked on the hull, and the authorities were required to make a record of the fact. The sending a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition was created a misdemeanor; and, in addition to that, power was given, in the case of a seaman leaving a ship on the ground of the
  1996
  vessel being unseaworthy, to authorize the justice, instead of committing the man as a deserter, to appoint a competent surveyor to examine the ship. Taking these points into consideration, he thought it would be much better to proceed to legislation at once, and make such improvements in the future as experience might suggest, rather than to shelve the matter for two or three years by making further inquiries into the matter. He thought it desirable that the Board of Trade should be directed to institute an inquiry in all cases involving loss of life, instead of merely having the option of doing so. The Bill had been canvassed throughout the country by the shipping authorities, maritime Chambers of Commerce, and other bodies concerned, who had been in constant communication with the Board of Trade, and the amount of labour which had been expended upon it ought not to be lost. The country would be deeply disappointed if the matter were shelved. It was generally admitted that the present Bill was a great improvement on that of last year, and he thought the House ought to assist the Government in still further improving it. It did not appear absolutely necessary to undertake the task of completing the measure during the present Session, and he thought it might be separated into portions, some of which might be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not rise to enter in detail into considerations connected with the clauses of the Bill, with which I have, indeed, only a general acquaintance; but it is only just to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) that I should, in the spirit in which he addressed the House, make a reply to the appeal which he addressed to me. It should be borne in mind that to-night we are only considering whether we shall proceed to the second reading of the Bill or at once abandon the effort to pass it, either in despair or upon the deliberate preference of the doctrine of the right hon. Baronet that the present is the time for inquiry rather than legislation. The right hon. Baronet based his appeal on two grounds. First, while handsomely and appropriately acknowledging the ability of my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Board of Trade (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre), he contended that a Bill of

  1997
  this nature ought to be in the hands of a responsible Minister, meaning thereby a Member of the Cabinet—a proposition to which I cannot accede, although I fully admit that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were prompted by public considerations in regard to the merits of the case. There is nothing unusual in the management of such a Bill as this by my hon. Friend who now represents the Board of Trade in this House; and I believe, had the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) been present, my hon. Friend would still have been entrusted with the conduct of this measure. When we examine the points which come up for discussion in constituting a Mercantile Maritime Code, we find they are all points which do not involve considerations requiring that the responsibility of the Cabinet should be brought to bear upon them in any special sense; and I am sure that the energy, experience, and ability of my hon. Friend render him quite competent to deal with them in this House. The first great effort to create a Code of Law on this subject was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Card-well), in 1854, when he was not a Member of the Cabinet; and many important measures could be named which have been carried through this House by Gentlemen who were not responsible Ministers of the Crown. With regard to the subject itself, the right hon. Baronet must be struck by the tone of the debate. With the exception of the senior Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) all who have spoken have been favourable to an immediate attempt at legislation; and it would be premature to decide now that there is no hope of passing the Bill this Session. First, the real decision of that question must depend upon the success of the efforts which my hon. Friend will make after the second reading to elicit the opinion of those who are most competent and most entitled to be heard in regard to particular provisions; for this is one of the Bills which, in no inconsiderable degree, are passed rather by the country than by this House. I do not mean by political pressure, but by practical discussion at local centres, where knowledge and experience are accumulated. All that has been said, especially by the right hon. Baronet who has so strong a
  1998
  sense of the defective condition of Maritime Law at this period, is calculated to impress upon the mind a feeling that it would, indeed, be very unsatisfactory if, because we cannot at once stride on to absolute perfection, we were to let another winter pass without effecting those great and important practical improvements in certain portions of the law which the present Bill aims at accomplishing, and which, if I can trust the general expression of opinion in this House, there can be no reason to despair of our effecting with a moderate expenditure of time and labour. I am sure that the right hon. Baronet, whether he is or is not satisfied with the reasons that govern our conduct, will feel that they involve no disrespect to him; but it is my opinion that, under the circumstances of the case, and looking to the general concurrence of feeling in this House, that we should not do our duty unless we were to go forward to the second reading of the Bill, with the intention of giving every facility and assistance we can, in order, if possible, to carry into law a Bill which, if it falls short of absolute perfection, is yet a useful and valuable measure, and represents very great progress in maritime legislation.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, this Bill, though presented as one measure, was hereafter to be considered as 13 separate Acts of Parliament, a plan of proceeding which rendered discussion at this stage almost useless, and one which, he believed, had not been hitherto adopted. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether all former legislation was to be repealed by the 700 and odd clauses of this Bill, many of which professed to be re-enactments?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was a Bill before the House to effect such a repeal.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, repeal and re-enactment were usually effected in the same Bill. In this measure there seemed to be some omission as to wreck, for it did not vest the property in anybody. There was also in the Bill a clause of a very unusual kind, which gave power to enforce the sale by private persons of any rent-charges which they might have on lighthouses, and there was no provision for notice being given to them. He was glad to find that the Bill abolished the mixed proceedings of inquests and trials as to the losses of

  1999
  ships, though he did not think the "quasi-criminal" tribunal proposed in the Bill would be satisfactory. Some other points, especially that about the Board of Trade purchasing wreck, would require consideration in Committee. Another part of the Bill was very questionable—that which gave special powers to the magistracy to deal with maritime offenders—while in one instance there was a great departure from the existing law, and he did not know how the alteration could be maintained in this particular case, if it was not also to be made general. That instance was, the allowing defendants in cases of assault to be examined as witnesses. There were many other points about this measure which required discussion; for instance, the Bill attempted to deal with overloading and the unseaworthiness of ships, but in so delusive a manner that it would be almost better not to touch the subject at all, for there was a Saving Clause which was quite equal to the Equity Clauses in the Irish Land Bill. It was to be a misdemeanour to send a vessel to sea "so as to endanger life," which raised one question. Another question was, whether the ship was sent to sea under circumstances which were "unavoidable and reasonable." How it could ever be reasonable to send an unseaworthy ship to sea, he could not understand. That qualification opened a very convenient door for escaping from the provisions of the Bill, while a third would raise some very nice questions for the lawyers hereafter to decide. Unless the Government could legislate on the subject in a more satisfactory manner than by this Bill, it would be almost better to leave the matter alone, because they professed to hold out something, which was, however, so fenced and guarded that it absolutely came to nothing. It would be better to wait another year, and then pass a perfect measure, because if the present Bill became law it would unsettle everything, while it must be afterwards amended. He suggested that the Government should consent to the Bill being referred to a Committee upstairs, before whom the shipping interests might battle over it and get it into such a shape that it would pass without discussion, and be more satisfactory than if so many clauses were fought out in the House.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he thought
  2000
  it would be a most desirable step to pass the Bill as a measure of consolidation, and as a basis of whatever subsequent legislation might be deemed requisite in respect to shipping. He believed that the Board of Trade deserved thanks for the way in which mercantile opinion throughout the country had been consulted, and for the pains which had been bestowed upon the measure. They all regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board, but although the right hon. Gentleman might have advocated the measure with more eloquence, he could not have devoted to it more pains or brought to bear upon it more practical knowledge and ability. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had said that last year 22 ships out of 282 engaged in the Baltic trade had been lost; but it was difficult on these figures to arrive at his conclusion that the average life of a ship in the Baltic trade was only four years. The hon. Member had suggested that a limit should be imposed on the risk covered by marine insurance; but he believed that such a proposal was illusory and impracticable, and also contrary to the spirit of prudent legislation. To say it should not be lawful, for example, to insure more than two-thirds of the value of shipping property would be to attempt to discourage prudence, and in consequence would be to throw the shipping trade into the hands of large companies and very wealthy private owners. Moreover, if the attempt were made, a mutual insurance company based entirely on honour might be easily formed that would entirely defeat it. He thought it was very desirable that every part owner of a ship should be liable for all the responsibilities of the ship. In conclusion, while he thought it very desirable that there should be a perfect Code of Shipping Law, he believed that if that Bill were carried to a successful termination, an important advance would be made in the development of commercial legislation, and a measure passed that would give much satisfaction to the shipping interest.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEdid not agree in the expediency of passing an imperfect measure, which they would have to pull to pieces again next Session. He thought that unless a satisfactory Bill could be passed it would be better to defer legislation altogether. This was not a party

  2001
  question, and the Bill might be viewed as the work, not of one, but of two or even of more successive Governments. When it was objected that the measure was not in the charge of a Member of the Cabinet, he congratulated himself on not being in the same position as the Secretary to the Board of Trade; because if the late Government had remained in Office a little longer, it might probably have been his own duty, though not what was called a responsible Minister of the Crown, to introduce legislation on that subject. Those who had charge of those matters were rather unhappily placed. There was a constant outcry for legislation on the part of the shipowners, and while he was in Office scarcely a fortnight passed without his being asked whether he had not a Bill ready. Yet when measures were proposed relating to that question it was most difficult to carry them, because on the one side they were held not to be stringent enough, and on the other side to be too stringent. It had been objected to the present Bill that it was a compromise; but he did not think any legislation on that subject could be carried which was not a compromise. He should vote for the Bill, though in many of the observations made as to the faults, both of omission and commission, he entirely agreed; but he thought that the debate had shown that the House was quite capable of amending it, and that with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire—than whom no man was more capable of picking holes in any Bill—and with the aid of other Gentlemen who took an interest in the question, a Committee of the Whole House might be able to deal with the measure or with a considerable portion of it. As to what the hon. Member for Liverpool had said about bottomry, barratry, and various other legal questions, such as were contained in the pages of Abbott on Shipping, he thought that these subjects might well be included in a separate Bill, instead of being embraced in a Bill like the present, which sought to regulate the practice of merchant shipowners and seamen rather than the law relating to shipping. To refer the Bill to a Committee upstairs, taking evidence on all those various subjects, would be simply to shelve the whole measure. He felt sure the Secretary of the Board of Trade would consult all
  2002
  interests, and even recast the measure if necessary. He had ventured to suggest on a former occasion that the Bill, which really contained 13 Acts of Parliament, might be divided and passed piecemeal, some questions being, if advisable, referred to Committees for further inquiry. The question, however, before the House was, whether they would give the Bill a second reading, and, deeming legislation to be necessary, without saying this was perfect in any sense, he thought that it ought to be read the second time.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he desired first to express his thanks to hon. Members for the manner in which the Bill had been received, and also for the way in which they had spoken of his work in connection with it. He must plead guilty of the want of one qualification—not being a Cabinet Minister; but he had always felt in all the work he did that he was responsible both to the House and the country. As had already been pointed out, his present position in that matter was not very different from that occupied by many former Vice Presidents of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had suggested that it would be better to postpone that Bill until they could have a much larger measure dealing with all the numerous questions affecting shipping, freight, insurance, and other subjects. No doubt, it would be a most desirable thing to have a Code treating of every branch of Shipping Law; and, certainly, if he should hold his present Office for any lengthened period, he would endeavour to bring that about. Still, he thought it would be better, with that view, to codify so much of the Law of Shipping as was in the statute book, leaving to a future occasion those parts of the subject comprised in the unwritten law. If there was a difficulty in passing a Bill of 800 clauses, how much more difficult would it be to pass one containing 1,600, which would probably be the number required to carry out his hon. Friend's very wide scheme? In reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he would say that, though the Bill dealt with 13 different branches of subjects, they were treated in a manner calculated to enable the House to discuss their merits in the most convenient and satisfactory form. The hon. Member for Liverpool recommended that the Bill

  2003
  should be referred to a Select Committee, and with reference to a particular branch, of the subject proceeded to give the House a very gloomy view of the state of things. There was, no doubt, a great deal of force in what the hon. Member said; but he had looked only at one side of the question, and there was another of which a much more favourable view could be taken. The hon. Member referred, he believed, only to seamen belonging to long-voyage sailing vessels. Now, he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) had made much inquiry on the subject, and he found that the seamen employed on board steamers were in a vastly improved condition. Voyages in steamers were made at stated times, the service was regular, the men employed in them were able to spend a certain period with their families, and the consequence was that most of the best men were drafted into the steam trade, and perhaps, as a consequence, the average of seamen in sailing vessels had somewhat deteriorated. But he looked forward with hope to an improvement in the condition of our seamen, which was certain to result from the increase of steam. Then, again, during the last 14 years the wages of seamen in sailing vessels had not improved. He had learnt from inquiry that there were a large number of efficient seamen if only shipowners would give higher wages, and then they would have no difficulty in getting the seamen they wanted. In the Bill now before the House, there was a considerable number of Amendments having in view the improvement of the condition of seamen generally; these Amendments had been laid before the House, and had met with approval not only from hon. Members most interested in the subject, but from the country at large. The House must not take the Bill to be of a more extensive or ambitious character than it really was. It was, in the main, a Consolidation Bill. It was admitted to be essential to bring together all the existing Acts, which were in a state of chaos, and the opportunity was taken of making various Amendments, which had been pointed out in the Memorandum to which he had called attention, and had been explained in great detail. He had reason to believe that nine-tenths of those Amendments; had been accepted by persons most interested in the question, and that the
  2004
  points of difference were really confined to a very few clauses. It was that circumstance which made him think that the Bill might pass this Session if hon. Members would only exercise a little forbearance and not raise discussions on points not contained in the Bill. He admitted there were subjects open to debate, such as the light dues, the constitution of the Trinity Board, and others not dealt with in the Amendments; but if hon. Gentlemen would insist on discussing these subjects either in Committee of the Whole House or in a Select Committee neither this nor any other Consolidation Bill could pass this Session, or in any normal Session. The only chance of consolidation at present was that the House would mainly confine itself to the Amendments which had been printed, or to such others as were pari materia. He would now say a few words on the subject which had been brought before the House on a former occasion in so forcible a manner by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). The right hon. Baronet admitted that if the course he recommended were adopted it would postpone legislation for the present year. He understood the right hon. Baronet to desire that the Bill should be postponed until next year, and that it should then be referred to a Select Committee. His answer would be very much the same as it was in the debate three weeks ago. He admitted to some extent the evil of which his right hon. Friend complained, but he did not believe that the number of losses of vessels or lives had increased for some years past. He admitted that there was a certain number of cases in which vessels were lost from overlading, which had given rise to great anxiety, and in view of these they had inserted in the Bill several Amendments. It seemed, therefore, not unreasonable to ask his right hon. Friend, if not satisfied with these Amendments, to propose others himself, and he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would be happy to give them the best consideration. The Bill on this subject introduced by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll)) was no doubt deserving of consideration; but, although desirous of affording every fair opportunity for discussing its provisions, he did not think that it dealt with this important subject in the most effectual manner. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had objected

  2005
  to the clause which made it a misdemeanor to send a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition. Though there were some exceptions in the clause which would diminish its effect, he did not think if they examined it carefully it would be found to diminish the penalties where it was desirable that penalties should be enforced. He accepted the version of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) as to the Sea Queen, though he was bound to say he could not quite concur in it. He thought that there was evidence on the other side which went to show that there was a different cause for the loss of that vessel. But supposing the version of the right hon. Baronet to be correct, the case seemed to be precisely one to which the clause would apply. The law as it stood at present relieved the seaman from going to sea in an unseaworthy vessel. But what happened was this—The seaman was arrested as a deserter if he left the vessel; and, practically, he had no opportunity of calling witnesses as to its condition. What the Bill before the House proposed was that, in the first place, the seaman who left a vessel because she was unseaworthy would not be considered as a criminal; he might give evidence himself, and call in a Board of Trade surveyor to speak to the condition of the vessel. In the case of the Sea Queen the seamen knew her exact state, and complained that they were going to sea in an unseaworthy vessel; but they were afraid to leave her lest they might be treated as deserters. In three cases their wives came before the Court and said that their husbands would not leave the vessel because they were afraid of being treated as deserters. But that was precisely such a case as the Amendments in the Bill would meet. It might be said that in no case would sailors be induced to leave a vessel because she was unseaworthy; but the experience of the Board of Trade was very different. There were a great number of cases in which seamen left their vessels on the ground of their being unseaworthy. In some cases there was no ground for such assertions; but it must be admitted that in other cases these objections were well founded and reasonable. Many other subjects had been referred to, but those were points of detail, which would more properly be considered in Committee. He
  2006
  promised that, between this time and the Committee, no effort should be wanting on his part in order to ascertain the views of hon. Gentlemen, particularly of those who represented shipping communities. Meanwhile, he had reason to believe that the Amendments would be accepted without much difficulty, and there would be few cases which would give rise to prolonged discussion. No doubt there were other points affecting the condition of our seamen which might be dealt with. But there never was a time when our Mercantile Marine was in a more pre-eminent position relative to that of other countries, and he hoped this measure would consolidate and maintain that pre-eminence, and would long preserve our Mercantile Marine in its present proud position.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next."
  MR. GRAVES, who had given Notice of a Motion, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, so far as regards Part 2, relating to Masters and Seamen, said, he did not think he had taken too gloomy a view of the condition of our seamen. Some months ago a representative Committee was formed in Liverpool, which sent out queries on this subject; and 89 per cent of the answers stated that the seamen had deteriorated as seamen, 65 per cent stated that they had deteriorated in physical condition, and 71 per cent that they had deteriorated in respect of subordination. This Committee recommended that, before being rated as A.B.'s, seamen should obtain a certificate of competency; and the seamen themselves desired this, with a view to their protection from men who did: not know their duty. They also recommended that advance notes should be rendered illegal; that sailors' lodging-houses should be licensed; that communications should be opened with foreign Governments with a view to put down the crimping system; that the Government should provide training ships at all our large seaports, encourage as much as possible the apprentice system, and establish a compulsory benefit fund for seamen. These questions not only

  2007
  affected the welfare of our seamen, but the national prestige, and ought to command attention in legislating upon this subject. Seeing, however, the desire of the Government and of the House that no impediment should be thrown in the way of the present Bill, he should withdraw his Amendment, strongly convinced though he was that a preliminary inquiry ought to be made.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was somewhat surprised at this withdrawal. His own proposal would be to refer Parts 3 and 6 to a Select Committee; Part 3 having reference to overloading, and Part 6 to collisions. It was impossible to pass a Bill of 700 clauses this year without a precipitancy which the Government would regret unless they referred these parts of the measure to a Select Committee. He was not a shipowner; he did not represent a seaport; but he was anxious to save the lives of his fellow-countrymen, which were now destroyed at the rate of hundreds every year. This was no light matter, to be disposed of out of courtesy to a Government or to anybody. Although he did not profess to have any practical knowledge of the subject, letters had poured in upon him from all parts of the kingdom, and it was clear that the overloading of vessels and collisions were fertile sources of danger. Moreover, both were subjects of great practical difficulty, which could only be satisfactorily settled by bringing together competent authorities before a Commission or a Committee appointed to carry on an impartial inquiry. He believed a Royal Commission would really be the most effectual mode of conducting the inquiry; but he was quite prepared to intrust it to a Committee upstairs. The matter, however, was a grave one. The important facts which he had detailed the other day had none of them been gainsaid; and he would, therefore, urge the Government to consent to his Motion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee so far as regards Parts 3 and 6 of the Bill, with power to take evidence with respect to the best mode of preventing overlading of ships and collisions at sea.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the words "be committed" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "to a Select Committee, so far as regards Parts 3 and 6, with power to take evidence with
  2008
  respect to the best mode of preventing overlading of ships and collisions at sea,"—(Sir John Pakington,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that after the debate that had been held upon the second reading it would be very desirable to allow the Government a short time to consider what was the best course to pursue. At the present moment, certainly, the Government were not prepared to consent to a reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, if to that reference the condition were attached that the Committee should take evidence. At the same time, it would be advantageous that a little time should be allowed for considering the matter, and his hon. Friend and the right hon. Baronet opposite would not be prejudiced if it were now agreed to adjourn the debate.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was ready to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he hoped that if the Government took any other course that that of merely allowing the Bill to be committed in the ordinary way, the fact that he had expressed a willingness to yield to their appeal would not prejudice him in raising the question as to Part 2.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed for Monday next.

BOARD OF TRADE BILL— [BILL 56.]
(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Stansfeld.)
BOARD OF TRADE BILL— [BILL 56.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  In reply to Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH,
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that it was not intended by the Bill to make any change in the constitution of the Board of Trade. As to the rating clauses he was not quite certain, but believed they were intended to replace those which were repealed by the previous Bill.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

RATING (IRELAND.)

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEmoved, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the present area of rating within Poor Law Unions in Ireland, with a view to ascertain whether such area of rating might with advantage be extended.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the present area of rating within Poor Law Unions in Ireland, with a view to ascertain whether such area of rating might with advantage be extended."—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) would not at that late hour proceed with the Motion for the appointment of a Committee on a subject affecting so materially the whole interests of Ireland. This was the first time the question had been mooted since 1861, when the subject was thoroughly ventilated.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take such a step at that time of night.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to postpone the discussion. He only regretted that a Bill had not been brought in at once to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, his object was to fulfil a promise he had made, and which, he had every reason to believe, was entirely acceded to by the Irish Members. The only possible objection arose out of the
  2010
  period of the Session at which they were now arrived; but that was not a sufficient objection, because, limited as the inquiry was to the question of the area of rating in Poor Law Unions in Ireland, there was no reason why it should not be got through in a few weeks, and they would be in a much better position to form an opinion whether any and what legislation was required on the subject. The inquiry which had already been made did not at all preclude further inquiry, but, having been very imperfect, was rather an additional reason for it. He hoped no opposition would be made to the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he sincerely hoped his right hon. Friend would not persevere in the appointment of such a Committee this Session. They had already had enough of arduous duty connected with the consideration of Irish affairs, and it would be well to remember the old saying that none could carry more than they could bear.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would beg to move that the debate be now adjourned. It was generally understood that they should not enter upon any controverted matter after one o'clock, and this was not only controverted, but might lead to an Irish row.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  SALMON ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MALCOLM, Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Export of unseasonable Salmon, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MALCOLM, MR. HAMBRO, and Mr. CAMERON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 163.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.