Commons Sitting of 8 March 1872

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Rowland Ponsonby Blennerhassett, esquire (sometimes called Hassett of Kells), for Kerry.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Habitual Drunkards, Mr. Winterbotham discharged; Mr. W. H. Gladstone added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—SUPPLEMENTARY NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Isle of Man Harbours* [83]; Thames Embankment [82].
Committee—Royal Parks and Gardens [17]—R.P. Third Reading—Reformatory and Industrial Schools* [75], and passed.

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether he is aware of the defective state of the Maps of the Southern Counties of England, and when new Maps might be expected?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped he might be permitted to answer the Question, there being a difference between the Survey of the Ordnance, and the Ordnance Survey. The survey of the south-eastern counties, Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Hampshire, was complete, and parts of Essex, Herts, Bucks, and Berks were in progress. If the hon. Gentleman alluded to the one-inch map, it was, no doubt, extremely defective, for it was commenced 70 years ago, and was only completed last year; so that the earlier portions did not give a very correct view of the face of England. The propriety of issuing a new series was under consideration, but this involved considerable expense, and must be dealt with as a whole, not in reference to any particular county.

METROPOLIS—PORT OF LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. REEDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Conservators of the River Thames have applied to Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs for permission to place a landing stage in front of a portion of the Custom House Quay, for the service of steam boats trading to Foreign Ports, and landing or embarking passengers in the Port of London; and, if so, whether any reply has been given to the application, and whether there is any objection to lay the same and Papers relating thereto upon the Table of the House?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, in reply, there had been a correspondence between the Conservators of the Thames and the Commissioners of Customs respecting permission to place a landing stage in front of their Quay for the use of steamboats trading to foreign ports and landing or embarking passengers. There was no objection to produce the correspondence.

ABYSSINIA—PRINCE ALAMAYON.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to say one or two words in explanation of the Question of which I have given Notice. At the close of the Abyssinian campaign, when Magdala had been taken and King Theodore killed, the Queen and her infant child fell into the
  1644
  hands of the British troops. The Queen shortly afterwards died. Before her death she asked Captain Speedy to take charge of the boy, and he accordingly brought him to England, Lord Napier of Magdala confirming the arrangement. The question then arose, who should be entrusted with the child, and how he should be educated? The idea conceived was that it would be undesirable to bring him up with any notion of Princely life, and that he should be treated as far as possible as a private person. He was, therefore, committed to Captain Speedy, who was much attached to him. Captain Speedy had an appointment in India, and the boy went with him. I understand that quite recently the boy has been taken from Captain Speedy and brought to England. I wish, therefore, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Prince Alamayon of Abyssinia has been withdrawn from the care of Captain Speedy; and, if so, for what reason; what arrangement has been made for his future care and education; and, whether he will have any objection to produce any Correspondence that may have passed on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman's statement is, I believe, perfectly correct, and I have only to take it up where he puts it down and finish the story. Captain Speedy has employment under the Government of India. He was transferred during last year from Oude to Penang, where, I think, he is police magistrate. It appeared to the Government that they stood in loco parentis to the child, and were bound to provide for his education as well as the peculiar circumstances permitted. They came to the conclusion that India was a bad locality for educating him, and that it was not creditable to the Government that his movements and residence should depend upon those of a gentleman in the service of the Indian Government who is ordered about as suits their purpose. They thought that, without blame to anyone, he would not receive a very good education in India, and that there were obvious disadvantages in the education of a boy there. It was therefore determined that he should come to England, and Captain Speedy took care of him on the voyage. Captain Speedy is naturally unwilling to give up his appointment at

  1645
  Penang, unless appointed elsewhere. Our first thought was that the boy should be sent to a school in England, in order, not only that he might have good teaching, but, what is better still, the society of boys of the same age. He is an exceedingly bright, tractable child, and promises extremely well. Sir William Jenner and Dr. Quain were consulted, and they advised that it would be inexpedient to send him to an English school, as he might meet with rough usage, and his health might be injured. He is now 11 years old, and that opinion was of less consequence, inasmuch as he has no elementary knowledge; so that he would not be fit even for the humblest school, such as gentlemen's children attend. He is of promising ability, but I believe he cannot really read or write; at least, we were not allowed to see specimens of his performances. Under these embarrassing circumstances we resolved to send him to the head master of one of the best schools in the kingdom, Cheltenham School, which contains two departments, one scientific and the other classical; not, however, to the school, but to live with this gentleman's family, and to receive the instruction he so much needs. The head master is to report from time to time—I hope to receive a report in a month or so—as to his progress and what can be done with him. We hope that when he has made up some ground and when we understand him better we may hit on some scheme, so that in a school or some other way he may get a good English education. I am anxious he should have a good practical education, not only for his own sake and because we are under a sacred duty towards him, and not only because Her Majesty takes the deepest interest in him, but because the day may come—no body can foresee what may happen—when his personal character and acquirements may be of the greatest consequence as a means of civilizing one of the most backward and miserable parts of the world. I cannot produce the whole Correspondence, but quite sufficient to explain fully why he has been withdrawn from Captain Speedy, without in any way casting blame on that gentleman.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Captain Speedy accepted the appointment at Penang, in exchange for Oude
  1646
  at a lower salary, for the sake of the health of his charge?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not aware of that. If such was the case it would make no difference.

MASSACRE OF CHRISTIANS IN JAPAN.—QUESTION.
MR. A. EGERTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any information has reached the Foreign Office in regard to alleged wholesale massacres of native Christians in Japan?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Information, Sir, has to-day reached the Foreign Office from our Chargé d' Affaires in Japan, to the effect that 60 or 70 heads of families professing the Christian faith had been sent away from villages in the neighbourhood of Nagasaki by steamer to another part of the country. The Government at Yedo had expressed its regret that such a step should have been taken by the local authorities, and had despatched officials to inquire into the matter, of which details were wanting. We have no report of any actual cruelties having been practised on individuals.

ARMY—MILITARY DEPOT STATIONS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House the reason that Newry has been recommended, in preference to Belfast, as a Depôt Station for brigading the 50th and 86th Regiments of the Line, and the Antrim and North and South Down Regiments of Militia, in the scheme laid before the House?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the consideration which weighed with the Commissioners in recommending Newry in preference to Belfast as a depôt station was, that there were buildings there of which economical advantage could be taken.
  In answer to Mr. VANCE,
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he could only repeat the answer which he gave last night—that, although the arrangements as to these depôts had been carefully considered, yet he was not sanguine enough to suppose that on their first proposition they would be entirely suc-

  1647
  cessful, and that any communication that might be made with regard to them would be carefully considered.

ARMY—MILITIA SURGEONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for War, What will be the position and military duties of Militia Surgeons under the new system of Army and Militia Localisation, more particularly in cases where the Head Quarters of Militia Regiments are transferred; will the services of the Surgeons be still required for attendance on the Staff, for the inspection of recruits, and during the annual training; and, if the services of the Surgeons are dispensed with, will they receive compensation for the loss of their appointments?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, the services of Militia surgeons would not be required when the new system was introduced for attendance on Staff or for the inspection of recruits; but they would be required, he apprehended, during the annual trainings.

NAVY—THE "MEGÆRA" COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CORRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the evidence taken before the Royal Commission of Inquiry upon the "Megæra" will be placed in the hands of Members?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he believed it would still be a week or more before the evidence, which was very voluminous, could be in the hands of Members. The matter, however, rested with the Commissioners, not with the Admiralty. He trusted that, under these circumstances, he should not be pressed to delay the Navy Estimates, for it was of the utmost importance that they should be proceeded with as early as possible. He would take care not to introduce controversial matters relating to the administration of the Admiralty and dockyards until the evidence had been printed; but he trusted that he might be allowed to enter upon the question of shipbuilding, the Vote for Men and Boys, and other matters not connected with the Commissioners' Report.

METROPOLIS—THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given him private Notice. In the Paper for that night there was Notice of a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill with reference to the Thames Embankment, and as it would not be reached till a very late hour in the evening, when it would be impossible to have any discussion upon it, and when, probably, the House would be exceedingly thin, he thought it would be convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would state generally what were the provisions of that Bill; and also the terms on which the Government proposed to deal with the Metropolitan Board of Works for the land on the Thames Embankment?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning, if I receive permission to introduce it tonight; and that Bill will contain the whole of the information which the hon. Gentleman desires. It is better that the provisions of the Bill should be learnt from the Bill itself, than from any imperfect outline I might give of them.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

WELSH COUNTY COURT JUDGES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, in rising to call the attention of the House to the recent appointment of Mr. Homersham Cox to be a Judge of the Mid-Wales County Court Circuit, and to move the Resolution which stood in his name, said, before doing so, he wished expressly to disclaim any desire to question the propriety of the motives of the noble and learned Lord who was responsible for that appointment, for whose character he, in common with every member of his profession, and, indeed, every man in the country, entertained the greatest respect. He quite believed that in making that appointment, just as in making another judicial appoint-

  1649
  ment which had been severely criticized, the Lord Chancellor was actuated by the best of motives; but he also believed that in that case, as in the other, he made a great mistake. He also wished to disavow no less emphatically any desire to claim for his countrymen any special or exclusive privileges. Welshmen were no advocates of "Home Rule" in the sense in which that word was used on the other side of the Channel, or in any other sense. Indeed, they asked for no right except that which was the natural and inalienable birthright of every subject of the Queen—the right to have justice dealt out to them so far as circumstances would permit promptly, cheaply, and efficiently. And if he could show that the prompt and cheap and efficient administration of justice was involved in the Resolution he was about to move, then he might fairly ask not merely for the support of his Welsh Colleagues, but for the vote of every Member on that side of the House who had any due sense of Parliamentary responsibility. The Mid-Wales County Court Circuit, to which his Motion more immediately pointed, comprised the whole of the county of Merioneth, and parts of the counties of Carnarvon, Cardigan, and Montgomery, and those were the most exclusively Welsh parts of Wales. For the benefit of such of his Saxon friends as had never penetrated into those remote localities, he might mention that at least four-fifths of the inhabitants of that part of Her Majesty's dominions habitually spoke the Welsh language, and, as a rule, spoke and understood nothing else. They carried on the daily business and intercourse of life, they wrote their letters, they concluded their bargains, and they made their wills in that language. Now, it must be evident to everyone that, under such circumstances, the administration of justice in what was virtually a foreign tongue must be, even in the Superior Courts, attended with great difficulty and inconvenience. In the first place, it was very difficult to find a jury who understood English properly. He remembered that when on circuit, many years ago, a story was current of a very learned Judge—Baron Parke—who had been explaining with great lucidity the law in an ejectment case, when he was interrupted by the foreman of the jury, who called out in Welsh—"Tell that old
  1650
  gentleman to cut his speech short—we hav'nt understood a word he has been saying, and we settled yesterday who was to have the property over a glass of claret at the Mostyn Arms." That was a good many years ago; but to show that things were not much better now, the hon. and learned Member related a case which occurred at Beaumaris Quarter Sessions, where a butcher was tried on two indictments for stealing sheep. The jury, in the first case, who understood very little English, having retired to consider their verdict, a jury was empanelled to try the second. While the second case was being tried the jury in the first returned into court and gave a verdict of "not guilty." The second trial proceeded; the case for the prosecution was closed, and the counsel for the prisoner had commenced his speech, when the jury interrupted him to request that he would speak in Welsh. It then appeared that they had not understood a word of the evidence that had been given. The trial proceeded, and necessarily ended in a verdict of acquittal. Sometimes it was the prisoner who did not understand English. At Cardiff, the other day, two men were tried for an assault on the police. The evidence was given in English, and the prisoners who were undefended were convicted. Just as they were about to be sentenced, it was discovered that neither of them had understood a single word which had been said against them, and that so far as they were concerned, the whole proceedings had been merely dumb show. But it was chiefly from the difficulty of interpreting the evidence of Welsh witnesses that miscarriages of justice arose. In the first place, a Judge or counsel who had to get his evidence through an interpreter was at a very great disadvantage. Very often a shade of difference in the expressions used by a witness, or even a change in his countenance might serve to put counsel or a Judge who understood the language the witness was speaking upon the right scent. Moreover, there was no regular interpreter attached to the Courts, and the Judges had to trust to any chance person, who often was unfit for the duty. The Welsh papers were full of ludicrous instances of mistranslations by interpreters. The hon. and learned Member gave instances in which, by mistranslation, a witness was made to state that

  1651
  he had seen a man at a fair with a "sheep" upon his nose, instead of a "wart;" another was made to describe a testator as a man "who would stand on his head for hours near a river," the deceased having merely been fond of meditative walks by the river side; another in which a man had been seen running away with another's "schoolroom" on his back, for a "ladder;" another in which a prisoner was sworn to have "stolen a compass," whereas he had merely taken a circuitous course. These cases had occurred chiefly in the Superior Courts; but it was obvious that in the case of the County Courts the necessity for a Welsh-speaking Judge was ten times stronger. In the first place, the verdict in the Superior Courts was always given by a jury, and the jury at least had the advantage of understanding Welsh. In the next place, the case was carefully sifted beforehand by competent legal practitioners who understood both languages, and who received their instructions from the client in Welsh, and transmitted them to counsel in English, and who, moreover, were constantly at hand to correct any mistakes into which the interpreter might fall. But the justice administered in the County Courts was of a more rough and ready kind. Not only were there no juries, but there were no written pleadings, no briefs, no attorneys, and, generally speaking, no advocates. Under these circumstances, one or two things must happen where the Judge was unable to speak Welsh—either the suitor must employ a professional advocate instead of conducting his case himself, which was in itself a very great hardship, or the Judge was compelled to act, not only as Judge and jury, but as counsel for one side, or it might be for both sides; in other words, he had to prove the case for himself, and to check the tendency of the suitor to wander into irrelevant matter. Now, in the name of common sense, was it possible for a man who did not understand the language of the suitor to do this? What would be said if his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were to appoint—say to the Bow Street Police-Court—a gentleman who could speak and understand nothing but Chinese? But that was an exactly parallel case, for to these poor people English was Chinese. Take the actual case of India, where the suitors and witnesses all spoke Hindos-
  1652
  tanee. It was a sine quâ non that every gentleman sent out to preside in a Court should understand and speak Hindostanee. In the same way the Lord Chancellor who was in office when the County Courts were first established—Lord Lynd-hurst—made it a sine quâ non that every gentleman appointed to preside in a Welsh County Court should speak and understand Welsh. At any rate the two Judges between whom the circuit was divided (Mr. Arthur Johnes and Mr. Richards), both spoke Welsh with ease and fluency. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) laid particular stress upon this, because he had been accused of asking the Lord Chancellor to establish a new precedent, whereas he only asked him to return to the precedent laid down by his predecessors. Things went on this way until the accession of the present Lord Chancellor to the office. Mr. Arthur Johnes, the Judge of the Mid-Wales County Court died, and was succeeded by Serjeant Tindal Atkinson. Now, he was far from questioning the general competency of that gentleman. He believed him to have been admirably fitted for the office of a County Court Judge, or, indeed, for a still higher post; but he could not speak Welsh, and on that account considerable dissatisfaction was expressed at his appointment. But naturally enough people were slow to move in such matters, and it was hoped, or indeed the event proved, that his tenure of the post would be temporary only. Last autumn, Serjeant Tindal Atkinson, whether at his own request or not he did not know, was removed to an English Court, and within a day or two after his removal—at any rate before any remonstrance could be addressed to him on the subject—the Lord Chancellor appointed Mr. Homersham Cox to the vacant post. Now he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) did not wish to speak with unnecessary disrespect of Mr. Cox. He believed him to be a man of ability. He certainly must be a man of very varied accomplishments, for he had written three works upon subjects no less divergent than the practice of the Court of Chancery, the Differential Calculus, and the British Constitution. He believed, too, that he was a very powerful political writer, and he understood that his services had generally been placed at the disposal of the Government. But he certainly was not a man in large practice, as he (Mr.

  1653
  Osborne Morgan) knew from having practised in the same Courts for 17 years. But be that as it might, he did not know a single word of Welsh. On this ground mainly his appointment was objected to in the Principality, and a number of memorials were presented to the Lord Chancellor praying his Lordship, not exactly to remove Mr. Cox, but to translate him to some other sphere where he might be permitted to shine with unclouded lustre. The Lord Chancellor did him the honour of addressing his reply to these memorials to himself, (Mr. Osborne Morgan) and that reply was contained in a letter which was afterwards published. Now if the Lord Chancellor had said that he could not find a competent man who could speak the Welsh language, or even if he had said that his appointment of a Welshman would have necessitated the lowering of what he conceived to be the proper standard of fitness for the office he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) should have said nothing more; for, in the interest of his countrymen he might state at once that he had no desire to saddle upon them an incompetent or even an inferior Judge, merely because he could talk Welsh. And while dealing with this part of the subject, he might say at once that he had no objection to the qualification which his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury Tracy) wished to introduce into the Resolution. Indeed, he thought the qualification was already contained in the Resolution as it stood, for where the area of selection was necessarily limited the principle of selection must be also. But the Lord Chancellor did not take that ground, nor could he perhaps have done so, for it was notorious that there were at least half-a-dozen barristers who understood a sufficient amount of Welsh for the purpose, whose claims were, putting that qualification aside, equal if not superior to that of Mr. Cox. Besides, they must bear in mind that if they once made it a sine quâ non that a County Court Judge should speak Welsh, they would find plenty of persons to qualify themselves for that office by learning Welsh—just as he understood that since the appointment of a Welsh-speaking Bishop the study of the Welsh language had become very much more popular among the Welsh clergy. But to return to the Lord Chancellor. His Lordship
  1654
  assigned three reasons for declining to accede to the prayer of the memorialists. His first reason was that a Welsh Judge would be distrusted by English suitors. ["Hear!"] The House should have his own words—
  "In cases between Englishmen and Welshmen a Judge selected for his Welsh acquirements would become subject to a mistrust on the part of an English litigant."
  Now, if the Lord Chancellor had been asked to appoint a man who could not speak English, he could understand that there might have been some force in the objection; but surely a Welsh suitor would have much more reason for mistrusting a Judge who could not speak a word in his own language than an English suitor would have for mistrusting a Judge who could speak both English and Welsh. Besides, no English suitor ever thought of mistrusting Mr. Richards and Mr. Johnes, who were selected for their Welsh acquirements. The Lord Chancellor next took his stand upon an old Act of Henry VIII., which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had not been able to find in any modern collection of the statutes, but which he supposed to be still formally unrepealed. It ran as follows—
  "All justices, commissioners, sheriffs, coroners, extreators, stewards and their lieutenants, and all other officers and ministers of the law, shall proclaim and keep the sessions courts in the English tongue, and all oaths of officers, juries, and inquests, and all other affidavits, verdicts, and wagers of law to be given and done in the English tongue; and also that from henceforth no person or persons that use the Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner of office or fees within this realm of England or Wales, or other the King's dominion, upon pain of forfeiting the same offices or fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English speech, or language."
  Now, if that meant that a man who could and did speak Welsh was ineligible for the office of Judge, all he could say was that not only Mr. Richards and Mr. Johnes, but one of the most distinguished of the Judges on the Equity Bench (Lord Justice James) would be disqualified. Nay, as the "office" would probably include a seat in Parliament, the Government might find that five or six of their staunchest supporters were disqualified from sitting in the House. But if it only meant that judicial proceedings were to be carried on in English, then he said that a Judge who understood both languages could do this quite as well as a Judge who understood English only, and he would moreover

  1655
  have the inestimable advantage of being able to check and correct any mistakes into which an interpreter might fall—just as Lord Chief Justice Bovill did the other day in the case of a French witness in the Tichborne case. But in fact he could not help thinking that the statute belonged to the same class of enactments as that which was last Session dug up out of the grave in which it had slumbered for centuries by the hon. and gallant Member for Grimsby (Colonel Tomline)—the Act, happily now repealed, which prevented lawyers from sitting in Parliament. At any rate he knew as a matter of fact that that provision had for many years remained a dead letter in Wales. Indeed, where the parties, the witnesses, and the Judge, all spoke and understood Welsh, it would be mere pedantry to require the proceedings to be translated into English. The third and last objection raised by the Lord Chancellor was, that the appointment of an Englishman might help to get rid of the Welsh language. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would quote his own words—
  "The existence of two languages has a tendency to separate people who, as fellow-citizens, should be as far as possible united."
  Really, that was the first time he had ever heard that a Lord Chancellor in the distribution of his judicial patronage was bound to consider not merely the interests of justice, but the claims of a particular language. It really came to this—that in order that the next generation might be compelled to learn English, the present generation—who, through no fault of their own, had learnt nothing but Welsh—were to submit to a practical denial of justice. But if the attempt were made it would prove as abortive as it was unjustifiable. Twice had the experiment of suppressing a national language been tried—once in Poland, after the Revolution of 1830, when it was attempted to substitute the Russian language for Polish in the tribunals of Poland; and a second time in Hungary, during the darkest days of Austrian misrule, when it was attempted to substitute German for Magyar in the Hungarian Law Courts. In both cases the attempt was received with a cry of indignation from civilized Europe, and in both cases it utterly failed. The fact was you could not drive out a language vi et armis in that way. Language was but the reflection
  1656
  of thought, and you could not force the full-grown ideas of one people into the language of another. All this talk about encouraging or discouraging a particular language was mere rubbish. He would tell the House their language was dear to the Welsh people. It had been endeared to them from their earliest days. They had imbibed it, so to speak, with their mothers' milk, and they would not give it—no, not for all the County Court lawsuits in the world. It was the old story—
  "Naturam expellas furca tamen usque recurret."
  Indeed, upon that part of the question he had on his side no less an authority than that of the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to repudiate the old-fashioned and ridiculous notion that they could drive out the Welsh language by appointing English Bishops to Welsh sees. It was said then, as it was said now, that they could not find a Welshman fit for the purpose. However, "where there's a will there's a way," and his right hon. Friend did find a man to fill the See of St. Asaph, of whom he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would only say that a man better qualified by his piety and attainments did not sit upon the Episcopal Bench. And if Bishops, why not Judges? So much for the reason of the thing. Now let him say one word about the testimony which had been adduced for and against the appointment. And, first, he would take the testimony of Mr. Homer-sham Cox himself. Mr. Homersham Cox, returning from his first circuit flushed with judicial triumphs, thought proper to write a letter to all the London newspapers, stating that only upon one occasion had he experienced the slightest difficulty in making up his mind as to any of the questions with which he had to deal, and maintaining that he had discharged his duties to the satisfaction of everybody, including himself. Unfortunately, however, there appeared next day in The Daily News an extract from a report of a trial upon this very circuit, which a little "took the shine" out of Mr. Cox's letter. It related to an amusing scene between the Judge and a witness, who, to all the questions put to him, replied, "Dim Saesneg;" to which the learned gentleman invariably replied—"Yes, I understand that; but are you a grocer?" "Yes—but do you sell tea?" So much for

  1657
  the evidence of Mr. Cox on his own behalf. Then there was the testimony of Mr. Humphreys, who had sat for Mr. Johnes during his illness, and who stated that no one had complained of Mr. Cox's not understanding Welsh; but it was not very likely that complaints on such a subject would be made to the Judge himself. Then it was represented that a Memorial in favour of Mr. Cox, "numerously and influentially signed" by the solicitors of the district, had been presented to the Lord Chancellor. To the credit of the profession, however, it turned out that only nine out of some 90 solicitors practising in the Welsh part of the Mid-Wales Circuit had signed that Memorial. So much for the evidence in favour of the appointment. He would now read to the House, on the other side of the question, two letters from gentlemen who from their position and experience would be admitted to be very high authorities upon the question. The one was from Mr. John Johnes, of Doluncothy, who had been a County Court Judge in Wales for 14 years; the other from Mr. Gold Edwards, one of the ablest and most experienced of the County Count registrars, which appointment he had held since 1847. The hon. and learned Member read their letters in extenso. They both expressed in the strongest terms the convictions of the writers of the great inconvenience which arose from the appointment of gentlemen who did not understand the Welsh language, and that under such a state of things it was impossible that justice could be administered. Now, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) thought the evidence of these two gentlemen worth any number of statements made by Englishmen, however eminent, who did not understand a word of Welsh, and who had never entered a Welsh County Court in all their lives. If they wanted further testimony, surely it was to be found in the 89 Petitions—signed by thousands of persons, including magistrates, merchants, professional men, farmers, tradesmen, and persons of every class—which he had presented that afternoon. This was a suitor's, not a solicitor's question—a matter for the public, not for the lawyers—and the verdict of the Welsh public was unanimous. Now, he had but one more word to add—and that was to say, without fear of contradiction, that the sun did not rise upon a more
  1658
  loyal, a more peaceable, a more law-abiding people than the inhabitants of North and South Wales. He appealed to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was half a Welshman himself—and he only wished that he had been altogether one, for he felt sure that in that case he would have left undone many things that he had done, and done some things that he had left undone—whether any portion of Her Majesty's subjects had given him so little trouble? We, said the hon. and learned Member, do not shoot our landlords. We do not require to be kept in order by Peace Preservation and Coercion Bills. We do not even pull up Park palings—perhaps if we did we should receive a little more consideration. But he was ashamed of pleading for this concession as a matter of indulgence. He asked it as an ex debito justifiæ—he asked it in the first instance at the hands of the Government, and if he could not get it from them he must reluctantly appeal to that House, which never yet turned a deaf ear to a suppliant for justice, and which regarded, and rightly regarded, every question connected with the due administration of the law, whether it arose upon the appointment of a Privy Councillor or upon that of a County Court Judge, as its just and legitimate province. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. PARRYseconded the Resolution, maintaining that the grievance of which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) complained was a real and by no means a sentimental grievance, and one which persistently called for a remedy.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interests of the due administration of justice, that the Judge of a County Court District in which the Welsh language is generally spoken should be able to speak and understand that language,"—(Mr. Osborne Morgan,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HANBURY TRACY: Sir, as I find that I am unable at present to move the Amendment of which I have given

  1659
  Notice, which was to insert the words "as far as the limits of selection will allow" after the word "should," I desire to say a few words on the general question. I concur most cordially, most heartily, and most sincerely with what has been ably stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) as to the desirability of having gentlemen appointed to the Welsh County Court districts who can thoroughly understand the language, so far as it is practicable to obtain them. It is idle to deny that the greatest advantage must accrue in the purely Welsh districts where the Judge, acting as he does in County Court business as arbitrator—as the common friend of the suitors, is able to accurately comprehend the minutest detail of the case from the suitors' own lips. A County Court Judge stands in a very different position to a Judge of Assize, or even to a county magistrate. One of his principal duties is to suggest compromises, and to make those arrangements between debtor and creditor, for which it is indispensable to have a thorough insight into all the circumstances of the case. It is undoubtedly true, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, that even in the Superior Courts constant, and in some cases ludicrous, mistakes have occurred from the want of this knowledge; but if it is so with them, how infinitely more must it be in those Courts where the suitors are of a far more homely character, and where there is little, if any check, to the statements of the interpreters? It seems to me almost a truism to affirm the desirability of having Judges able to speak the language of the people for whom they administer justice, and if there was any doubt as to the necessity of enforcing the rule in Wales, so far as the County Courts are concerned, I feel that the eloquent speech we have just heard must have convinced the most sceptical. The point I am anxious to raise is simply this—that I believe great practical difficulties must and do occasionally occur in obtaining a supply of competent men to fill the posts from the limited number of barristers able to speak Welsh, and I cannot help thinking that it would be a great mistake—a fatal blow to the due administration of justice in the Principality, if the area of choice were too much restricted; or if this abstract Resolution
  1660
  were to be allowed to pass without recording in the clearest and most unequivocal manner, our intention that before every consideration of language we must have judicial fitness—that we must have on our County Court Benches men of marked ability, conspicuous for their general attainments and of very considerable legal experience. Whilst we desire to express most distinctly that where two men are equally qualified, a marked preference should be given to the man who is able to speak Welsh, we do not want for one moment to sacrifice ability for colloquial knowledge; and though we wish to lay considerable stress on our opinion that it is an immense boon, so far as it is practicable, for the suitors to have a Judge able to understand their language and to be able to check the interpreter, we do not wish to draw too rigid a line, or to fetter the Government too stringently from exercising their discretion, or from performing their undoubted duty of selecting the fittest man for the post with the full knowledge that they are responsible for the appointment. The real truth of the matter is, that very few persons have the slightest idea how limited is the area of selection. Many people I know are under the delusion that there is ample choice in the North and South Wales Circuit, and that a Lord Chancellor who does not appoint a Welshman must of necessity be perpetrating a job, and passing over many men who have a prior right. The facts just as I can discover them are these—that the number of barristers qualified by sufficient standing at the Bar who can speak Welsh are on the North Wales Circuit, one; on the South Wales Circuit, one who can speak and two who can understand; on the Northern Circuit, one or two; and at the Chancery Bar I believe there are three, making altogether at the very outside seven or eight. It may be true, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that when once it is known that these appointments are to be given only to Welshmen, you will very soon have a supply, but we are now speaking of what number there are at present qualified. When we consider this, I think that we are bound to admit that any Lord Chancellor, however willing to appoint a Welshman, has no easy duty at present to fulfil. We must remember that it is not everyone who will consent to take the post of County Court Judge,

  1661
  even when offered to him; and we must not forget that there are many considerations which have to be well weighed, before deciding as to the fitness of a barrister to fill a judicial office. I apprehend the upshot of it is this—that so small is the number of duly-qualified men who can speak the language, that it is quite possible in the event of more than one district falling vacant at a time, that there should be absolutely not a single man really qualified, and it is in such a contingency that I desire to prevent incompetent men from being appointed. The actual appointments which have been called in question are, I am bound to say, somewhat peculiar. It is most unfortunate that two Englishmen should have been nominated in the short space of one year to a district the greater part of which is more purely Welsh than any in the Principality. I am told that when Mr. Homersham Cox was appointed, there were three or four very able men well versed in the language passed over. If this is so, no one can regret it more than myself; but at the same time we must in all justice to the Lord Chancellor remember that the only two vacancies which had occurred during the last 23 years had been filled by Englishmen. We must also remember that the distinguished Judge who my hon. and learned Friend alluded to—Mr. Arthur Johnes, a patriotic, enthusiastic Welshman, who so long ably presided on this very circuit actually, appointed as his deputy, a gentleman who could not speak the language, from which the inference would naturally be drawn that he, a Welshman with 20 years' experience on the circuit, did not consider a knowledge of the language a necessity; and when we further remember that no remonstrance or memorial was presented when Mr. Serjeant Atkinson was appointed, I think we are bound in all sincerity to admit that it is hardly fair to blame the Lord Chancellor for following the precedent set him by his predecessor, however much we may wish he had appointed a Welshman. But, Sir, whilst I state that, I feel bound also to strongly support the testimony of my hon. and learned Friend, that a very strong feeling of dissatisfaction is felt in the Principality at these appointments. Notwithstanding the memorial we have heard so much about, signed by eight solicitors, it is most undoubtedly true
  1662
  that amongst a large number of Welshmen an impression has got about, which I believe to be altogether erroneous—that an attempt has been made on the part of the Government to throw a slur on the ancient language of the Principality, to look upon Welshmen as the remains of Druidical barbarism requiring no consideration, to utterly ignore the fact that there are large districts where English is hardly understood, and altogether to forget that the peculiar feature of County Court jurisdiction is an endeavour to place a cheap and very easy remedy within reach of the poorest cottager. I apprehend that nothing can be more detrimental to the interests of justice than that such a feeling should be allowed to continue, as we must not forget that it is indispensable that not only must suitors have justice done them, but they must feel, understand, and believe, that justice is actually performed. The Welsh, Sir, are a peculiarly sensitive people, they love their ancient language with a fervour and a veneration which you must respect and admire, and which you cannot eradicate by force, by sarcasm, or by injustice. But, Sir, they are as well aware as you are, that the knowledge of English opens up the whole world to them, and enables their children to compete successfully with other countries, and that it brings them material prosperity, and greatly improved condition of life, instead of being obliged to remain cooped up and confined in comparative poverty in their native hills and valleys. It is acknowledged on all sides that English is spreading rapidly, and I am confident it will continue to do so if you do not thwart their national prejudices and force them back into their ancient seclusion. In no part of Great Britain is there now so sincere a desire for the spread of education, which cannot fail to bring with it new ideas, new interests, now associations, and with it a greatly increased desire for the knowledge of English. Sir, I will not take up the time of the House any more, I will only say that whilst I do not believe the Government or the Lord Chancellor can have had any intention to cast a slight, or to wound the feelings of the most sensitive Welshman, yet I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend has called attention to the subject, and I trust the Government will accept the

  1663
  Resolution with the alteration which I venture to suggest, which simply affirms that however much it is desirable to have Welshman appointed to County Court districts, they must be men of marked experience and fitness, and that we are not prepared to sacrifice ability for colloquial knowledge; and I trust also that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, will be able also to disclaim any intention of disregarding the interest of Wales.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he understood that the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was willing to accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury Tracy), and in that case the Resolution, which at first wore a rather warlike appearance, resolved itself into the most harmless truism—that it was desirable that County Court Judges in Wales should understand the Welsh language; but he (Mr. Scourfield) was disposed to go further, and to say that he thought it desirable that Welsh Judges should understand not only the Welsh language, but all languages—at least some language which everybody could understand. In one part of the county he represented (Pembrokeshire), Welsh was spoken, and in another part English; and in a borough he had represented, the people at one side of the river understood nothing but English, and those on the other side nothing but Welsh, so that it became difficult to say on which side of the water the inhabitants were most aggrieved on Sunday—the Welsh by having sermons in English inflicted on them, or the English by being obliged to hear sermons in Welsh. For his part, when he listened to Welsh sermons, although they sounded orthodox enough, he confessed that they appealed more to his imagination than to his understanding. He could not see what advantage a Resolution on this subject would produce, for nobody was disposed to say that if a Judge was otherwise qualified, it would not be desirable he should speak Welsh; and, like the hon. Member for Montgomery, he should be very sorry to limit the area of proper selection. It must, however, be borne in mind that the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomery went far beyond the Resolution, because the latter only referred to County Court Judges, while his argu-
  1664
  ment applied to the whole legal system of Wales. Within the memory of several hon. Members present not a single Judge on the Bench could speak Welsh. Therefore it seemed strange that this grievance should start up afresh now, when there must be a considerable addition to the number of Welsh-speaking Judges. It was a very difficult question, because a man might have a fair scientific knowledge of the language, though he could not speak it colloquially. It was, after all, an abstract question, and one for the Executive to decide rather than the House; but if, at the same time, hon. Members thought the Government were habitually making improper selections, that was a fair reason for withdrawing their confidence from the Government, but not for interfering with every appointment they made. Moreover, he did not see why the argument should be limited to County Court Judges. If it was valid at all, it ought to be extended to the whole legal jurisdiction in Wales. He must repeat that he did not think it would be desirable to limit the area of selection; but he thought the Government might accept the Resolution, with the addition suggested by the hon. Member for Montgomery.
  MR. RICHARDsaid, he thought that it was a pity that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Scourfield) had not learned the language of the people among whom he moved, for then he might have been able to judge of the orthodoxy of the Welsh sermons he was doomed to hear. Had the hon. Member, instead of representing Pembrokeshire, the most Anglicized county in Wales, represented Denbighshire, or Cardiganshire, or any of the North Welsh counties, he would have been obliged to bear testimony to the strong feeling that prevailed there, in opposition to the appointment of Judges who were not conversant with the language. He understood that the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury Tracy), and, therefore, it was not with the view of pressing the Resolution on the attention of the House that he rose, but principally to correct one or two fallacies, somewhat prevalent in England with regard to Wales, and exercising an in-

  1665
  jurious influence upon the relations between the two countries. One fallacy was this—it was asserted or implied that it was necessary to discourage, and, if possible, to extinguish the Welsh language, as a means of establishing more closely political union between the two countries—as though some disunion now existed. When the correspondence between his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan) and the Lord Chancellor was first published, on the subject of the appointment of Mr. Homersham Cox, a great deal of arrant nonsense was written in some of the English newspapers, to the effect that there was a dangerous cry raised in the Principality—the cry of "Wales for the Welsh," which it was necessary at once to discourage and suppress. It seemed to be supposed that there was an intention to lift the banner of Welsh independence, and to promote some sort of "Home Rule," in an endeavour to secure separation between the Principality and the other parts of the Empire. A more preposterous and unfounded phantasy than that never troubled any human brain; for in all the vast dominions of Her Majesty, from the Hebrides to the Punjaub, there was no people more loyal to the Crown, or more faithful to the Constitution than were Welshmen. Another fallacy, very common in England, was to the effect that there existed among the Welsh people an intense antipathy to the English language, and a settled determination not to learn it. That also was an utterly erroneous notion. It was not only not true, but the direct converse of the truth. There was an eager and universal desire amongst the Welsh people to acquire the English language; and the best proof of it was that, in all the schools throughout the Principality—not merely National and British schools, which were supposed to be more or less under the influence of the Government, but in all private adventure schools, the English language was taught, not merely with, but even to the exclusion of, the Welsh language. To such an extent was this rule carried out, that in most of the day schools in Wales, wherever a child was overheard talking Welsh during school hours he rendered himself liable to punishment. In some parts of Wales the English language was rapidly gaining ground. There was a
  1666
  considerable number of Welshmen who had already learned to write and speak it very fairly. But it was true that, while willing and ever anxious to learn that language, the Welsh people were yet strongly attached to their mother tongue; and why should they not be? Was there anything monstrous, unnatural, criminal, or barbarous in a people desiring to retain the language of their forefathers? Even Englishmen, though they had not such a language as the Welsh, were attached to the language of their fathers. The history connected with the Welsh Church furnished an impressive lesson on this subject. A century and a half ago, the English Government set itself to discourage, and if possible to destroy, the Welsh language and Welsh nationality, by appointing English bishops to all Welsh sees, and English clergymen to all the best livings in Wales; and that the Government did expressly on the ground that it was desirable the Welsh language should be extinguished in order to unite the two countries closely together. In 1766 Dr. Bowles, an Englishman unacquainted with Welsh, was presented by the Bishop of Bangor to a living in Anglesea. In 1773 the churchwardens, aided by a society called the Cymrodorion, at whose head was a Baronet, who, he believed, was an ancestor of the hon. Member for Denbighshire, brought an action in the Court of Arches, and attempted to deprive Dr. Bowles of the living, on the ground of his ignorance of the Welsh language. And on that occasion the arguments used by the advocates of Dr. Bowles were to the effect that, although the Doctor did not understand the language, he was in possession of the living and could not be turned out; that Wales was a conquered country, and that it was the duty of the Bishops to promote English clergymen in order to introduce the language, and that that had always been the policy of the Legislature. That was the policy; but what was the result? Not to make Englishmen of Welshmen so much as to make Dissenters of them. As a Nonconformist, of course he had not the slightest objection to that result; but clearly that was not what the promoters of that policy wished or expected. Depend upon it, if they wanted to force the Welsh people to become English by laws which pressed hard on their rights,

  1667
  they would lose their aim. If it was wished to amalgamate the Welsh people with the English, conciliation and kindness must be the means employed for the purpose. He earnestly trusted, therefore, that the Government would accept the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, at least with the modification which had been suggested.
  MR. HOLLANDsaid, that 80 per cent of the population of the Principality spoke Welsh, while the language of the Courts of Justice was English; the consequence was that it was felt to be a very great grievance by suitors in the Welsh County Courts that in consequence of the Judge's ignorance of the Welsh language they were compelled to employ either an advocate to state their case, which entailed considerable expense, or else to employ an interpreter, which from the difficult nature of the language often led to very great mistakes. In fact, the losing party generally attributed the loss of their case to the fact that it had not been properly explained to the Judge. He understood that Mr. Homersham Cox was a man of very respectable attainments; his talents, he believed, were fully recognized where he was intimately known; but he hoped the Home Office would, before long, take an opportunity of removing him from the position which he now held to some place where he would be more appreciated.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, the result of the appointment of Mr. Cox was, that a considerable portion of the Principality had been practically deprived of the benefits conferred by the establishment of County Courts. In confirmation of that view, he had that morning received a letter from a Welsh clergyman who lived in Mr. Cox's jurisdiction, and who said he was satisfied that at least 7 per cent of the suitors in his Court were unable to state their case in the English language, and were therefore put to the necessity of employing lawyers, and, further, that it was difficult to get an interpreter to act fairly between the parties. He, therefore, hoped the Government would yield to the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). He (Mr. M'Arthur) considered that, having submitted the case to the Lord Chancellor, his hon. and learned Friend could not avoid bringing it before the House.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, that he agreed with every word that had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), and thanked him for bringing forward the Motion. He wished to direct attention to the circumstance that in considering this subject sufficient importance was not attributed to the fact that County Court Judges had mainly to deal with small cases and comparatively poor people—cases in which the litigants could not afford to obtain professional assistance; and, indeed, in which the smallness of the amount involved would not justify the incurring of such an expense. There was no analogy between the case of the County Court Judges and the Judges of the Superior Courts who travelled the circuits, before whom causes were tried by juries, with the assistance of professional advocates. If a County Court Judge, who had to act as judge and jury, and without the assistance of professional advocates, was wholly ignorant of the language used by the parties and their witnesses, it was obvious that frequent failure and denial of justice must be the result. It was very easy for English people to sneer at these complaints as resulting from mere national sentiment; but he could assure them that the grievance was a real and a substantial one, and that a feeling of deep indignation was engendered by treating these feelings with contempt. As a Welshman, he was distressed when he was told by some of his English friends that all this fuss was made simply because this appointment had not been given to a Welshman, and that they were trying to get up a cry of "Wales for the Welsh," all of which he declared was sheer nonsense and without any foundation. The Welsh people knew too well the practical value of forming an integral part of this great kingdom, and desired to have no distinction made, but wished only to be placed upon an equality with the rest of the kingdom. Would it be considered right in England to appoint a local Judge for the district of Cornwall, who was wholly unable to understand the practice of the Stannaries and the habits and customs of the mining districts, say, for instance, a Welsh country gentleman who did not understand a word of English; or would it be right to appoint a Judge for the important district of New-

  1669
  castle, who was wholly inexperienced in mercantile and shipping and mining law? Precisely upon the same grounds the Welsh people felt that a knowledge of Welsh was a most important qualification for a local Judge in a district in which Welsh was the language of the great mass of the people. He was ready to admit that the number of competent lawyers acquainted with the Welsh language was very limited, nor did he dispute the fact that judicial fitness and a competent knowledge of law wore more important even than the knowledge of the language; but nobody could deny that other things being equal, preference should be given to a man conversant with the language of the people; but that which had roused the feelings of the people in the present case, was the belief—which be shared—that no attempt had been made by the Lord Chancellor to select a fit or suitable man for the office. When he had been asked by the country people who was Mr. Homersham Cox, was he a great lawyer from London, and much more fitted to be a Judge than any of the local Welsh barristers, and had he on that account been preferred to them?—the truth compelled him to answer that, although he had some acquaintance with the Law Courts himself, he had never heard the name of Mr. Homersham Cox, and from his experience of the way in which these things were done, he did not believe that the consideration of his fitness to be a County Court Judge ever entered into the question of his appointment. That was the opinion which he entertained and expressed, and he accepted his full share of responsibility for the feelings of indignation and irritation which were so naturally aroused in the minds of the people by such an utter disregard of their interests. If it could have been said with truth that the Lord Chancellor, in appointing Mr. Homersham Cox, had honestly endeavoured to select the man on the whole best qualified to fill the office, he believed that the appointment—although nothing could have made it a popular one—would have been received with very different feelings from those which it had excited. He appealed to other appointments in justification of the opinion he had expressed. The Lord Chancellor had confessedly appointed one man upon the ground that he was an ill-used man, and that he had been
  1670
  ill-treated by somebody else in the matter of an entirely different office; another man who had never had any practice at the Bar, and who had not even business chambers, was appointed because he had received a promise of an appointment on account of his filling the office of secretary to a commission for which he was insufficiently remunerated. Perhaps the present Lord Chancellor was not so much to blame personally in the matter, but it was shocking that a system should prevail of making appointments to these important offices upon grounds entirely irrespective of the fitness of the individual appointed. The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Scourfield) had stated that the Motion, as proposed to be amended by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury Tracy), was reduced to a mere empty truism, and became of no value. He could not accept it in that light. The House was not in the habit of adopting such Resolutions unless they were satisfied there had been a violation or disregard of the principle involved. He hoped the House would adopt the Resolution with the proposed Amendment, with which he begged to say he entirely concurred; and he should accept it as meaning that the House looked with disapprobation upon the course which had been pursued with respect to the appointment of Mr. Homersham Cox.
  MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he was glad that the Motion had been so altered that he could cordially support it. He believed that they were all agreed that where there were two men equal in their legal attainments, one of whom understood Welsh while the other understood only English, the former was entitled to the preference as a County Court Judge in Wales. It was, of course, of importance that the person who was appointed to the office of a County Court Judge in Wales should speak Welsh; but the appointment of a man who possessed legal attainments would, in any case, give satisfaction.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that although the Motion which had been so ably brought forward by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan) might be construed as a censure upon the present or preceding Governments with respect to the practice pursued in the appointment of County Court Judges, still he could not regret that it had

  1671
  been made, because it was but seldom that the House was troubled with questions relating to Wales. During his 20 years' experience in that House, that was only the third occasion on which there had been a debate on exclusively Welsh affairs, and it was the first time when the extraordinary, but perhaps necessary, anomaly connected with the administration of justice in Wales had been brought under their notice. It was quite true, as had been observed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Scourfield), that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire covered more ground than his Motion strictly warranted, because he had entered into a statement of facts relating to trial by jury and to the Superior Courts. He could not, however, concede that any very great injustice had arisen from the fact that the proceedings in the Courts in Wales were conducted in English; for when it was remembered that the present system had been in force for upwards of 350 years, it was remarkable that complaints with reference to its operation and to the anomalies it involved had not been more frequently made. The English system of law was first applied to Wales in the reign of Henry VIII., and the effect produced upon the minds of a people speaking Welsh exclusively by justice being administered by English-speaking Judges and barristers must have been extraordinary. In process of time the worst features of the case had, undoubtedly, been ameliorated; but even at the present moment anomalies still existed which were startling. Thus in many parts of Wales it was impossible to call together a jury who could understand all that was addressed to them by the Judge. How justice had been satisfactorily administered under these circumstances it was hard to say; but, perhaps, generally there were one or two men on the jury who understood English, and were enabled to explain what occurred to the other jurymen, although, doubtless, in an imperfect way. The more general custom, however, was to employ an interpreter to interpret English for the benefit of the Welsh jury, and Welsh for the benefit of the Court. That was found sufficient for ordinary purposes; but he did not at all deny that it was extremely inconvenient when points of law arose. The hon. and
  1672
  learned Member had told a story of a trial in Anglesea in which a man got off solely because the jury did not understand a word of the evidence, which had been given in English. He had, however, been informed that the magistrate who had presided at that trial was a thorough master of the Welsh language, and the failure of justice arose from there being no one on the jury who understood the English witnesses. The case of a County Court Judge was undoubtedly very different from that of a Judge at assizes or quarter sessions. In the latter case, as he had said before, the Judge could avail himself of the facilities which were offered to him by the presence of officials able to interpret the meaning of the Welsh witnesses, whom the Welsh-speaking jury could understand; but in the former case the Judge was placed in a position of considerable difficulty, as he had not the facilities which existed in the other Courts. The Government, in making the appointment in the present case, had undoubtedly acted upon the practice that had been generally followed for a long time past—of looking rather to the legal attainments of the person appointed than to his knowledge of the Welsh language. It was only 35 years ago that an Act was passed requiring that all clergymen appointed to a Welsh living should speak Welsh, and he should think that, a proper regard being had to legal attainments, a similar provision with regard to Welsh County Court Judges would not be out of place. In appointing a gentleman who, though not acquainted with Welsh, would do honour to any appointment, the Lord Chancellor had acted as most of his predecessors would have done. He was not indifferent to the wishes of the Welsh people, for no Member of the Government took a heartier interest than his noble Friend in the effort made by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to appoint a Welsh Bishop. In this case the Lord Chancellor had authorized him to say that he admitted the force of much which had been urged. Legal fitness would, of course, be always the first consideration; but after the representations which had been made by hon. Members connected with Wales, the Government—as also, he was sure, all future Governments—would have regard to a knowledge of Welsh. He believed that at no time since the

  1673
  conquest of Wales by Edward I. had there been more Welsh-speaking people than at present. It was hardly 100 years since the Cornish tongue had died out, yet in the time of William Rufus the population of Exeter was so equally balanced that service in the Cathedral was directed to be performed alternately in Cornish and English. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) that the Welsh could only be won over by kindness, attention to their wishes, and ample provision for education. It was a mistake to suppose that the life of the Welsh language would be prolonged by insisting on County Court Judges understanding it, for the only effect of such a change as that implied in the Resolution would be to implant in the minds of the people a feeling that they were treated with a degree of justice and consideration which he was bound to say they had not hitherto received. That was what the Government were desirous of doing, and therefore he would, on their part, say they were willing to accept the Motion with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montgomery. He believed there would be some difficulty in accepting it at the present moment, and he would suggest that it should be re-introduced later in the evening in its amended shape as a substantive Motion, in the adoption of which the Government would strenuously co-operate.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RECTORY OF EWELME.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MOWBRAY, in rising "To call attention to the recent appointment of the Rev. William Wigan Harvey to the Rectory of Ewelme," said, he was quite aware that the House might at first sight consider the matter a very small one in itself, as concerning the appointment of a single clergyman to a rural parish, unimportant in point of income and inconsiderable in point of population; but when he had stated the facts of the case to the House he hoped to satisfy it that it involved a great constitutional question, inasmuch as the act was done in deliberate violation of the spirit and intention of the statute of last Session, was carried out without regard to the constitution and the statutes of the
  1674
  University of Oxford, and with an amount of unjustifiable and unnecessary delay, which manifested on the part of the Government a great disregard of the spiritual interests of the parish. Let him at once say that this was in no respect a personal question. In the case of Sir Robert Collier they heard a great many pleas not to make it a personal question. He did not in the present case mean to impugn for a moment the personal fitness of Mr. Harvey. From all that he had heard he believed him to be an excellent and estimable clergyman, and as a scholar and divine of learning above the average, quite fitted to hold any appointment of high distinction in the University of Cambridge. But he was not a person qualified, according to the intentions of the Act of Parliament, to be appointed to the Rectory of Ewelme; and he said that he did not on the 15th of December, when he was appointed to it—and that he did not now—possess the qualifications which legally entitled him to hold that living. The House was tolerably familiar with the facts of the case. In the end of January, 1871, Dr. Payne Smith was appointed to the Deanery of Canterbury, and the appointment appeared in The Gazette of the 4th February. He was then the Regius Professor of Divinity of the University of Oxford, and as such also held a canonry of Christ Church and the Rectory of Ewelme. The Rectory was annexed to the Regius Professorship in 1605 by letters patent of James I., and it had been confirmed in 1709 by an Act of Anne. He would mention that though Dr. Payne Smith was appointed to the Deanery of Canterbury on the 4th February, he continued, for University purposes, which he (Mr. Mowbray) fully recognized, to act as Regius Professor and to give his lectures in the ensuing Term up to Midsummer; and he believed that he held the Rectory of Ewelme with the canonry up to Michaelmas. In the month of March, with a view to the appointment of a new Regius Professor, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, for reasons that were fully appreciated on both sides of the House, introduced a Bill for severing the Rectory of Ewelme from the Regius Professorship.
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked that that was done antecedently to the appointment to the Professorship.
  MR. MOWBRAYwas not, of course, aware what arrangements were made between the Government and Dr. Mozley, who was not appointed to the Professorship till the 7th of October.
  MR. GLADSTONEwished to explain that it was his duty to advise the Crown, the formal steps being always transacted at another office. The appointment consisted in obtaining the pleasure of the Crown and arranging with the gentleman who was to be appointed. All that was done quite irrespective of any severance of the Rectory from the Professorship, and subsequently thereto.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he could not tell what passed between the right hon. Gentleman and the learned divine whom it was his intention to recommend, that not being within his cognizance. Now, he should have thought it unnecessary to enter into the original provisions of the Bill, for his contention was that the House had nothing to do with anything but the Act, but the right hon. Gentleman had stated what the Bill was. It provided that no person should be presented to the Rectory of Ewelme who would not be eligible to be appointed to the office of Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and, having been passed by this House unaltered, was sent to the House of Lords. Though he believed some discussion arose on it in the House of Lords, they might search in vain the pages of Hansard for anything said in any of its stages in that House. The provision to which he had just referred was struck out of the Bill in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to attach some importance to the quarter from which that alteration originated. He said the provision was struck out upon the suggestion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the University of Oxford. He (Mr. Mowbray) stated on the best authority—and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not contradict him—that the words in question were inserted by the Lords on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, himself a Member of the Government. Those words were—
  "After the passing of this Act, the Rectory of Ewelme shall cease to be annexed to the office of Regius Professor in the University of Oxford, and the advowson of the Rectory shall re-vest in Her Majesty, who shall be entitled to present any person being a member of Convocation of the said University to the said Rectory, in the same man-
  1676
  ner in all respects as if the said Rectory had always been vested in the Crown, and the Rectory had not been annexed to the office."
  The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had a right to put some private interpretation on the Act, because the alterations made in it were suggested in the House of Lords; but it was known as a matter of fact that the Amendment was introduced by the Lord High Chancellor, an organ of the Government in that House, and carried with the assent of the Government in that House. When the Bill came back from the Lords with that alteration, it must have been a Lords' Amendment, and must have been accepted and assented to by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. In that shape it was accepted by the House of Commons and passed the Legislature; and that alone was the document to which they had to refer. The Act received the Royal Assent on the 16th of June, and then began a very curious part of the transaction. The Act said that after the passing of the Act—that was, after the 16th of June—the Rectory of Ewelme ceased to be annexed to the Regius Professorship, and he believed, for that and other reasons to which he would hereafter allude, it was perfectly clear that at that time, and probably long before, the Rectory of Ewelme was void in law. He called the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to this. However, Dr. Payne Smith still continued to hold it. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell him when the living became vacant, and the right hon. Gentleman did not answer that Question. He only said—"As to dates you can refer to the registrar of the diocese." He (Mr. Mowbray) accordingly asked the registrar of the diocese, when the living became vacant, and he was told by him that there were several statutes under which it appeared to have become vacant; that there was very little doubt that under the Pluralities Act 1 & 2 Vict.—and he called the attention of the Attorney General to this—the moment Dr. Payne Smith accepted the Deanery of Canterbury and his stall at Christ Church, the living, ipso facto, became void. If so, this living was vacant on the 4th of February. At any rate, provision was made for its avoidance by the Act of the 16th of June, and what did the right hon.

  1677
  Gentleman do? Surely the right hon. Gentleman was bound to look out for a rector for this parish; but he seemed to have taken six weeks before he looked out for some one to fill it. It might have been supposed that the most obvious course for the right hon. Gentleman to have adopted was to select among the many thousand members of Convocation of the University of Oxford some person who was fit for the living and could fulfil the requirements of the statute. But the right hon. Gentleman told the House he was the first to suggest on the 31st of July last to the Rev. Mr. Harvey that he should become an incorporated member of the University of Oxford.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not use the words "should become." All they did was to acquaint Mr. Harvey that it was necessary he should be a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford before he could be appointed.
  MR. MOWBRAYobserved, that the particular words were of no importance. His point was this—that the suggestion of the condition Mr. Harvey had to fulfil at any rate came from the right hon. Gentleman, for the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was his duty to inform Mr. Harvey of the conditions that he had to fulfil to hold the living. But the right hon. Gentleman made this extraordinary statement—that with the question whether Mr. Harvey should become a member of Convocation in the University of Oxford he had nothing to do; that this matter rested solely between Mr. Harvey himself and the University; and that if Mr. Harvey had duly qualified, then he was Rector of Ewelme, and if he had not, so much the worse for Mr. Harvey. It seemed strange, indeed, that it should never have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to say to Mr. Harvey—"The Act prescribes that you are to be a member of Convocation in the University of Oxford. I know that you are a member of the University of Cambridge. It is now long vacation; three months will elapse before Term. How long is the parish to wait while you are qualifying yourself to become a member of Convocation in the University of Oxford?" If the right hon. Gentleman had put these questions—and he was bound to put them—he would have known that it was
  1678
  not until October that the rev. gentleman could begin to qualify himself; that it was not until the close of November that the residence necessary for qualification would be completed; and that when those 42 days of residence were completed, and after his admission before the Vice Chancellor, 180 days further must elapse before he would be duly qualified to be presented to the Rectory of Ewelme. Now, they passed on from the 31st of July to Michaelmas, when Dr. Payne Smith resigned the canonry, and on the 2nd of October Dr. Mozley was gazetted Regius Professor in his place. But the intended nominee of the right hon. Gentleman to the Rectory of Ewelme was not then in a position to go even to the Vice Chancellor to qualify. It was not until Term began, on the 10th of October, that Mr. Harvey first appeared on the scene. He then goes up to Oxford, and having been incorporated at Oriel and resided 42 days, he presented himself on the 22nd of November before the Vice Chancellor, and he should in the ordinary way have been admitted in the terms prescribed by the 149th page of the statute. He was to be admitted before the Vice Chancellor "in domo Convocationis" in this form—"Licebit tibi post centum et octoginta dies ex hoe die numerandos jus suffragandi in domo Convocationis exercere." Now, he knew that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would say that the words on that page referred to re-admitted graduates as distinguished from incorporated graduates. But the fact was, that all the clauses—except some of the minor ones—that were applicable to re-admitted graduates were also applicable to incorporated graduates. The form of admission prescribed for both was the same, and he contended that that form should have been used by the Vice Chancellor. If the form used was the wrong one, then so much the worse for Mr. Harvey. Whether the admission was qualified or absolute, still his hon. and learned Friend could not contend that, under whatever form Mr. Harvey was admitted, he was a full member of Convocation until after the expiration of the 180 days. The same declarations and subscriptions, he must repeat, were to be made, according to the University statutes, by those who were re-admitted to the University, and by those who, coming from another Uni-

  1679
  versity, wished to be incorporated. And then followed this express provision—"Neque liceat ulli jus suffragandi in domo Convocations exercere, nisi post centum et octoginta dies ex eo die quo coram, Vice-Cancellario comparuerit computandos." Mr. Harvey appeared before the Vice Chancellor on the 22nd of November. He (Mr. Mowbray) therefore contended that Mr. Harvey would not be qualified till the 20th of May to be presented to the Rectory of Ewelme. The Attorney General thought he had discovered some distinction between jus suffragii and jus suffragandi. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether the distinction he had drawn between jus suffragii and jus suffragandi was recognized by the authorities of the University, or by any man of weight or authority in the University, who was accustomed to the interpretation of University statutes? [Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!] The hon. and learned Gentleman said Hear, hear! but he (Mr. Mowbray) would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether he had properly interpreted the University statutes? He had consulted several such persons, and their opinion was that the Rev. Mr. Harvey would not be a fully qualified member of Convocation until 180 days had elapsed from the 22nd of November last. He should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman where it was in the statute that he found the distinction he had drawn between jus suffragii and jus suffragandi; and whether, if the Rev. Mr. Harvey were to present himself before the Vice Chancellor, and claim to take part in the debates of Convocation on any day before the 21st May next, the Vice Chancellor would not be obliged to refuse him a hearing, and to decline his vote? It seemed remarkable, if that was the law, that on the 15th of December, when the Lord Chancellor issued the presentation, he should have taken it to be a matter of fact that Mr. Harvey was a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford. In a very solemn document issued by the Lord Chancellor under the Great Seal, he found these words—
  "By virtue of these presents, We do present our trusty and well-beloved William Wigan Harvey, clerk, Bachelor in Divinity, a member of the Convocation of our University of Oxford, to the Rectory of Ewelme."
  Now, he would like to know what steps
  1680
  the Lord Chancellor took to ascertain the exact facts of the case before affixing the Great Seal of England to a document containing a statement which he (Mr. Mowbray) declared to be contrary to fact and to law. These were the facts of the case, which he stated without exaggeration, and without any attempt to overstate the charge against the Government. These being the facts, the charges he had to bring against Her Majesty's Government were twofold. The first was, that they had been guilty of a deliberate—he might almost venture to say a wanton—invasion of the spirit and intention of an Act of Parliament. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would adopt, in reference to this Act of Parliament, words with which he was probably familiar, as he was their author. On one occasion the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The true and unambiguous meaning of the words, and therefore to be the only meaning admissible, whether tried by grammar, by reason, by policy, or by any other standard, and not one of several conflicting and competing meanings….but the just meaning which it unequivocally bears."—[3 Hansard, ccix. 85.]
  He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman held that the Ewelme Rectory Act, read according to his own definition of the proper mode of interpretation, meant that any one other than a man trained and educated at Oxford, one of her own sons, should be presented to the Rectory? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government, in bringing forward the Bill, intended to compliment the University of Oxford; but it was a strange way of effecting the object to pass over the many divines who were upon the books, and present a graduate of another University. In answer to a Question which he put upon the subject, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "When the Bill was brought in, desiring to pay all possible respect to the University, although it was needful to separate the Rectory from the Professorship, my object was to leave the Rectory as nearly as possible in the same position as that in which it stood before the severance with reference to the privileges of the University of Oxford.….The Queen could appoint to the Professorship of Divinity any person she pleased, whether a member of the University of Oxford or not, but the Regius Professor of Divinity became, of course, upon his appointment, a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford….The object was to effect a practical reform, but to leave the patronage where it was."—[3 Hansard, ccix. 293.]

  1681
  Without making any very fine distinctions, the broad common sense of the country repudiated the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman, and refused to recognize Mr. Harvey as a member of the University of Oxford in any sense. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, only went to show how far and how much he could as a Minister be capable of wielding the Prerogative of the Crown. Everybody knew that the right hon. Gentleman was a master of all the learning of Prerogative, and had shown within the last 12 months that he appreciated the situation, and was capable of wielding the Prerogative with precision and with promptitude. But it was rather a startling doctrine to be propounded now, that the Government was entitled to appoint whomsoever it pleased to such an office. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, had been driven to justify this exercise of Prerogative from two precedents drawn from Tudor times. In the long list of Professors for more than three centuries, there were only two instances of appointments conferred on men who were not Oxford men. When did they occur? These appointments were made in the troubled and unsettled period which lasted from the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. to the end of Queen Mary's reign. It was quite true that Edward VI. brought over Peter Martyr from the University of Padua, and made him Regius Professor of Divinity. It was also true that Queen Mary conferred the Professorial chair upon Friar John, otherwise Johannes Fraterculus, a Spanish monk, who came from Spain in the train of Philip. These were the only two instances in which men other than such as had been trained in the University of Oxford had been appointed to the Regius Professorship of Divinity. Further, it was a curious fact with respect to the two appointments he had mentioned that they only bridged over an interregnum, for Richard Smith, who was Regius Professor at the death of King Henry VIII., returned again to the office on the accession of Elizabeth, and died Regius Professor of Divinity in the course of her reign. Then with regard to the courtesy shown as the right hon. Gentleman said to the University, it was not on a par with the courtesy shown by Cromwell. Three Professors were sent down in succession by the Parliament and the Pro-
  1682
  tector between 1648 and 1660, but each of them was an Oxford man, trained in the University, and having graduated there. This doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman was the more startling, because no one could tell where it might end. They might have Welsh literates or Irish graduates appointed to the Professorial chair; or, following the precedents in the cases of Peter Martyr and Friar John, the right hon. Gentleman might appoint an Ultramontane divine from Bologna, or a Greek theologian whose acquaintance the right hon. Gentleman might have chanced to make in Corfu. If such transactions as these were allowed to pass without the attention of Parliament being called to them, the meaning of words would be nullified, the intentions of the Legislature would be frustrated, respect for the Royal Prerogative would be annihilated, and the confidence which ought to be reposed in the Executive would be utterly destroyed. His second charge against Her Majesty's Government was, that their course of action had caused most unnecessary and unjustifiable delay in filling the vacant Rectory. Even according to the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, it was necessary to keep open the Rectory from the 16th of June last to the 22nd of November; but according to his (Mr. Mowbray's) interpretation, the 22nd of November was only the commencement of a further period of 180 days' waiting, and the earliest day on which Mr. Harvey could enter his benefice was the 21st of next May. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Ewelme Rectory Bill was intended to bring about a practical reform by giving to Ewelme a resident rector. In that he, and his right hon. Colleague (Mr. G. Hardy), entirely concurred; but it was somewhat strange that the right hon. Gentleman should think a resident rector a necessity at Ewelme, and not at Shoreham. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Why Shoreham?] He alluded to Shoreham in consequence of the Question put by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill), and replied to by the right hon. Gentleman, the result being that the House was informed of the fact that the present Regius Professor of Divinity continued to hold with his canonry of Christ Church the living of Shoreham, in Sussex. There were several people who were very much to be pitied in connec-

  1683
  tion with this transaction. The first object of pity was the nominee of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Harvey must have thought that the "lines had fallen unto him in pleasant places." A man of studious habits and academic tastes, he looked forward to the enjoyment of this nice Rectory, where he would be within an easy distance of the libraries and pleasant gardens of Oxford. Well might it have been said of him that
  "Oxford to him a dearer name shall be
  Than his own mother University.
  Thebes did his green, unknowing youth engage,
  He chooses Athens in his riper age."
  But now Mr. Harvey found that all his hopes were frustrated, and all his expectations unfulfilled, and he did not know whether he was a member of Convocation or not; but he sat waiting outside its doors, having only an inchoate and imperfect right, with no voice in its deliberations, and no vote when a suffrage was taken. Mr. Harvey, it was true, had been presented by the Crown to the Rectory of Ewelme, but had not yet been instituted; and he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could say on what day the rev. gentleman was likely to be instituted to the living. There were other people who deserved to be pitied—namely, the parishioners of Ewelme, who, in March last, were led to believe that the day was not far distant when they would have the inestimable comfort of a resident rector constantly engaged in pastoral superintendence over them. But their first experience of the right hon. Gentleman's practical measure of reform was not encouraging, as they found his nominee was uncommonly like the previous Rectors of Ewelme. During the 42 days the new incumbent was obliged to sleep every night in Oxford, and he only went over to Ewelme to do Sunday duty. The parishioners saw him from Michaelmas till the end of November, and since then he had disappeared.
  "Ostendent terris hunc tantum, fata neque ultra Esse sinent."
  He was not at all surprised to find that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman as a practical reformer had very great influence in the neighbourhood. It was well known that Wallingford was close to Ewelme; the news reached that borough, and when the other day a
  1684
  Liberal candidate appeared there, he had at once to take his departure, because the electors would not hear a word about practical reforms to be initiated by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. Many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would, no doubt, think he had made out a strong case, and he would now state the reasons why he should not conclude with a Motion on the subject. First of all, a Motion had been already submitted this Session on a question relating to an appointment to a higher office than the Rectory of Ewelme, and a majority of the House resolved that they would not visit with Parliamentary censure the proceedings connected with the appointment of Sir Robert Collier. He believed, therefore, that the same, if not a greater, majority would be ready to say that the present case, which was smaller in itself, though more aggravated, did not call for Parliamentary censure. He did not know whether he could successfully appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) to lend him his powerful aid on this occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman defended the appointment of Sir Robert Collier; but said that if such an appointment were made wantonly or more than once, it could not be justified. Now, he maintained that the appointment to the Rectory of Ewelme was made wantonly, for the right hon. Gentleman told Mr. Harvey, on the 31st of July, that he must become a member of Convocation. The 15th of December came after the 15th of November—the date, he believed, of Sir Robert Collier's appointment—so that here was the second condition laid down by the Member for Richmond. If, then, the hon. and learned Gentleman would promise to divide with him, he should be prepared to submit a Motion to the House. He felt convinced this was a grave subject to which the attention of the House and of the country ought to be called; and he would appeal from the majority of that House who supported the Ministry to the public opinion out-of-doors, which unanimously repudiated and condemned an act like this presentation to the Rectory of Ewelme, and which, he felt assured, would prevent a repetition of such scandals and render impossible for the future a manufacture of colourable qualifications, whe-

  1685
  ther for high judicial posts or for humble ecclesiastical appointments.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not think me disrespectful to him if I throw into two classes the different portions of his speech—namely, those which have to do with me and those which have not to do with me. Though I was willing to obtain for the right hon. Gentleman the information he desired, I was a mere medium and vehicle and nothing more, and I must decline all discussion as to proceedings at Oxford. I have nothing whatever to do with the date at which Dr. Payne Smith ceased to be Dean of Canterbury. The duty of the person who advises the Crown is to see that there is every presumption of legality in what he does, and as to the particulars and details of legal form by which persons appointed to offices qualify themselves, I have nothing to do either in their inception or their completion. Further, I will say that, as far as I understand, they are scarcely matters for discussion in this House. They affect legal rights—the rights of individuals—rights which can only be tried in Courts. They are not acts of the Executive Government, and do not, therefore, come legitimately within the challenge of the House, and I pass by the difference between the jus suffragii and the jus suffragandi as a matter with which I have no more to do than I have with the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Therefore, though I unceremoniously thrust aside that portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I mean to deal with other portions which I fully grant were relevant. I gathered four charges out of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He, says first, that there has been a deliberate violation of the spirit and intention of the statute; secondly, that this violation has been carried into effect in violation of the statutes of the University of Oxford; thirdly, that there has been unjustifiable delay; and, fourthly, that the lately appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford holds the living of Shoreham. I begin with the living of Shoreham, and I must say it requires some boldness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to bring that living into the present discussion. I might just as well retaliate on the right hon. Gentleman, and ask him why he allows the Regius Professor
  1686
  of Divinity at Oxford to hold the living of Shoreham. The fact is, that neither he nor I have anything to do with the matter. If I could have had anything to do with it, it would have been at the time when the Professorship was offered to Dr. Mozley; but I have already informed the right hon. Gentleman that that was an unconditional offer, which carried with it the living of Ewelme. With regard to the charge of unjustifiable delay, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself is fully disposed not to place much stress upon that. What is the unjustifiable delay with which he charges me? It is—as far as my information goes, and the right hon. Gentleman has rather confirmed its correctness by telling me that the new Professor of Divinity was appointed on the 7th of October—that the living of Ewelme was vacated at Michaelmas.
  MR. MOWBRAY: I did state in the early part of my speech that Dr. Payne Smith had continued to hold with his Professorship and his canonry of Christ Church the living of Ewelme up to Michaelmas; but I also stated my belief that it was legally void.
  MR. GLADSTONE: But how could he hold it if it were legally void? With regard to delay, I cannot see that there was any unnecessary delay, for the arrangement impeached involved the 42 days of residence at Oxford, during which time the parish of Ewelme enjoyed the ministration of Mr. Harvey—in fact, until he was taken ill, and for that illness I, not being his medical adviser, am hardly accountable. But, perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman has held me responsible for the Regius Professor of Divinity holding the living of Shoreham, he will also hold me responsible, as the medical adviser of Mr. Harvey, for the state of that gentleman's health. If he likes to invite the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond on that point, he may, of course, include it in the impeachment which is overhanging me. I am charged with a deliberate violation of the spirit and intention of the statute; but the right hon. Gentleman refrains from making this the subject of a Motion. I was in hopes that he was going to give a more candid and dispassionate account of the matter, and that he would have said he was prompted on this occasion by a spirit of equity, and wished to hear

  1687
  what I had to say before he made up his mind on the point. I find no fault whatever with the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the subject. If he thinks there has been a deliberate violation of the spirit and intention of the statute, he only discharges a duty in bringing it forward; but I regret that so much of the time of the House should be wasted, and that I am obliged to go into a number of more or less egotistical details which I would rather have avoided. Far be it from me to insinuate any blame against the right hon. Gentleman; on the contrary, he is acting only in the performance of his duty. He refers to a case of parallel character discussed in this House some weeks ago; but he did not develop the parallelism. When he said we had done it again, I presumed he meant the same act. How far does the alleged parallelism obtain? When the appointment of Sir Robert Collier was mentioned, on the first night of the Session, I admitted that a fair and reasonable construction of the Act of Parliament was that put upon it by our antagonists; but I make no such admission now. I not only contend that we have not been guilty of a deliberate violation of the spirit of the statute—which the right hon. Gentleman totally failed to establish—but I will show how entirely consistent with a rational construction of the statute our conduct has been. What was the pith of the complaint in the case of Sir Robert Collier? It was that we had conferred a qualifying office, and then had conferred the office for which the person qualified. Is that the case here? What have the Government to do with the qualifying office? I have no more to do with it than has the right hon. Gentleman. He is a member of the University of Oxford, and so am I; and either he or I might have opposed the degree which was given to Mr. Harvey. As a Minister, I have nothing to do with it. Had it been a qualifying office given by the Emperor of China or the Mikado of Japan it could not have been more independent of the action of the British Government than it was in this ease. If it was wrong to grant this qualifying office in the view of Mr. Harvey receiving the living of Ewelme, the blame, which I do not admit, is upon those members of the University who procured the granting of this qualifying office to Mr. Harvey; and the
  1688
  right hon. Gentleman in imputing blame has severely censured his own constituents. The distinguished persons who, being entirely cognizant of Mr. Harvey's view and intention, deliberately and advisedly presented him in the public Convocation to receive his degree, where he received it, not by an executive, but by a legislative act, by the free vote of distinguished members of a distinguished College, who were present in considerable numbers—those are the persons who conferred the qualifying office. In the case we discussed a fortnight ago the argument was that the intention of the statute was, that no ordinary persons were to be appointed to the Court of Appeal; but those persons only were to be appointed who had acquired or displayed capacity as Judges in one of the Superior Courts. Where is the application of that principle to the case now before us? What are the qualifications that are displayed by any man as a member of the Convocation of the University? What experience to be gained by such a member had anything to do with the discharge of the duties of the Rectory of Ewelme? There is no such experience to be gained. There is no relation between the duties of a member of Convocation and the pastoral duties of the Rector of Ewelme. In the case of the appointment recently made, it was plausible—and I fully admit it—to say that a slight was put on a great institution like the Puisne Judgeships by passing a person through such a Judgeship as a matter of form; but no such objection is applicable to passing a person through Convocation. Mr. Harvey does not cease to be a member of Convocation by becoming Rector of Ewelme. The right hon. Member therefore introduced the word "colourable" carelessly, for Mr. Harvey is as good a member of Convocation as he and I are. I am not begging the question as to the law, if he had fulfilled the conditions; but I may adhere to the law of the legal Advisers of the Government as against that of the right hon. Gentleman, and as far as regards my aim and intention there was nothing colourable in the matter. The supposition was, that Mr. Harvey was to become, as he has become, as good a member of Convocation as is the right hon. Gentleman; and he will probably have an opportunity of voting at the next election, when I wish I could

  1689
  feel as sure of his giving a right vote as I am confident of the discharge of his other duties. I presume it will be admitted that this, after all, is a question of the meaning of the statute, or rather not, but of the intention of the statute, set out according to that extraordinary and most objectionable fashion which has grown up among us, whereby any gentleman or set of gentlemen, applying their own minds to the view of the Legislature, father the responsibility of that mind on the Legislature, and proceed to anathematize everyone who does not agree with them. That is a most extraordinary doctrine, against which I protest. When persons claim that excessive privilege and power they ought to bind themselves to affix to the statute a construction which is substantial and which is consistent. The right hon. Gentleman has not done that; but has thrown upon the Government the responsibility for the words of the statute. I decline it. He says the words were put in by the Lord Chancellor; but, in his Parliamentary experience, has he never heard of communications between persons who differ about an Amendment and of an agreement being arrived at, whereby the author of the Bill accepts an Amendment suggested by the other side? This was no Amendment of the Lord Chancellor; I find no fault with anybody when I say it was suggested to him by others, and he assented to it. The right hon. Gentleman says that I claim to interpret according to my private opinions what took place in the House of Lords; I claim no such thing; but I claim a right to form an opinion as to the meaning and intention of the words, inasmuch as the Act could not pass without the Assent of the Crown, and I was the sole person whose business it was to advise that Assent. I never thought the words an improvement on the original frame of the Bill, and, indeed, they were a concession. We are often accused of making too many concessions to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but they do not seem to be appreciated. This is one among the many which I have made in my lifetime. I thought the words inferior to those I placed in the original draft of the Bill—not that I thought they were liable to any specific objection, but because I thought that what we had to do was to lay down, exactly and simply, the quail-
  1690
  fication, whatever it was, without entering into those definitions, which was substituted for the previous Professorship of Divinity in the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman says that what the statute means by a member of Convocation is a gentleman educated at Oxford; but if Parliament meant a man educated at Oxford, why did it not say so—why did it not say a man who had taken a degree at Oxford after residing the full number of terms? Again, are all those who have been educated at Oxford members of Convocation? The term "members of Convocation" does not cover all the men who have been educated at Oxford. In 1871, according to the last Calendar, the number of persons admitted to the University for education was 628; but the number who took the degree of M.A. was 266. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that large numbers who go through the University with credit do not appear as members of Convocation on account of the payment which membership involves; therefore, the meaning the right hon. Gentleman affixes to the statute is one that will not hold water. Those who are educated at Oxford and who do not become members of Convocation are chiefly poor clergymen. By attaching his definition to the term "members of Convocation" the right hon. Gentleman proscribes one-half of those who have been educated in the University, and who, in most eases through poverty, find it inconvenient to keep their names on the books. When first I was Member for the University of Oxford and held a position now occupied by worthier men, it was my misfortune to have among the multitude of my supporters many poor clergymen, who felt it impossible to continue members of Convocation from the heavy burden which it imposed, for two guineas a-year, or 20 guineas as a commutation fee, is a very serious burden upon poor clergymen with £100 or £200 a-year. I will, therefore, show that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Act will not bear a consistent meaning; because, in order to give it a semblance of consistency, he is obliged to define members of Convocation as synonymous with those who have been educated at Oxford, and I have shown that nearly one-half of those so educated drop off and cease to be members of Convocation. [Mr. MOWBRAY:

  1691
  I should have no objection to their re-admission.] Good gracious! Having laid down, for the purpose of crushing me, his complete definition of a member of Convocation, the right hon. Gentleman now goes further in his wanton handling of the Act of Parliament, and says—"I should have no objection that men educated at Oxford should be readmitted to Convocation for the purpose of taking the Rectory of Ewelme." That is the way the right hon. Gentleman comes down and spins theories out of his own head, for the purpose of putting an arbitrary and wilful construction on an Act of Parliament. Now, I will suppose that this arbitrary construction of the right hon. Gentleman had been the intention of the Act of Parliament. Was such an Amendment ever signified to me? Never; although I was the person upon whose advice the consent of the Crown depended. Not a syllable of it was ever signified. I wish it had been, and I should have made short work of his Amendment. For what is it? It is to this effect—that the pastoral care of a particular parish should be tied down to a man who has been educated at the University of Oxford. Is that the spirit of Parliamentary legislation? It would have been contrary to my duty to assent to such a thing. My duty is not to consent to the limitation of the patronage of the Crown unless it be for some great public object. But what was the public object here? It was to introduce a spice of the old, narrow, worn-out system of monopoly which we were busy in condemning in the earlier part of the evening. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who came forward to claim for the Welsh people Judges who spoke the Welsh language, took care to admit that you must not limit the area of choice. But here the right hon. Gentleman comes forward to say that I ought to consent to one of those narrow restrictions which were formerly the scandals of Universities, and which it was the object of Parliament for a long series of years to condemn. The right hon. Gentleman therefore is placed in this dilemma—he is either obliged to admit that a very large fraction—I believe one-half of the persons who have been educated and have taken degrees at Oxford—should be excluded from the benefit of this Act, or else that they could only come in by readmission—that is to say, that they should be
  1692
  made members ad hoc, and be subject to the very disadvantage to which Mr. Harvey is subject. And this the right hon. Gentleman says is no scandal at all, because it falls in with his preconceived notions. I am astonished, I would almost say ashamed of the view which is taken by one of the right hon. Members for the University of Oxford, unless from the pencil-noting which is going forward I am to suppose that the same view will be taken also by the other right hon. Member as to the process which incorporates in one University the distinguished members of another. Go back to what is called the Dark Ages, and see the sisterhood in which all were united, and the manner in which every distinguished member of one University was welcomed to the Fellowship of another. In that spirit Oxford shares, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is by no means dead. How was Mr. Harvey received when he went to Oxford? It is not to be supposed that Mr. Harvey went into some dark corner, got a certificate from some unknown official which enabled him to take up a degree, and so got himself smuggled into membership of Convocation. Before he became a member of Convocation he had to become a member of the University, and before he became a member of the University he had to become a Member of a college. How did he become a member of a college, and what sort of a college did he select? He selected one of the most distinguished colleges in Oxford—that famous college of Oriel, which has contributed—whether for good or for evil, or for both—more to the thinking movement of the 19th century in England than any similar body ever known in any University in the world. What did he find there? He found at the head of that college a dear friend of his (Mr. Gladstone's), one of the most distinguished men in Oxford, the able and venerable Provost, Dr. Hawkins, who was perfectly cognizant of the object which Mr. Harvey had in view. And what did Dr. Hawkins do? He received Mr. Harvey with open arms, complimented him, and said—"We will welcome you into our University, not only willingly but gladly." That was the view which Dr. Hawkins took when he welcomed a distinguished member of Cambridge University into the distinguished society of Oxford—a very dif-

  1693
  ferent view from that of the right hon. Gentleman, who sees in this proceeding only a colourable, and almost a base transaction. I have seen in one of those productions which possess all knowledge by intuition, and with the superfluity of which the 19th century is either blessed or cursed, that Mr. Harvey was admitted ad eundem. The right hon. Gentleman has not said so. He knows better. He says that Mr. Harvey has undertaken the same duties as belong to every other member of Convocation. Well, then, he has become a member of the University of Oxford; not that there should be a colourable qualification; not that the qualification, real and substantial as it is, should consist in the memory of an education long past; but that he should assume the character of a member of the University, enjoy the privileges, and discharge the duties attaching to that character. I contend, therefore, that the meaning given by the right hon. Gentleman to this statute is no meaning at all; it is a meaning in rags and tatters; it will not cover what it requires to cover in order to go decently forth to the world. My meaning, on the other hand, is a good, rational, consistent meaning. But the mistake made by the right hon. Gentleman arises from this—that he has got still hanging about him some of those ridiculous, worn-out notions that used to prevail long ago, according to which a man was not allowed to hold a scholarship in a college unless he was born in a particular parish. Now, with respect to this matter, I put to myself the two most pinching questions in the right hon. Gentleman's sense which I have been able to devise. They are these. He might say to me, though he did not say it—"Would you apply exactly the same arguments to the Regius Professorship?" No, I would not; not because the law is different, but because the reason of the case is different. There is some ground for saying, when teaching divinity in Oxford, it is desirable in itself, apart from law and precedent, that the man should have been educated in Oxford. But what in the world has that to do with preaching to the parishioners of Ewelme; and why may not a man preach to them, whether he has been educated at Oxford or not? The other question is this—"Do you consider it to be a matter of entire indifference whether the Rector of Ewelme
  1694
  is a member of Oxford University or not?" The right hon. Gentleman did not put that question; but I think it the most pinching question of which the case admits. My answer is, I do not consider it a matter of indifference. The rule is—as the right hon. Gentleman says very properly—that the Regius Professor should be a member of the University; but the rule with regard to the Rectorship of Ewelme is not of the same stringency at all, because there are no reasons for that stringency. But I fully admit that, primâ facie, I should not think of hunting for a man not a member of the University of Oxford, getting him made a member of Convocation, or even performing the very innocent function which I did perform in acquainting him about the matter, without reason. I admit the natural course, in the absence of reason to the contrary, would be to take an Oxford man. I feel sure that my proceeding is not the irrational or wanton proceeding which the right hon. Gentleman supposes. I stand firmly on my construction of the Act. But then the question is—"Why did you appoint Mr. Harvey?" Well, though I do think it would be the natural and reasonable course to take an Oxford man, I say because I was justified, and I think rather more than justified in taking a man who had not been educated at Oxford. "Why did I desire to advise the appointment of Mr. Harvey?" I will tell you why. Mr. Harvey had been made known to me in a most authoritative manner by persons of the highest class. I have not got all the documents by me, but they were striking as regards the persons by whom they were signed and attested. Now, I am going to put to myself three questions, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see, even if he does not entirely agree with me, that the charge of wantonness was a misplaced one, and that there was reason for the thing done. My first question to myself is—"Why did you recommend the appointment of Mr. Harvey?" My second question is—"Why were you in haste to do it last year?" And my third question is—"Why did you appoint Mr. Harvey to the particular living of Ewelme?" Now, my anxiety to see Mr. Harvey appointed rested upon this—that while he remained in a very obscure and trifling parish, with a very narrow provision, he was recommended to me by the very highest

  1695
  authorities as one of the best and most learned among the living divines of the Church of England. A great Oriental scholar, an indefatigable student, the editor of a most learned edition of one of the Greek Fathers; he was attested to me by his own diocesan, the Bishop of Rochester, by the Bishop of Ely, who had the largest means of knowing him; by Dr. Jeremie, the Dean of Lincoln; by Canon Selwyn, the Margaret Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge; by Dr. Jelf, Principal of King's College; and by Canon Blakesley, the vicar of Ware. I may mention that at the time when this letter was written Mr. Harvey was a candidate for the post of Gresham Professor of Divinity, and Canon Blakesley describes him thus—
  "Mr. Harvey is one of the most learned men whom the Established Church possesses at the present time. As a Churchman he is of the type of the late Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. Kaye), and equally removed from the Puritan and Romanizing parties of the time."
  I may say here that I did not pay particular attention to the precise character of Mr. Harvey's religious opinions. Canon Blakesley proceeds—
  "The numerous publications which have proceeded from his pen will sufficiently evince this; but I may perhaps be allowed to add that the moderation and kindliness of Mr. Harvey's mind are an effectual remedy against even polemical theology betraying him into an unjust, or uncharitable judgment of an opponent."
  I will not go further upon that question, but will pass to the next—"Why was I anxious to appoint Mr. Harvey last year?" Not on account of the general and notoriously precarious tenure of political office. That is one of the inevitable incidents of public life which, however detrimental it might have proved to the public interests in this case, must be accepted in the case of Governments generally. It was not on that account, but for a very plain reason, that Mr. Harvey, being thus ill-provided for, made it known to me—I do not remember at what time—that he was warned by his medical advisers that he could not continue to reside at his living throughout the winter without the greatest danger to his health if not to his life. This was the reason why I was anxious to make some immediate arrangement, and I am sorry to say that there lies the secret of the delay in filling up the Rectory of Ewelme. The right
  1696
  hon. Gentleman seemed to think it my duty to institute Mr. Harvey, and seemed to blame me for not instituting him. But, as the Bishop has informed me, the delay is owing to the state of Mr. Harvey's health. He has, in fact, been caught by the severe infliction from which it was my object to save him by removing him from his living at Buckland before the winter came on. Having thus answered two of the questions I proposed to myself, let me now reply to the third—"Why was Mr. Harvey appointed to the particular living of Ewelme?" Here, I think, I shall bring the controversy to a fair test. I make no excuse or apology for what I have done; I think what I have done is right; I think that had I done anything else I should have done wrong. "But why appoint Mr. Harvey to Ewelme?" It so happened that in the summer of last year I had the choice of recommending Mr. Harvey to Her Majesty for the living of Ewelme, or of recommending him for another living—Shoreham—of much the same value. The right hon. Gentleman will naturally think that, having such a choice, I went out of my way to create this difficulty. When I was at Eton I remember that a master said to one of the boys—"What demon prompted thee to do Greek verses?" And the right hon. Gentleman may perhaps ask me—"What demon prompted you to create this difficulty for yourself?" Well, the demon which prompted me to create this difficulty for myself was simply and solely the desire to appoint the fittest man to the parish fittest for the man. The case of these two parties stood thus—The parish of Shoreham was a large country parish, containing 1,574 people, and, as I am informed, it is what is called a leading parish in Church matters, rendering it desirable that a man of personal activity should be at its head. The living of Ewelme, being very nearly the same in value, contained only one-third of the population—between 600 and 700. Two gentlemen stood foremost in my view at that moment for parochial preferment. One was Mr. Harvey, a man not of strong health or great physical activity, a man of the most studious habits, equal to the care of a small parish, though not of a large one, and to whom it was of the utmost importance, with reference to the prosecution of his useful and valuable labours, that

  1697
  he should live in the neighbourhood of the University. That was the reason I recommended Mr. Harvey for appointment to Ewelme, 13 miles from Oxford, where he would have every facility for extending his studies, and took the active, vigorous man for the large parish, far from the University, where he would he able to assume the position occupied by his predecessors as an active leading person among the clergy of the district. I do not think I need trouble the House further. I stand on the construction of the Act. I stand upon that which will always guide me as long as I have the honour to administer any ecclesiastical patronage, however uncertain, erroneous, fallible my judgment may be—a determination to recommend for these appointments, according to the best of my judgment, such men as will insure the maximum of spiritual good, and are best fitted by a character for learning, piety, and pastoral care. Those are my plain duties. That is the view of my duties upon which I have acted; and I maintain that I have acted not only without any violation of the spirit of the Act of Parliament, but, as I believe, upon the only reasonable construction of that Act, for the Amendment of which I am not responsible, and to which Amendment I did not assent, except in the sense of having allowed it to pass without objection. Let me, however, fully acquit the right hon. Gentleman opposite of having any but the most upright intentions in bringing forward this case before the House. I believe that it is the equity of the right hon. Gentleman's mind which prompts him, unknown to himself, to refrain from making a Motion by which he would have prematurely committed himself. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think as to the construction of the Act, I think he will see that I have not proceeded wantonly in the matter. No man could proceed wantonly in respect to Church preferment who kept studiously in view the object of securing for every pastoral charge no other than the man best suited for it.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to have wandered very far from the subject. No one has disputed the qualifications of Mr. Harvey. We have not disputed his fitness for the particular post; nor can we admit that any amount
  1698
  of the most excellent intentions can justify the right hon. Gentleman in treating as a nullity words in an Act of Parliament, whether he has assented to the terms of it or not. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he did not approve the Amendment made in the Act in "another place." Why did he not approve it? Did it, or did it not, in any degree alter that which had been inserted in the Bill before? If it did, it restricted be rights of the Crown in respect of this appointment. If it did not, why did he not approve the Amendment? As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he lays down this principle—that by the words of the clause, when the Ewelme Rectory Bill was brought in, he would have been at liberty to have appointed to the living anybody who was qualified to be the Regius Professor of Divinity. These were the first terms of the Bill. Therefore a qualification of some sort was required then. But when the Bill was before the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor consented to adopt certain words as an Amendment, which conveyed to every mind the simple and distinct impression that what the limitation of that Act of Parliament meant was, that at the time the living was offered to a man he should be a member of the Convocation of Oxford. It raised no question of admission or incorporation, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman must be mistaken in saying he would not have assented to any such limitations, for that was what he actually did; for the Act clearly precludes him from appointing a B.A. or a literate, who, however well fitted they might be, could not by admission ad eundem or incorporation become members of Convocation. The right hon. Gentleman says we should be ashamed to resist the incorporation of a learned man into the University of Oxford. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I said I was almost ashamed to deal with such an argument.] But nobody has put forward such a view. The Provost of Oriel could not inquire into the motive of Mr. Harvey for applying to become a member of the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the admission or incorporation of a Cambridge graduate is a matter of course, unless his moral character is under suspicion. A Cambridge graduate, therefore, is always welcomed to Oxford, especially if he is a learned

  1699
  man; and it is absurd to throw on the University of Oxford the blame which the right hon. Gentleman discards from his own shoulders. As to there being any limitation of the power of the Crown to appoint to this living, which the right hon. Gentleman has distinctly questioned, it has been associated with the Regius Professorship since the reign of James I., and no distinct appointment had therefore been made since that time. Had the living been simply severed from the Professorship, I would admit that any gentleman in holy Orders might have been appointed to it; but the Act expressly limits it to a member of the Convocation of Oxford University, and therefore it was not in the power of the Crown to appoint, except under certain defined conditions. If the right hon. Gentleman then agreed to the Amendment made in the Act, he must admit that the person so appointed shall be a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. Now, a B.A. might be on the point of acquiring the qualification, but would the right hon. Gentleman have been entitled to wait his own time? It is not with the Crown as with private livings; nullum tempus occurrit regi; but what would be thought if the right hon. Gentleman took an undergraduate or a literate and waited till he became a member of Convocation? It is, however, just as unjustifiable to tell Mr. Harvey to go up and prepare himself for nomination. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke to Mr. Harvey on the 31st of July and told him he should have the living if he qualified, he really offered him the living. The qualification is a statutory one, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to set it aside. We have been told that this is a mere question of red tape and parchment; but any hon. Gentleman adopting that view of the case shows that he cannot be really cognizant of what has taken place. When a man is appointed a Lord of the Admiralty, on his accepting the office his seat is instantly vacated; yet it is a notorious fact that the appointment is not actually made out till weeks after he has come back and taken his seat in this House. But the case is the same here, and it is a clear proof that the time when an office is offered and accepted is the time when the person ought to possess the qualification, otherwise no limitation in an Act of Par-
  1700
  liament can be made available. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a debate in the early part of the evening. Well, suppose there had been an Act of Parliament prescribing that nobody should be appointed a County Court Judge in Wales who could not speak Welsh, would it be a justifiable exercise of the Prerogative in the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Minister of the Crown, to tell a man to go and learn the language, and he should, when he had mastered it, fill the vacant appointment. Certainly not. The appointment under such circumstances would be a violation of the statute, and a contradiction of that which Parliament declared ought to be done. Yet that is analogous to what the right hon. Gentleman has done in this case. I confess I cannot understand his arguments. It is to me a metaphysical difficulty to understand the workings of the right hon. Gentleman's mind on this question. He seems to set aside plain terms which to all plain men have but one meaning. Why was the qualification inserted in the Act? Why, because the House of Lords felt that the living belonged to the University of Oxford from time immemorial, and they wished that it should continue to be held by a member of that University. Well, when the Bill went up to the House of Lords, in order to make this qualification clear, the words "member of Convocation" were inserted, with the distinct view and intention that the living should not be given to anyone who was not a member of Convocation. I frankly admit that if Mr. Harvey had previously—I do not care how long before—become an incorporated member of the University of Oxford—if he had been when the cure was offered a member of Convocation—it might be looked upon as a legal appointment, and one which we should have no right to carp at, though I could not say that it would have been a wise one. But looking at the facts of the case as they present themselves before us, the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be guilty of what he spoke of as "arbitrary wilfulness" in the interpretation he gives of this Act. Why, the world at large, in commenting upon this appointment, has imputed to the right hon. Gentleman the exercise of the most arbitrary will in this matter. With the exception of possibly one paper,

  1701
  all the organs of public opinion have taken a widely different view of the case from that of the right hon. Gentleman. The facts are plain and manifest to all mankind; and yet the right hon. Gentleman gives an interpretation of them wholly different from nearly the whole of the British public. I must say, then, that if you allow such interpretations as that given by the right hon. Gentleman to be put upon your laws, there will be no difficulty in setting aside whole Acts of Parliament; the difficulty will be to invent language sufficiently strong to bind the people to their observance. The right hon. Gentleman says—"I am not bound to know what Mr. Harvey will do;" and he tells him that he must go to Oxford. But I will not go into the question of what occurred at Oxford, for the only question we are discussing now is, whether the Act has been violated. The right hon. Gentleman says—it is for Mr. Harvey to settle the question whether he has fulfilled the requirements of the Act under which he was appointed. I cannot help asking, whether Mr. Harvey has received such a certificate as a member of the University of Oxford as will enable him to claim institution from the Bishop of his diocese; or whether he is not bound to wait till the 21st of May, when he will have fulfilled the 180 days' before he can put forward such claim? Indeed, there is a further serious question for Mr. Harvey and the right hon. Gentleman to consider—namely, whether, on the 21st of May the proceedings must not begin again, ab initio, to make the appointment valid? The right hon. Gentleman told us that we ought to suspend our judgment until we had heard his explanation. Well, my surprise and astonishment since his explanation is greater than ever. I really thought that he had received some legal opinion before the appointment in favour of his peculiar interpretation of the Act. But I find that he has no such support or excuse to fall back upon. It is his own view exclusively from the beginning. The right hon. Gentleman evidently wished to appoint a particular person to this Rectory of Ewelme; and, utterly regardless of consequences, he has made the words of the statute bend to his own individual will. He did not, as he states, approve its terms, so he made them suit the meaning of the terms he preferred. He
  1702
  admits that on the face of the Act, and in strict equity, it was desirable to have an Oxford man; but he flings aside this consideration, and in the face of a statute requiring in the most distinct and precise terms certain qualifications, he appoints a gentleman to the Rectory of Ewelme for one reason—on the ground of his delicate health—a reason which, I confess, appears to me one of an extraordinary and dangerous character, when I consider the nature of the duties and the place in which they are to be performed. If his health failed in a parish with only 300 inhabitants, Ewelme has 600 or 700. [Mr. GLADSTONE: There is climate to be considered.] But I am not aware that the climate of Oxfordshire is thought one of the most beneficial. The right hon. Gentleman has not consulted lawyers as to the interpretation of the Act, and I do not suppose he has consulted medical men to ascertain whether Mr. Harvey's health will be benefited by removal to Ewelme as much as his income and convenience are benefited by his being brought into the neighbourhood of Oxford. But there are higher duties than those which the right hon. Gentleman has so eloquently described. It is, no doubt, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to fill up every living which falls into his power in the best manner possible; and he must have had plenty of opportunities of giving one to Mr. Harvey, much more suitable than that which he has received. It is still more the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to consult the authority upon which he acts in all such cases. It is, I say, much more important that the right hon. Gentleman should do justice to the laws under which he lives, than—be the motives what they may, and the objects of his patronage the most worthy—to violate the spirit and intentions of a plain Act of Parliament. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has been actuated by conscientious motives; but it appears to me that his notion that this particular law has been badly constructed, by no means excuses this ill-advised appointment of Mr. Harvey to the Rectory of Ewelme.
  MR. HENLEYconfessed that when the Act of Parliament was passed he was one of those who thought, as he believed every one thought, that it was a good thing to get rid of pluralities,

  1703
  and that the arrangement then made was a very good one; but he could not understand why the Crown chose to limit the operation of its choice when what was wanted was to get the best man for the Rectory, unless they wanted a job, which he, for one, did not believe. However, the Act of Parliament was passed in that way, and he knew what was said on the subject in the county where he lived. Everybody said that it must be an Oxford man who would have the Rectory. That was the common phrase of the people, and they never troubled themselves about Convocation and matters of that kind. They believed that there had always been an Oxford man at Ewelme, and they thought it was meant to have one continued there. Now, it seemed that the Government had taken a man, hurrying him up from Cambridge, and said they would turn him into an Oxford man; but nobody would believe it, and the man himself would not believe it, and if they were to ask him where he belonged, he would say Cambridge. It was like making a blackamoor white, which never could be done. Mr. Harvey would be a Cambridge man to the end of his days. But humble people said that this was not honest, and they never could have believed that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would do such a thing. That was the sort of language which the country people used, and he did not think it fortunate that the Prime Minister had given them the opportunity of saying such things. However it might be attempted to shuffle with all sorts of subtleties, what the matter came to in plain language was, that the people expected to get an Oxford man, and they had not got one. As far as qualification went, it was impossible to have a better qualified man; he had never heard two opinions on that point; but it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman, with no earthly object which anyone could understand, should have given people the opportunity of saying things which were not very pleasant, and which could not very easily be gainsaid. Such was the opinion which he had heard expressed where he lived, and he believed it was pretty well spread all over the country. He regretted that was the case, and he was, therefore, glad this debate had taken place, because it af-
  1704
  forded the opportunity for a general expression of opinion that the gentleman appointed to Ewelme Rectory was a fit man, which might not otherwise have been thought, with all this unpleasant state of things existing, to be the case. Any erroneous impression on that point would be removed by the present debate, and that he looked on as a lucky circumstance, for it would be a disadvantage for a man to go down to the cure of a parish and have anything of the kind hanging about his neck. But as there were as good fish in the sea as had come out of it, nothing he had heard showed that the right hon. Gentleman might not have had a proper man for the appointment without creating all this bother and boggle.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he was anxious to say a few words on that occasion, because he took part in a recent debate when an analogous question was before the House. It was alleged then that in both cases the Government had been guilty of a violation or evasion of the spirit and intention of an Act of Parliament. On that occasion he made it his duty to look into both Acts, and all those internal circumstances belonging to the subject-matter dealt with necessary to form a just opinion of the intention of the Legislature, and having applied to the Act of Parliament relating to the Ewelme Rectory the same canons of construction that he had applied to the Judicial Committee Act, he had come to the conclusion that the suggestion that the Ewelme Rectory case stood on the same footing as the translation of Sir Robert Collier was entirely unfounded. He thought that in the present instance the Government were entirely justified in the view they had taken of the Act of Parliament, and that the appointment of Mr. Harvey was strictly within the true and honest meaning of the statute. The terms of the Act enabled the Government to present to the living any person "being a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford." In determining the question of whether or not the appointment of Mr. Harvey was in accordance with the real intention of the Legislature, they must be guided by the words and expressions used by the Legislature in the statute, without adding anything to or taking away anything from the language used; but he disclaimed any pos-

  1705
  sible obligation to look to the debates in Parliament to assist them in construing the words of a statute, because it was impossible to fathom the intentions of so many persons who, from different points of view, and with different and even conflicting ideas, had consented to the introduction of certain words in an Act of Parliament. Of course, effect must be given to the spirit and intention of the words, for that was their true meaning, and a mere compliance with the bare and naked letter might well be an evasion of the substantial meaning, the proper mode of arriving at which was, as Lord Coke and other jurists had laid down, to look at the subject-matter, the context, and the surrounding circumstances, in order to see what was the real spirit and meaning and true object of the statute. It had been urged that the words "being a member of Convocation of the said University" meant not merely a person who had become a member of Convocation for the purpose of qualifying himself for the appointment, but something more. He admitted the propriety of that form of criticism, and would deal fairly and straightforwardly with the inner sense and more extended meaning which these words were said to convey when the subject-matter and context were examined into. It was a most unfair, though very ad captandum way of arguing the question to say, as the right hon. Member for the county of Oxford (Mr. Henley) had said, that the people living around Ewelme did not expect that the Prime Minister would have done such a thing. He would accept the test put to them by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Hardy), who asked, supposing a statute enacted that no man should be appointed a County Court Judge in Wales who could not speak and understand the Welsh language, whether it would be competent in that case for the Lord Chancellor to select as a Welsh County Court Judge a man who, though ignorant of the Welsh tongue, undertook to make himself master of it in time for his appointment—say, in six months. Now, his answer to that was, that if it were possible for a man to learn the Welsh language in six months—which it was not—and he did so, then he would be duly qualified for the office according to the spirit and intention of the statute. He could not under-
  1706
  stand how it could be argued, if a Minister said to a man—"If you qualify yourself for an office, I will appoint you to that office," and the man did so qualify himself, that that was not a perfectly good qualification. But it was obvious that statutory and other qualifications for offices must be divided into several kinds. Some qualifications were of such a character that a man might acquire them by the mere fact of taking upon himself the qualification. For example, supposing it were enacted that as a necessary qualification for a mastership of a certain school, a man must be a Master of Arts, would anybody contend that a person could not be selected for that appointment, who was not a Master of Arts at the time, but who was able to obtain, and did obtain that qualification before his actual appointment. Again, in the case of vacancies to subordinate situations under the Government, persons were frequently offered appointments subject to the condition that they should pass through an examination, and obtain a certain certificate of competency, required by law as a qualification for the office; persons so nominated read up for the examination, and having passed and obtained the required certificate, became duly qualified for the situation; and it could not be truly said that the spirit, intention, and object of the rule required that they should have been so qualified before they were selected. That principle, however, did not apply universally, and there were cases, no doubt, in which the full possession of the qualification at the time of the selection was necessary in order to comply with the intention of the law. And whether that was so or not, could not be conclusively determined by looking at the mere letter of the law only, but each particular statute or rule must be read with reference to its subject-matter, its object, and the nature of the qualification under discussion. For example, there was a great distinction between a case like the present, where the qualification was capable of being obtained and acquired independently by the appointee or candidate himself, and a case like Sir Robert Collier's, where it was conferred upon the candidate by the very persons who had the power of appointment. It was said in the present case that the words "being a member of Convocation of

  1707
  Oxford" meant, according to their substantial and true sense, a man who was an Oxford man, who had been educated at Oxford, and who was a graduate of Oxford, and did not embrace a Cambridge man who had become a member of Convocation. He could not accede to that view. There was certainly nothing in the Act itself requiring the presentee to be an Oxford man other than a member of Convocation, and as an Oxford man himself, familiar with the ins and outs of the matter, he entirely denied that such was the spirit and meaning of the statute. But then he was asked if the qualification did not mean that, what did it mean? He was prepared to answer that question. Previously to this statute the Rectory of Ewelme was always conferred upon the person appointed Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford. It was not a necessary qualification for the Professorship that a man should have been an Oxford man in the sense now contended for; but the Regius Professor always became a member of Convocation of Oxford, so that the Rectory of Ewelme by a necessary accident was always conferred upon a member of Convocation. Now, this Act, by severing the Rectory from the Professorship, put an end to this accidental connection between Ewelme and Convocation. Now, what was the meaning of the language in question when read by the light thrown upon it by these facts? Using this key to open the windows of the statute, as Lord Coke said, and looking inside, what do we see to have been the mind and intention of the Legislature? Why, surely, that the rector of Ewelme should, notwithstanding the severance of the Rectory from the Professorship, still be, as he always had been, a member of Convocation. But there was nothing in the Act nor in the sense of its provisions requiring anything further, or that the rector should have been an Oxford graduate, or, in other respects, an Oxford man; and unless imaginary clauses were introduced into the statute he could come to no other conclusion than that the Prime Minister, in appointing Mr. Harvey to the Rectory of Ewelme, had acted strictly according to the true spirit and intention of the Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that the thin state of the House showed the interest in this discussion
  1708
  was not very absorbing, and he would not have intruded but for the pointed challenge given by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mowbray), which it would have been discourteous in him not to accept. Before he proceeded to the case to which his right hon. Friend had called his attention, he had respectfully as a lawyer to protest against the new doctrine which had been introduced as to the spirit of an Act of Parliament. It was a most inconvenient doctrine. When one had to deal with an Act of Parliament, then he knew what he was dealing with. One knew the words of it, and construed them by rules of sense and rules of law, and arrived at some definite understanding of what it meant. But when one embarked upon what some hon. Gentlemen was pleased to call the spirit of an Act of Parliament, then he embarked on a vague and hopeless quest, in which people would arrive at utterly different conclusions. Nothing could illustrate the absurdity of the practice better than this discussion. Here were two right hon. Gentlemen—intelligent men, eminent men, representing the University of Oxford, coming forward to attack the Government, and arriving at hopelessly contradictory conclusions between themselves as to what the spirit of the Act really was. The words of the Act were "being a member of the Convocation," and in treating upon them his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mowbray) thought that if a man who had formerly been a member of Convocation, was readmitted for the purpose of qualifying, it would bring him within the spirit of the Act. His right hon. Colleague (Mr. G. Hardy), however, was of a contrary opinion, and thought that to act upon such a qualification would amount to a breach of the spirit of the Act. As regarded the qualification, that was the first time he (the Attorney General) had heard a qualification described as a "colourable" qualification when it was taken for the purpose of an office or benefice, or anything else for which it was by law prescribed to be the qualification. Hon. Members seemed to contend that in the case of a person becoming a member of Convocation for no particular purpose, it would not be a colourable qualification, but that if he became a member of Convocation for a particular purpose, then it would be colourable. That doctrine, however,

  1709
  would not stand; it arose out of a misapprehension of the meaning of the term "colourable." A colourable qualification meant that which was conferred in language, and was not conferred in substance. In this instance, Mr. Harvey was an actual member of Convocation, and would continue to be so; and this was what the Act of Parliament required. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mowbray) had challenged him to assert that the law had been fulfilled, and that Mr. Harvey was a member of Convocation at present. He had made himself master of the last edition of the statutes, and had found the words upon which his right hon. Friend relied. Now, he was not going to enter upon a subtle disquisition as to the meaning of the Latin statutes of Convocation, for that meaning, as he understood it, of these statutes was this—they laid down with some precision the conditions under which certain persons should become members of the Convocation, and who, being members, should exercise the right of voting in Convocation. There was the right of deliberating in Convocation, the right of voting in Convocation, and the right to vote, for a man might be admitted to the right of voting, subject to a limitation of the time at which he had the right to vote. They had heard a great deal about the jus suffragii and the jus suffragandi, but the substance of the matter appeared plainly to him to be this—the section in question, after dealing with the cases of those who, having ceased to be members of Convocation, sought to recover their right to vote, proceeded to deal with the cases of those who, being members of other Universities, desired to be incorporated in that of Oxford. By the terms of the section, these latter were required to produce proof of their having resided 42 days within the University to the Vice Chancellor, who thereupon was bound to admit them ad jus suffragii, but they were not entitled to exercise the right of voting until 180 days after they had been thus admitted. Thus such persons, although not actually entitled to vote until 180 days after their admission, were to all other intents and purposes members of the Convocation. The membership, he maintained, became at once complete; the right to be present at the meetings was conferred; and everything that members were competent to do might be
  1710
  done, with the exception that the right of voting was not for some time to be exercised. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Member opposite cheered that remark, but had he never heard of analogous cases, such as the title of a person to be a Member of Parliament being complete, taking the oath but not voting, or a Member of the House of Peers who lost his seat in that House, but who did not at once acquire the right to vote in the Upper House, although to all other intents and purposes he was a Member of it, so much so that he would be entitled to be tried by his Peers, and to every other privilege attaching to a Peer of the Realm? There were many other analogous cases with which he need not trouble the House, but which were familiar in University and college experience. Upon the clearest construction of the statutes of the University, therefore, he could not bring himself to doubt that this gentleman was a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford, and, viewing the matter in that light, the discussion appeared to him to be eminently unpractical. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had given an answer upon the substantial question—a fit man had been appointed to a fit place, he possessing the qualifications which the statute imposed, and being to his mind a perfectly good member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford.
  MR. SCOURFIELD, as a civilian, felt bound to stand up in favour of an Act of Parliament being construed according to its spirit and according to its plain and manifest intention. He hoped the House would not consider it presumption on his part to speak in opposition to the two distinguished lawyers who had addressed them on that occasion, but he could not help saying that the common-place interpretation of the Act appeared to be entirely disregarded. He quite admitted that great danger was incurred by using two ways in the construction of an Act of Parliament; but were they not liable to err as greatly by interpreting it too closely? He did not impute for a moment anything like corruption to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in this affair; he had acted, no doubt, with the best intentions in appointing a very proper man; but the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman would furnish a dangerous precedent,

  1711
  and he feared that similar concessions would be claimed hereafter. Precedent was always relied upon in this country, and it would be unfortunate if the violation of the spirit and intention of an Act of Parliament which had occurred in reference to the present case were to be drawn into a precedent.
  MR. BOUVERIE: Sir, nobody conversant with the character of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would for a moment impute to him any corrupt or improper motive in making this appointment. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was conscientiously satisfied with the gentleman he appointed, and with excellent motives chose the best man he could obtain for the position; but I think that the House and the public have some right to complain that the right hon. Gentleman, always actuated by the most upright and conscientious motives, sees things which other people do not see, and does not see what they do see. It is that disposition of the right hon. Gentleman at which the public and the House have had reason to feel alarmed. We all have our amusements at various times, but that of the right hon. Gentleman, when he has nothing else to do, is to drive coaches and six through Acts of Parliament. This is the second example which we have discussed this Session of the determination of the right hon. Gentleman, in face of the plain common sense meaning of an Act of Parliament—which I do not consent to have interpreted by lawyers alone—to run counter to the good sense and right judgment of his countrymen. The matter in itself, concerning as it does an obscure living in a mere corner of a county, is simple and small enough, but the character of the proceeding adopted by the right hon. Gentleman justifies the criticism of this House, and it is with reference to that that I wish to make a few observations. I ask the House to look at what the Act says, at what it intends, and at what the right hon. Gentleman has done; and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place while I dwell on those points. All that the right hon. Gentleman has said as to Mr. Harvey's merits, his motives for appointing that gentleman, and the grounds on which he made the selection, is totally irrelevant to the real question at issue. The Act of Parlia-
  1712
  ment provides that the clergyman of the Church of England who should have this living should be at the time a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford. That restriction is, undoubtedly, a foolish restriction; but without arguing with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, I will put this question to the House—Would any Member of this House, being patron of a living under such a restriction as that, ever think of writing to suggest to one who had been educated at Cambridge, and taken a degree there—"You go to Oxford, enter your name at a college, call yourself an Oxford man, take an ad eundem degree according to the Oxford statutes, and then I will give you the living, restricted as it is in this way?" I will appeal to the common sense of the House, and ask whether any individual Member of it would have thought of making such a suggestion, or of doing such a thing? The plain natural sense and meaning of the words was undoubtedly this—that the man at the time of the appointment must be a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford, and as such he was to be selected for the living. But his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General threw the glamour of his eloquence over the question, and said—"Oh, you must not talk about the spirit of the Act; you must look at what it says." That is just what I say, for the intention of an Act is generally conveyed by the words used in the formation of its clauses, and I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in matters like this, the only question is, with reference either to words or spirit, what is the meaning and intention of the Act? The best evidence of the intention of the Act is the words, which, as a rule, convey the meaning. But if these words are capable, for some reason or other, of a particular interpretation, which may be arrived at by those who use the words, which is obviously contrary to the intention, that is not to be looked upon as the meaning of the Act. We spent a great deal of time a few weeks ago in discussing the meaning of an Act respecting the appointment of a gentleman to a high judicial position, and I think it must have been obvious to anyone with common sense that, at any rate, the meaning of the Act was not that a gentleman from the Bar should

  1713
  be shoved for a week into the position of a puisne Judge, in order that he might then be appointed a paid Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is obvious to the common sense of the public at large. With regard to the intention of the Bill in the present case, what is its history? Are there any extraneous circumstances by means of which we may arrive at the meaning of the Act now under discussion, for we must bear in mind that the ink of it is scarcely dry, and we have means for discussing it which will not be in the possession of hon. Members of Parliament 50 years to come. The Bill was passed through the Commons and introduced in the House of Lords without any restriction about the University of Oxford, but with the somewhat remarkable Proviso—that no person should be presented to the Rectory of Ewelme who was not eligible for appointment to the Regius Professorship of Divinity. If that Proviso had remained in the Act, it would have been perfectly competent for the right hon. Gentleman to have presented whomsoever he chose to the rectory, for there is no restriction to the power of appointment to the Professorship, although, in compliment to the University, it is usual to appoint an Oxford man. With regard to the progress of the Bill, I have taken the trouble to consult the Journals of the House of Lords, and I find that in Committee the Proviso was struck out, and that words were inserted providing that whoever was presented should be a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford. I think it must be obvious to the House that the House of Lords did not strike out certain words, and introduce certain other words which meant the same thing; but that there must be some further meaning in the words introduced by the House of Lords than that contained in the Proviso which they struck out in Committee. I endeavoured to ascertain the history of that change; and the right hon. Gentleman has indicated indirectly what took place. The right hon. Gentleman said that the words had not been introduced by the Lord Chancellor proprio motu; that they were not the words of the Government, but the result of communications with gentlemen who differed in opinion from the Government on the subject. I happen to know, on
  1714
  the best authority, that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the University of Oxford did intend to introduce words in Committee which would have strictly limited the patronage to those who had been educated and taken their degree at Oxford. These words, which limited the patronage to members of Convocation of the University of Oxford, were assented to by him; and I am authorized by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to say it was done on the understanding that they did limit the patronage of the living to those men who had gone through the curriculum of education at Oxford, and were, in common language, called Oxford men. It is therefore obvious that the interpretation put upon it then by the Government—at any rate by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury, was the same interpretation for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mowbray) contended, that it was not a mere qualification of a man becoming at some future time a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford, but it was a preliminary qualification that the man who was to have the appointment must at the time it was offered to him have this qualification at the University of Oxford. In that way I arrive at the intention of the Act of Parliament. Having pointed out what the Act said, and what the Act intended I will now ask—What was it the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government did? But before passing on to consider that part of the subject, I must refer to a statement which he has made in the course of the present debate—a statement which is one of the most extraordinary I have ever heard in this House. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has stated that had he known what was contained in a Bill which had passed both Houses, he would have taken a course which has not been taken for 170 years, and he would have advised the Crown to withhold its assent to the measure. For a Constitutional Minister at the head of the Liberal party, that strikes me as being the most extraordinary statement ever made in this House. Now, let us consider what the right hon. Gentleman did in reference to this appointment. Instead of taking the course which, as it seems to me, would commend itself to anyone reading the Act and knowing its history, he wrote to a quiet country

  1715
  clergyman, and suggested to him a method of evading a plain Act of Parliament, by going to Oxford and qualifying himself in a roundabout way to take this living. These circumstances are most regretable. I do lament that the right hon. Gentleman, more especially as head of the Government, should have taken a course that is open to question in this way. I admit, as I did at first, his high conscientiousness, his high sense of honour, his determination to do right, but I have often noticed his strong determination always to carry through that which accords with his own wishes. He sees the object which he has in view, but he does not see the force and strength of objections which may be made against what he wishes to carry. It is the business of this House to point the force of those objections, and I hope the discussion of to-night will be a warning to the right hon. Gentleman not to pursue in future these very exceptionable courses in order to evade the provisions of Acts of Parliament.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had not been in his place to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He trusted, however, that the speech would be conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman by means of those organs of public opinion for which he did not seem to entertain the highest possible respect. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that it was indeed an extraordinary thing for a Prime Minister to state that he would advise the Crown to refuse assent to a measure agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament.
  MR. BRUCE: I beg pardon. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government did not say that he had any thought of advising the Crown to refuse the Royal Assent to the Bill. What my right hon. Friend meant was—
  MR. MOWBRAY: I rise to Order. It is competent to any hon. Member to explain his own words, but I never yet understood it was competent for one Minister to explain the meaning of words used by another Minister.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he should be sorry to misinterpret the words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; but the words used by the
  1716
  right hon. Gentleman were fresh in the recollection of the House, and he was certainly under the belief that he correctly quoted their substance. Well, there was another point he desired to call attention to. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill severing the Rectory of Ewelme from the Regius Professorship ought not to be connected with the offer of the latter post to Dr. Mozley. But how did the case stand upon the right hon. Gentleman's own showing? Dr. Mozley was offered the Regius Professorship, and with it was connected the Rectory of Ewelme. No conditions were put on his accepting the Professorship; however, it appeared that he held the living of Old Shoreham, which he was naturally unwilling to resign. Under these circumstances he accepted the Professorship, and immediately afterwards the Government introduced the Bill, the consequence of which was that it enabled Dr. Mozley to continue to enjoy the living of Old Shoreham. He did not wish or mean to impute any improper motive; but the facts, as he had stated them, remained; and he ventured to think that if they had been frankly stated at the time they would have been accepted without cavil; but they were not brought forward till now, when the affair had assumed a very different complexion. Considering the scant favours that Cambridge had enjoyed under the present Government, that University ought perhaps to be thankful for any preferment that might be conferred on it; but he was bound to say that the present piece of patronage would have been much more palatable if it had not properly belonged to the University of Oxford.
  MR. BRUCE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mowbray) in the exercise of his undoubted right interrupted me just now when I was explaining what I conceived to be an entire misapprehension of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) as to the language used by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. What my right hon. Friend said was, that if he had disapproved the Amendment introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords, he would have felt it to be his duty to withdraw the Bill. ["No, no!"] I deny that my right hon. Friend either said, or intended to say, that he would advise the Crown to ex-

  1717
  ercise its veto on the Bill after it had passed the two houses of Parliament.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was bound to say that his recollection of the words used by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government agreed with the version of them given them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. In regard to the general question, he had listened to the debate, and the one part upon which it mainly turned semed to him to be obviously this—with what object was the qualification introduced into the Bill, unless it was intended to confine the selection of the Crown to Oxford men? All the legal ingenuities to which hon. and learned Members of the House had treated them that night failed, and must fail to develope any other reasonable and common sense construction of the Act. Had anyone ventured to assert that by going through the form of incorporation at Oxford, Mr. Wigan Harvey added a single qualification for presentation to the Rectory of Ewelme to those he already possessed? He had heard no such argument, nor did he expect to hear it, and it was clear that the clause had, and could have, but one meaning. In connection with this appointment there was one important point which had not yet been brought under the notice of the House. When was the appointment made? The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had argued that it was made when the formal instrument was signed which gave the Rectory to Mr. Harvey; but his (Mr. Hunt's) contention was, that the appointment ought to date from the day on which the living was offered to Mr. Harvey by the right hon. Gentleman, and no one could say that at that period Mr. Harvey possessed the requisite qualifications. He believed he was justified by analogy in saying that the appointment ought to date from the time when the offer of it was made, because if a hon. Member of that House accepted office under the Crown his seat became vacant, not from the actual day on which he received the seals, or on which his patent was made out, but from the day when the offer was made to and accepted by him. He was glad to perceive that the right hon. Gentleman had now returned to his place, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman had heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, because it would have taught
  1718
  him some wholesome truths as to the view taken of this transaction by many of his own supporters, as well as by the public at large. It was most unfortunate that this appointment should have been immediately preceded by the promotion of Sir Robert Collier, which had occupied the attention of the House the other night, because it seemed to show that those occupying the highest places in the land were utterly regardless of the spirit and intention of Acts of Parliament, and did not set by any means a good example of the way in which the law should be administered.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that since the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had returned to his place, he would repeat the charge which had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, and by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Raikes)—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman said that if the Act had been passed by the two Houses of Parliament, he should, if he had understood the qualification in the sense since put upon it, have advised the Crown not to consent to that Act. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] For his own part, he had distinctly understood such to be the language of the right hon. Gentleman, and he believed that all who heard him were of the same opinion. When the Bill passed the House, it understood this—that the living of Ewelme was to be given only to members of the University of Oxford. Neither the House nor the country had gone into the technicalities in which the right hon. Gentleman had indulged that evening; but he thought the majority of hon. Members present were of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had ridden through the Act—had driven a hole in it, in order that Ewelme might be given to a Cambridge and not to an Oxford man, and that was a thing that neither the Conservative party nor the country approved of. If the right hon. Gentleman did not approve of the limitation proposed by the Act, he should have stated it distinctly when it was before them, and should have avowed that he understood it as conferring the power of selecting either a Cambridge or an Oxford man for the Rectory of Ewelme; but he (Colonel Barttelot) defied any man to read the Act as it now stood, and avoid coming to the conclusion that

  1719
  it excluded members of Cambridge University from holding that Rectory. It was one of the traditions of English political life that the highest respect should be entertained for those who ruled the country, for it had always been believed of them, that they would exercise the patronage that fell into their hands in strict accordance with the meaning as well as the letter of Acts of Parliament. Unhappily, the country had recently seen two examples of the Government deliberately violating Acts that they themselves had passed, or interpreting them in a non-natural sense; and for that reason the House had been invited that evening to enter its solemn protest against the transaction now under review.
  MR. GREENEsaid, that there had been almost complete unanimity among the Press of the country respecting the appointment of Mr. Harvey; and unless they were to be asked to believe in the infallibility of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, he did not know why they should hesitate to adopt the common sense and obvious meaning of the Act. He feared that the Government, by interpreting it contrary to its clear meaning, had descended from that moral dignity which was expected of every English Administration. The conduct of the Government, and the defence offered for it by the right hon. Gentleman, reminded him of a story he had heard from a friend of his, who was staying in a country house. One morning he heard a great noise and confusion in the yard, and looking out he saw one of the kitchen-maids being put on to a horse, and so carried round the yard. When he went down he asked what was the matter, and the groom said—"Oh, sir, it's only that we're going to take the horse to the fair, and we want to say that he has carried a lady." Now, it seemed to him that that was a very good illustration of what the right hon. Gentleman had done. He did not, for a moment, mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman had acted corruptly; but, he was bound to say that he did not think a Minister who could so peculiarly interpret Acts of Parliament was fitted to hold the office of Prime Minister. He hoped that he should never again have to hear a Government charged with having, in any way, thrown themselves open to doubts upon the morality,
  1720
  honesty, and uprightness with which they had acted.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to the challenge just made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), I wish to say I am astonished anyone could have misunderstood me. What I stated was, that it would have been my duty alone to advise the giving or withholding of the consent of the Crown; but that referred to the usual function of a Member of Parliament charged with a Bill, when that Bill requires, by the Rules of the House, the consent of the Crown to allow it to pass. But to advise the Crown upon the subject of veto—if such a thing is to be imagined at all—is not my function alone; it would be the function of the Cabinet.
  MR. BOUVERIE: But the advice to the Crown is given when a Bill is introduced.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If my right hon. Friend is to be allowed, in the excess of his zeal, to make two speeches against me, I must be allowed a similar privilege.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I must be permitted to observe, upon the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that the Amendment in question was permitted by the Government to be introduced, in the Upper House, at a very late stage of the proceedings—long after the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Crown, had given his consent to the introduction of the Bill. The Amendment itself was introduced by the Lord Chancellor of England. What, therefore, can the right hon. Gentleman mean by the last explanation he has given? These things will be recorded and will be read all over the country, which will place upon them the interpretation justly placed on them by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

JAPAN—MAINTENANCE OF BRITISH TROOPS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN, in rising—
  "To inquire of the Government, by what Treaty or Convention this Country has acquired the right of maintaining a military force in Japan; what number of troops, if any, are now stationed there; and to move for a Return of the number of Troops and Marines stationed in Japan during

  1721
  each year from the ratification of the Treaty with Japan in 1859 to the 31st day of December, 1871, together with the sums expended in conveying such Troops to and from Japan, and maintaining them in that Country;"—
  said, those who had watched the history of England from the reign of Queen Anne must have been struck with the gradual diminution of our importance as a military Power. Since the wars which arose out of the French Revolution, he believed that we had diminished our prestige in Europe as a military Power by acquisitions of territory in various parts of the world; and, though it was our interest, as far as possible, to keep aloof from all European complications, it was of the greatest importance we should note the weakening effect produced upon our military power by these acquisitions of territory. It was little more than 50 years since the British nation annexed a large portion of the Burmese territory. A quarter of a century ago they annexed the province of Scinde; and since then we had annexed the Punjaub, and obtained dominions at Hong Kong, in China. Now, whether we had obtained compensating advantages or not, it was held by many that these acquisitions had weakened our position as a European Power, and that we ought to put a stop to all further acquisition of territory. He believed it was admitted that the necessity of providing troops for India was one of the greatest obstacles to the establishment of our Reserves as a means of filling up the Regular Army. He thought it would be admitted that on every account it was of very great importance that we should not increase our possessions abroad, or acquire territory by treaty, as we had recently done on the West Coast of Africa, where we had by treaty with the Government of Holland acquired a considerable amount of territory, for which we had to pay £24,000, and to incur responsibilities in the shape of providing for additional garrisons. Just previously to the great Mutiny in India, a considerable Expedition was sent to China for the purpose of obtaining redress for wrongs received from the Chinese Government. After matters had been settled in China, and things had been brought to a successful termination, upon the Mutiny in India breaking out, Lord Elgin, who had been sent to China, at once adopted the only course
  1722
  open to him, by despatching a considerable force to India to assist in suppressing the Mutiny; with his naval force left behind without employment, he proceeded to Japan, and negotiated a treaty—a treaty said to have been entered into by the Government of Japan, but which he (Mr. Aytoun) considered to be a treaty entered into by that Government under the pressure of an overwhelming force. However that might be, a treaty was entered into by which certain commercial privileges were secured to the people of this country. It was negotiated in 1858, and it was ratified in 1859. In that treaty he could not find any stipulation to the effect that the Government of this country should possess a right of raising any military force in Japan. The only stipulation in that treaty which bore reference to territory was that which secured to Her Majesty's subjects the power to acquire buildings in Japan, and a stipulation that no such building should be used as fortifications or places of military strength. He had put the Question of which he had given Notice on the Paper, with a view of ascertaining on what treaty it was that the Government founded their right to maintain a military force in a country still regarded as independent? Eight years ago a Question was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen to the noble Lord the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then Under Secretary for "War, whether the force, then consisting of marines and infantry, stationed in Japan, was to be considered as temporary only, or was to be kept there permanently? and the answer was that it was shortly to be withdrawn; but he (Mr. Aytoun) had been informed that ever since that time a military force had been stationed in Japan, and, what was worse, no information had been given to the people of this country with regard to the matter—the expenses incurred with respect to it being found under the head of charges for the garrison of Hong Kong. He wished to ask whether that military force was still to continue in Japan, and whether it was intended that it should remain there permanently? This was of importance, for wherever England had military forces stationed, war had occurred eventually, and the result had been acquisition of territory by the British. Not many years ago England bombarded a port in

  1723
  Japan, and it must be evident to everyone that if we were to continue in the course in which we had embarked, that continuance would be fraught with great mischief, and it would be exceedingly likely to lead us to a military settlement in that country. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Return.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Troops and Marines stationed in Japan during each year from the ratification of the Treaty with Japan in 1859 to the 31st day of December 1871, together with the sums expended in conveying such Troops to and from Japan, and maintaining them in that Country,"—(Mr. Sinclair Aytoun,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, there would be no difficulty in supplying the hon. Member with the Return he wished for, but it would be as well to explain the circumstances under which a British force had been stationed during 10 years in Japan. That force, which had varied very much, was not there owing to any treaty or convention with Japan, but simply for the protection of British lives and property, and to see that the treaty concluded in 1859 should be fairly and impartially carried out as regarded British interests. In 1862 and 1863 attacks, which were originated by parties hostile to foreigners and to the existing Government of Japan, had been made upon British subjects, as well as other foreigners, and Earl Russell empowered Sir Rutherford Alcock to appeal to the Admiral on the station, and to the military authorities at Hong Kong, to land a force only in the case of British lives and interests being exposed to danger, simply as a protective measure, and not with any desire to occupy the country. For that purpose three or four companies of the 20th Regiment were sent from Hong Kong to Japan; and in November, 1863, the British and French Admirals, acting in concord with the Tycoon, occupied Yokohama. Shortly after other troops followed, and barracks for their accommodation were provided
  1724
  by the Japanese Government. In 1865 a better state of things existed, and the force was reduced; but in 1868 a revolution broke out, and the British force was reinforced by the marines of the American, Dutch, and Prussian vessels in Japan, for the purpose of aiding in the defence of Yokohama. In 1869, owing to attacks committed on foreigners, all the foreign representatives in Japan—namely, American, Italian, Prussian, and Dutch—requested the English and French force again to take measures with the Japanese Government for the protection of the foreign community at Yokohama. Since that date, however, affairs had improved, and reductions were made in the forces there, which remained as follows:—A small marine battalion of 300 English, and a regiment of 250 French Marines. The force was stationed in Japan solely for the protection of the lives of British subjects and in the interests of commerce, and if, as he had reason to believe, the present peaceful state of affairs should continue, he had hopes that the entire force would be shortly withdrawn. During the whole period of its presence in Japan, British lives and the interests of British commerce would never have been safe without that force, which had never been greater than for the purpose required. There would be no objection to produce the Papers if the hon. Gentleman moved for them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CHINA—THE COOLIE TRAFFIC—APPOINTMENT OF MR. CALDWELL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Caldwell, who was dismissed from the office of Registrar General of Hong Kong in 1862, is now a sworn interpreter in the local Courts; whether in that or any other capacity he has been employed for the Crown; whether he was accepted by the late Governor as agent for the licences of the gambling monopoly; and whether he was not a proprietor of Coolie barracoons? The charges preferred against Mr. Caldwell having been incidentally mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. C. Gilpin), in a re-

  1725
  cent discussion on the Coolie traffic, he thought it right to give the Under Secretary an opportunity of stating whether they were well-founded. If true, he (Mr. Caldwell) ought to be removed from his appointment; and, if not true, he ought to be fully exonerated. It was further alleged that Mr. Caldwell had taken an active part in establishing gambling houses, and that he at one time received $20,000 a-year from the monopolists. In connection with that part of the subject, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) must say that he rejoiced at the determination of the Government to suppress these gambling-houses.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that Mr. Caldwell was a person who married a Chinese woman, and had been for many years extensively employed by the Chinese at Hong Kong. Some 12 years ago that gentleman did occupy the position of Registrar General at Hong Kong, and at that time charges were brought against him by Mr. Chisholm Anstey, then Attorney General there. The charges were for the most part disproved, and ended in the discharge, not of Mr. Caldwell, but of Mr. Anstey. Sufficient evidence, however, was brought forward to call for further inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Caldwell. It turned out that he had rendered considerable services to the Government in the detection of piracy, but the story was, that he got his information from a notorious pirate; and the view the Commissioners took was, that Mr. Caldwell's intimacy with this man was of such a character that it was not proper he should be retained in Her Majesty's service, and he was therefore dismissed. All the sworn interpreters in the local Courts, with the exception of one Portuguese, were native Chinese; but some time ago a supernumerary list of interpreters were added, and the Chief Justice, in whose hands these appointments rested, placed Mr. Caldwell's name upon the list. Mr. Caldwell had, however, never acted in that capacity; and, indeed, the fees were so small that, having a great deal of employment from the inhabitants of Hong Kong, he was not likely to take up that business. If his name was still on the list, the Chief Justice alone could remove it, and Chief Justice Small was not a likely person to have allowed anyone to act under him to whom the suspicion of complicity with
  1726
  slave trading practices attached. He had not been employed by the Crown in any capacity since the period of his dismissal from the service. Years ago he was employed by a large Chinese firm to negotiate with the Government for the monopoly of the gambling-houses; but for a long time a different system had been in vogue, and the licences had been let to the highest tenderer, the tenders having been sent in direct to the Government through the Registrar General, no other person intervening. Barracoons, in the sense in which the word was used at Macao, in connection with the slave trade did not exist at Hong Kong. By law, a person who chartered a ship for the emigration of coolies to the British colonies was bound to provide proper depôts for the emigrants, those places being under the strict surveillance of the Government, and it was possible that Mr. Caldwell might be the proprietor of one of these depôts, though it was very doubtful as no buildings were permanently so used.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he was satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Gentleman; but wished injustice to Mr. Chisholm Anstey to remind the House that, although recalled, he afterwards received a letter from the Duke of Newcastle, stating that he had performed a great public service, and thus exonerating him.
  Original Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee)
(Navy Supplementary Estimate.)
(1.) £30,000, Supplementary sum, Vote No. 1, Wages to Seamen, &c.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that this amount was required to carry out improved arrangements for the payment of seamen, and was not wanted in consequence of any miscalculation of the Estimates. At present two months' pay was kept back in the case of seamen abroad, and one month's pay from seamen at home. The Government proposed to make a closer settlement of such accounts. The item of £70,000 was for work done in the

1727
extension of works at Portsmouth. In former years the contractors had been unable to perform so much work as money was voted for; but latterly they had done more work than was provided for in the Estimates. But, on the balance, the money paid to them was less than the sum formerly voted.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSK, in expressing disapproval of the practice of keeping money from seamen for so long a period, said, they ought to be paid when they had earned their wages.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government agreed with the hon. Member, and had therefore made a new arrangement, by which, for the future, it would be avoided.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £70,000, Supplementary sum, Vote No. 11, New Works, &c. (New Works, &c., Portsmouth).
(3.) £2,000, Supplementary sum, Vote No. 14, Miscellaneous Services (Grant to Captain Scott, R.N.)
In reply to Mr. BOWRING,
MR. GOSCHENsaid, £2,000 had been awarded to Captain Scott for his inventions; but as he was dissatisfied with the amount, he asked that his expenses should be paid. This Vote was, therefore, in addition to the award.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

ROYAL PARKS AND GARDENS BILL— [BILL 17].
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Baxter.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 23 rd February.]
(In the Committee.)
Clause 6 (Penalty on assaults on park-keeper), agreed to.
Clause 7 (Powers, duties, and privileges of park-keeper).
MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) had suggested that the Parks should be put under the police. He believed that Hyde Park was, to a great extent, under the control of the metropolitan police; but that in
1728
the case of Regent's Park, the metropolitan police had no jurisdiction, or, at all events, were not employed there. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner would give the House some information as to the circumstances under which the police were employed in some Parks, and park-keepers were employed in other Parks. He also wished to know by whom the deputy ranger, the superintendent under the ranger, and the five superintendents were appointed, and what were their duties?
MR. AYRTONsaid, there was no doubt a great distinction in the mode in which these various Parks were managed. There was only a ranger for Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and Richmond Park; and there were no rangers in the other Parks. Wherever there was a ranger, that ranger appointed those park-keepers who kept the gates. The interior of Hyde Park had for some time been under the supervision of the police, who there performed the duties of park-keepers; and in the other Parks the police were not employed to the same extent, the persons employed being under the control of the Board of Works. At Richmond Park, where there were deer, an establishment in connection with the deer was maintained. There was no ranger at Regent's Park, which was entirely under the administration of the Office of Works also. Under the provisions of the Bill the park-keepers would be liable to penalties, and assume the character of public officers fully as much as the police.
MR. HERMONasked, whether these park-keepers were to be under the control of the Commissioners of Police as well as of the Commissioner of Works?
MR. AYRTONsaid, they would not be under the control of the Commissioners of Police in the same sense in which police constables were under their control in regard to the duties they performed in the Parks; but they would be subject to the police regulations as far as they imposed upon the park-keepers particular duties, and penalties for their non-performance. To that extent they would be liable to prosecution like police officers for misconduct. They would, of course, be under the direction of the Commissioner of Works as regarded the Parks,
MR. HERMONthought the words of the clause were ambiguous. They would, lead to a great deal of trouble, unless a clearer definition of what they intended was given, for they did not clearly define what were to be the respective functions of the Commissioner of Works and of the Commissioners of Police in regard to these Parks. Anybody would understand from the clause that the park-keepers were to be under the Commissioners of Police.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTagreed with the hon. Member, and was quite satisfied that the section should remain unaltered, as it would carry out the proposal he had made for placing the Parks under the control of the police. The effect of the legal interpretation of the section would be to place the park-keepers under the direction of the police, and that was all he desired.
Clause agreed, to.
Clauses 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 11 (Summary proceedings for offences).
MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved, as a technical Amendment, in page 3, line 15, insert "in Scotland," in order to bring the Parks in Scotland within the provisions of the Bill.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, that he had given Notice in another part of the Bill of an Amendment which would exclude from its operation the Parks of Holyrood and Linlithgow. His reason for moving that Amendment was not because he desired to see any difference made between the laws of Scotland and England, but the present Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be rendered unnecessary should his subsequent one be carried. It would be convenient at once to state why he proposed to except the Parks of Linlithgow and Holyrood from the operation of the Bill. He thought that he was perfectly right in stating that what was called the Peel or Park of Linlithgow consisted only of a very few acres—eight or nine at the most—and therefore it would be almost as sensible to legislate for a village green as it was for that; but the Park of Holyrood, commonly known as the Queen's Park, stood in a very different position. It embraced a circuit of some five miles, and contained a large area of plain and
1730
mountain land, diversified with rocks, loch, and hill scenery as wild and as beautiful as any place of equal area in the county of Sutherland, so that it was in no way whatever to be ranked under the title of "Royal Parks and Gardens." Certainly there was not a single flower bed in the whole Park, or anything that could be injured by the kind of usage against which the public Parks were ordinarily protected. One provision was, that no one should destroy any grass plot or get on any of the flower beds, or pick any of the flowers, and no person should discharge any firearms, or make any bonfire, or throw or set fire to any fireworks in a Royal Park. Now, in Holyrood Park there happened to be the principal rifle range used by the neighbouring people of Edinburgh, and on all occasions of public rejoicing, Holyrood Park was the place, above all others, where fireworks were displayed. He stated that to show that the provisions of the Bill were wholly inapplicable to the case of Holyrood. In that Park, too, from time immemorial there had been held public meetings, at which crowds sometimes assembled which could hardly be surpassed in numbers even by those who assembled in the Metropolitan Parks in times of public excitement; and he thought that he was quite justified in saying that on no occasion had there been found any difficulty in maintaining order, or in the preservation of the public peace. He believed that the ordinary guardians of the Park appointed by the right hon. Gentleman were amply sufficient. He could not believe that it could really be intended to do away with the right of the people of Edinburgh to assemble in public open-air meetings, and if such meetings were to be permitted, there could be no place in which, owing to the peculiar conformation of the land, they could be more conveniently held than in Holyrood Park. It would be a very great misfortune to the people of Edinburgh if that Park were to be brought within the provisions of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. The people of Scotland did not ask for any special exemptions for Holyrood Park, or wish to obtain any exceptional legislation in their favour, but they certainly did wish it to be known that the ordinary rules of a Park would be wholly misapplied in such a case as this.
MR. CARNEGIEsaid, he was glad to hear the explanation of his hon. Friend, because a great many hon. Members were not really aware of what description Holyrood Park really was, and he was sure that when they were told that it included the whole of the mountain known as Arthur's Seat, they would agree with him that it was totally unlike the others, and ought not to be included in the Bill.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that he had no objection whatever to the insertion of the words now proposed, provided it were accompanied by the Amendment he had placed on the Paper—namely—
"That no rule shall be made which shall have the effect of preventing public meetings being held in Holyrood Park as freely as they had been from time immemorial."
When the proper time came for its consideration, he thought he should be able to show the right hon. Gentleman conclusively that that privilege ought not to be interfered with.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
MR. AYRTONthen proposed, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:—
(Rules to be laid before Parliament.)
"Any rule made in pursuance of the First Schedule to this Act shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be sitting, or if not, then within three weeks after the beginning of the then next ensuing Session of Parliament; and if any such rules shall be disapproved of by either House of Parliament within one month after the same shall have been so laid before Parliament, such rules, or such parts thereof as shall be disapproved of, shall not be enforced."
New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he understood that these rules were to come into force at once on being made, and only to be subject to the disapproval of Parliament.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the rules were to be made on the responsibility of the Minister, and it would be for Parliament afterwards to express its disapproval if it thought proper.
MR. RYLANDS, in that case, supposed that any rule made by the First Commissioner, but not adopted by Parliament, would not be put in force.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, as he understood the matter, it was this—suppose in August, when Parliament
1732
was not sitting, it became necessary to make some rules for the Parks, they would immediately come into force. But they would not be before Parliament until February, and then in March Parliament might disapprove them, or any part of them. But up to the time of disapproval by Parliament, they would be in operation.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite was correct, all the time between August and February people might be arrested and imprisoned without warrant or any Parliamentary sanction. Thus, during at least one-half of the year penal legislation would be carried out without any sanction of Parliament.
MR. COLLINSthought that the adoption of such a proposition would be sanctioning rather a dangerous doctrine. If the clause were passed as it stood, it might be drawn into a precedent for the future, and it would allow rules to be made and acted upon without the sanction of Parliament until some months, perhaps, after they had been so acted upon. The principle adopted in the Revised Code, and in other legislative measures, such as the schemes proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, should be adopted here, and none of these rules should be enforced until they had been a certain number of days before Parliament.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not see what the Revised Code had to do with the Bill. It seemed to him that the clause proposed by the Government would satisfy the conditions which had been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the approval of Parliament contemplated by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) were given to the rules it would be in fact an approval given twice over.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he did not understand the argument of the noble Lord that it would be an approval given twice over. The Government were empowered to make new rules, and unless Parliament first approved the rules the Park Ranger or his advisers would really be legislating without the authority of Parliament, and for six months in the year there would be no check upon these officials. He thought that some rule should be laid down here such as had been cited by the hon. Member for Boston, and he did not see why the same

1733
principle as that adopted in the Revised Code should not be adopted here.
MR. MONKsaid, that when the proper time came he should move that the clause be amended by the addition of the words—
"And such rules shall not come into operation until they have been laid before both Houses of Parliament for the space of one month."
It would be monstrous that new rules should come into operation in August, without the opportunity of obtaining Parliamentary sanction to them until the following February.
MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out that there was an essential difference between the regulation of the Parks and the operation of the Revised Code. For example, some exceptional proceedings might occur which might suddenly render necessary some special rules respecting the Parks. If Parliament were not then sitting it would be absurd to call it together for such a purpose. He therefore regarded the proposal of the Government as reasonable.
MR. STAPLETONreminded the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government distinctly undertook that these rules should not come into effect till they had come before Parliament, and hon. Members had acted on that understanding.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that in the Schedule there was a definition of the rules of the Park, which were only to be made in order to prevent the wilful annoyance of persons frequenting the Park. All penalties were provided for by the Act; the rules would impose no penalties, and it was reasonable, therefore, that the rules should come into immediate operation.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the clause was proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Rylands), acting, as he understood, upon the legal advice of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. V. Harcourt). He therefore thought he should do right in accepting their proposal exactly as they made it; but they now appeared to be quarrelling with their own clause, which was copied from existing Acts. It was plain that rules might be required temporarily and for an emergency, and it might also be found necessary to modify existing rules; but rules could neither be made nor modified to meet an emergency if it so happened that at the time Parliament was not in Session. The Committee,
1734
however, might deal with this matter as they thought fit; he had no strong feeling one way or the other; but his opinion was that the public would be best served by placing responsibility upon the Minister, and not by shifting it to the House of Commons.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTpointed out that Parliament might rise in August, that in September rules might be made rendering meetings in the Parks an offence for which persons might be liable to fine and imprisonment. These rules might not receive the sanction of Parliament for some seven or eight months after, and the result would be that a man might be imprisoned under their operation without the sanction of Parliament for them having been obtained.
MR. BOWRINGthought that that difficulty might be avoided by the rules being laid before Parliament in May or June.
MR. HENLEYthought that all rules which went the length of affecting people to the extent of fine and imprisonment ought to have the sanction of two persons. If the rules in question were made by the First Commissioner, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, greater security would, in his opinion be afforded to the public than if they were submitted to Parliament.
Clause read a second time.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "and," in line 4, to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "no such rule shall be in force until the same has been so laid before both Houses of Parliament for one month, nor at all if disapproved of by either House of Parliament."—(Mr. Monk.)
MR. GATHORNE HARDYtook exception to the words just used. That was the first instance in which rules for regulating public places had been directed to be laid before Parliament, although there were various corporations and other bodies in the kingdom which had the power to make such rules. When day by day the question arose how the House was to find time for the business before it, it would be, in his opinion, most unwise that it should encumber itself with the discussion of matters which would afford so many opportunities to any hon. Member to increase the difficulties in the way of the

1735
progress of that business. The rules might be moved for, but if an obstacle were thrown in the way of their coming into operation, great inconvenience would be caused to the public. He hoped that the House would have the courage to dismiss this subject from their consideration, and leave it to the Government, unless some great occasion should arise calling for the interference of Parliament.
MR. WHITWELLthought it was right that the words of these rules should be subject to the opinion of Parliament, because in many instances the words would be of most essential consequence in reference to the offences themselves.
MR. LIDDELLargued in favour of allowing responsibility in the matter to rest on the Executive Government. He hoped the Committee would refuse to accept the Amendment.
MR. AGAR-ELLISthought the clause unnecessary, for it only declared that which they all knew was the case already—namely, that the First Commissioner of Works should be responsible to Parliament.
MR. GREGORYsaid, the proposed Amendment was both absurd and inconsistent with the scope of the Bill.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTargued that in requiring that the rules should not take effect until they were laid before Parliament, the House would only be following the usual course of proceeding. What had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford showed the spirit in which he would put the Bill into force if he had the power, and, therefore, the House should not put such power in the hands of a First Commissioner of Works, when it did not know from which side that functionary might hereafter be appointed.
MR. A. EGERTONcould not see why those regulations should not receive the imprimatur of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as well as the assent of the First Commissioner of Works.
MR. BRUCEpointed out that any unlawful meeting in the Parks could be put a stop to, whether rules were made or not. With regard to the by-laws of corporations, they did not, as a rule, give power of arrest without warrant, though they gave the power of establishing fines; but it seemed doubtful whe-
1736
ther any practical advantage would be gained by altering the clause.
MR. COLLINScontended that the clause ought to be made efficient or be struck out altogether. If they could trust the Government to make treaties, they surely might trust them to make regulations for the Parks.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the reason for this exceptional proceeding was because this legislation was exceptional. According to the views of the Home Secretary the people might be left for six or seven months of the year without protection. If the people were to have this protection whilst Parliament was sitting, they were entitled to have it the whole year.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas of opinion that no arrest under this Bill ought to be sanctioned without a warrant authorized by responsible authorities.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was no use in shutting their eyes to the fact that underneath there lied a matter affecting the rights and privileges of the people. It was proposed to withdraw from the people what they thought could not be justly withdrawn from them, and at the same time the Government asked for a carte blanche to make regulations in a secret Cabinet, and to place them before the House in a manner that would give the House no control over them. The Government had forced the subject on themselves, and they ought to fight it out. He was aware that the great object of the Opposition was to put down the right of public meeting in the Parks.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was very sorry that the Government had not seen fit to take the opportunity, while they were dealing with that subject, to put it on a footing which would be satisfactory to all classes. The people of London now had no place where they could meet. And when one reflected what that great metropolis was, and how the old places of meeting, such as Palace Yard and Guildhall had become obsolete for the general purposes of the metropolis, he thought it was a great misfortune that now, in a quiet time, the Government had not appointed proper places where the people could meet, and thus get rid of all those difficulties which were growing on them every year. They could not prevent the people from meeting; if they did not meet in one place they would meet in another, and it was not

1737
desirable, perhaps, that their meetings should be stopped. But if it was said they were not to meet in places which did not belong to them, or at which it was very inconvenient for the public that they should meet, at all events proper places should be provided for the purpose. Within the last few years inconvenience, but not bloodshed, had arisen from the present unsatisfactory state of things, but no man could say how long things would remain as they now were.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he much regretted that the hon. Member for Nottingham had attempted to make this a party question, and could assure the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last that all that he said was listened to with the most candid consideration by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not correct in his statement that the Government had failed to look in the face that subject of the holding of public meetings. They had looked it in the face, and so, also, had the Committee of last year. The 8th regulation, although negative in its form, did imply the intention of Parliament that in such of the Parks as were suitable for the purpose—because there were certain of the Parks which were eminently unsuitable for the purpose—regulations should be made by which meetings might lawfully be held. He could not, however, agree that it would be wise to indicate more positively and definitely, certain places in which meetings might be held. There were in the immediate neighbourhood of London great places of public resort; and although nobody wished to stimulate or encourage the habit of holding political meetings, still it was felt that the people would not abuse the privilege of meeting, and would know when it was necessary to have recourse to it. But if they were to specify particular spots for the purpose, it would be too much in the nature of an incitement to the constant holding of these meetings, a course of proceeding which the Government by no means wished to encourage. A general statutory permission, now accorded for the first time, would be by far the best method of dealing with the matter. Turning to the practical question more immediately before them, it was one of limited range. Some hon. Gentleman had spoken as if it were a question of shifting the respon-
1738
sibility of those regulations from the Government. If that were a clause proposing that none of the regulations should have the force of law unless they had the approval of Parliament, that would be a most unwise attempt to shift the responsibility from the Government; but no such responsibility was really thrown upon Parliament. All that the clause did was to call the attention of Parliament to the subject. Although the Government really had no objection, he gathered that the general sense of the House was against the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester, and he hoped they might be allowed to pass the clause as it stood.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Committee of last year did not intend to lay down a distinct rule that no meetings should be held in the Parks, but that it should be in the power of the First Commissioner of Works to set apart, if he thought right, any portion of the Parks—for example, Primrose Hill or elsewhere—for the holding of public meetings. It had been assumed by some hon. Gentlemen that meetings held in the Parks in violation of the orders of the authorities were at this moment legal; but he asked whether it was not the opinion of the eminent Law Officers of Lord Palmerston's Government, that it was in the power of the authorities to prohibit those meetings if they chose. Other Law Officers of the Crown having decided that the remedy lay only in an action for trespass, the Committee suggested the less cumbrous remedy of a fine of £5, in lieu of the tedious and useless machinery of a civil action for trespass, and generally proposed a far less severe regulation than existed in the case of many Parks recently presented to the people. He was, therefore, strongly of opinion that nothing could be more unjust than to say that the Government, in the legislation proposed, had invented a new principle. Being a strong advocate of the right of public meeting, having been present at meetings convened to denounce the Executive, and hoping to do so again, he objected to these meetings in the Parks in the spirit in which the Committee condemned them, because they interfered with the enjoyment of the people at large. He could not coincide in an argument made use of by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire and Earl Russell,

1739
that public meetings generally ended in fiascos, for as a student at Westminster School, his opportunities of judging of meetings before 1866 were somewhat extensive. He remembered the demonstration in honour of Garibaldi, and the counter-demonstration got up by those who favoured the Pope. The meeting was adjourned from week to week, and resulted in many persons being carried to St. George's Hospital. No one could have been a more impartial witness of what occurred. His sympathies were neither with the fillibuster, nor with the person designated by the Prime Minister as the Sovereign Pontiff. His only anxiety was that every survivor should be executed for the murder of his antagonist. He was present also on the occasion of the protest against Lord Ebury's Band Bill, and although he by no means approved that measure, he did not wish the scenes which occurred upon that occasion repeated. The Committee should disabuse its mind of the idea that this was legislation for a single class; because he thought that no single class should have the right of monopolizing places of public recreation. The reason the Committee did not propose an absolute veto upon meetings was, because they did not wish to prevent a colonel of Volunteers addressing his men, or forbid a speech at a public ceremonial.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTprotested against the doctrine which was being put forward, that these meetings were unlawful because the Law Officers of the Crown had said that they were unlawful. Why, the rights of Englishmen had been established by overthrowing the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. What was the history of every right that Englishmen had ever obtained except a struggle against the Law Officers of the Crown? When the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown received the sanction of a Court of Law, then Englishmen would obey it.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought that it was a misfortune that the Bill had not proceeded on the principle already existing in law—namely, of declaring that any public political meeting should not be held within a certain distance of the Houses of Parliament and the Royal residences. He believed that would have been a provision which the people of this country would have willingly obeyed. Under the 8th regulation, the people of
1740
the metropolis would be without an opportunity of holding public meetings, except by permission of the executive—and a right which was enjoyed by permission was no right at all.
MR. AUBERON HERBERT, amid cries of "Divide," rose to explain that when he spoke of the First Commissioner of Works, he had not the slightest intention of casting any dishonourable reflection either on one side of the House or the other.
COLONEL JERVISwould have supported the Bill, if it had been introduced in a straightforward manner; but, although it was evidently designed to suppress meetings in the public Parks, that intention was not boldly avowed. He could not understand why the people should be prohibited from holding political meetings in the Parks, if they were to be allowed to assemble at Trafalgar Square for such a purpose; and he should therefore vote in favour of the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 158 Noes 54: Majority 104.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. AYRTONthen proposed the following new clause:—
"Copies of Regulations to be observed in pursuance of this Act by persons using a Royal park to which this Act applies shall be put up in such park in such manner as the Commissioners may deem best calculated to give information to the persons using the park."
New clause—(Mr. Ayrton)—brought up, and read the first time.
On Motion, "That the clause be now read a second time."
MR. G. E. BROWNE MR. G. E. BROWNE moved, as an Amendment, in fine 3, after the word "such," to insert the word "conspicuous."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. RYLANDS MR. RYLANDS moved that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. AYRTONsaid, before Progress was reported, he wished to move a new clause, saving the rights of way.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTurged that the clauses in the Bill should proceed in their proper order, remarking that he had a clause on the Paper in reference to this subject, which he should move in the proper place. No Notice had been given of the Government clause.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Government had the privilege of bringing up its clauses first.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, it was important, in that case, that independent Members should know whether the Government had the privilege of bringing up clauses of which they had given no Notice?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the practice of the House was, that on a Government Bill the Government had the privilege of bringing up what clauses they pleased first.
MR. COLLINSwished to know, whether it was a practice for Members of the Government to adopt the clause of a private Member, and bring it up as their own?
MR. AYRTONsaid, that, having previously stated his intention to introduce the clause, he had not thought it necessary to go through the ceremony of putting it down in his name. He should, therefore, propose the following new clause:—
"Nothing in this Act shall authorize any interference with any rights of way or other easement to which any person or persons may be by law entitled."
MR. VERNON HARCOURTdesired to support the clause. The right hon. Gentleman would not, by this ingenious engineering—of which they had had several examples from the Treasury Bench during the last 24 hours—defeat the object with which the clause was prepared. The question of the rights of way had a material bearing on the Parks of London; for the Master of the Rolls—a higher authority than the Law Officers of the Crown—had declared in the House of Lords that the Government had no power to shut up the Parks against the people of London, because of these rights of way. In the last century, when the Ranger of Richmond Park attempted to shut up the Park, the inhabitants, headed by a clergyman in full canonicals, broke down a portion of the wall and entered through the breach. That was the first step in the assertion
1742
of the rights of way, which were afterwards established by proceedings in law.
MR. R. N. FOWLERasked, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford meant that the public had the power of passing through the Parks at night?
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, such was the dictum of the Master of the Bolls. His words were "in the day or in the night."
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorize the acquisition and appropriation by the Metropolitan Board of Works of certain land reclaimed from the River Thames, in pursuance of 'The Thames Embankment Act, 1862,'" said, he was informed that some hon. Gentleman were satisfied that they would be overreached by him. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members who cried out "Hear, hear," ought to wait and hear what he said, before alleging that he had ever overreached anybody, or even attempted to do so. The fact was, it had been discovered that the effect of bringing in this measure would be to prevent the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) from bringing in his Motion on Tuesday next. He and the hon. Member for Westminster had come to a certain understanding with regard to the Bill to-day; but many hon. Gentlemen, he heard, were rather angry because he, being aware of the effect of introducing the measure, had obtained an advantage over the hon. Member. He could only assure the House that he had no idea at the time, that the introduction of the Bill would exclude the hon. Member for Westminster from bringing forward his Motion, although he had been since informed that such would be the result. In short, he disclaimed all idea of overreaching the hon. Gentleman; and, as far as his own wishes were concerned, he regretted that the introduction of this Bill would prevent him from submitting his Motion to the House next week,

  1743
  [Cries of "Postpone!"] He could not, merely on account of the vague rumours which had reached him undertake to postpone his Motion. [Murmurs.] It was difficult to understand why an objection to the course he was taking should be raised by the hon. Member for Westminster, whose Motion was, that it was the duty of the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. Effect could not be given to those recommendations, except by means of a Bill. One recommendation was that the Metropolitan Board of Works should acquire the land, and that was impossible, unless an Act of Parliament gave them the power to do so. Again, the Report of the Committee contemplated that the Board of Works should lease the land; but the Act having reference to the Woods and Forests did not allow leases to be granted for a longer period than 31 years, and such a provision would not satisfy the requirements of the majority of the Committee. In the next place, the Woods and Forests would by the provision of their Act, be obliged to demand a rent having some relation to the value of the land to be let, while the Committee did not recommend that the rent should at all represent the value of the land. If the hon. Member for Westminster and his Friends were in a majority in the House, they could, of course, introduce into the Bill such modifications as they deemed proper. He was at a loss to know how to treat the subject, because there was a good deal to be said, and at that time (a quarter past 1) he was indisposed to obtrude upon the House by going into details. [Cries of "Postpone!" and "Move!"] He gathered that it was the wish of the House he should not trouble them with any observations at present, and therefore he would simply move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the acquisition and appropriation by the Metropolitan Board of Works of certain Land reclaimed from the River Thames, in pursuance of 'The Thames Embankment Act, 1862.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid that, after the understanding he had come to with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, though he certainly
  1744
  was taken by surprise, when he found that the effect would be to prevent him raising the question of which he gave Notice a long time ago, by a Motion which was framed in the spirit, if not in the exact letter, of the recommendations of the Committee of last year, under which Motion he hoped to obtain the distinct judgment of the House in favour and in support of those recommendations; but, after the full explanation which had been given, he entirely accepted the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman. There could be no doubt that the step which the Government had taken had deprived him and the House of the opportunity of expressing an opinion on the question; but, as the Government was prepared to put the Bill down for a second reading at a time when it could be fairly discussed, he would not oppose its introduction.
  MR. COLLINShoped it would be so, and that the House would be afforded that certainty, which was to be secured only by making the second reading the first Order on a Government night.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for Westminster had acted in a very courteous manner, and he (Mr. Gladstone) hoped the hon. Member would understand that the feeling of the Government on the subject was such, that if he felt he was really placed at a disadvantage they certainly would not press for the introduction of the Bill; but they were under the belief that the introduction of it was by far the best method of bringing to an issue the question which he wished to raise. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Westminster whether the most convenient course for his own purposes would not be to grapple with the Government proposal in Committee, and, if he thought it objectionable, to propose the substitution of his own?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had not answered the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), in that he had not named a day for the second reading.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the omission was a mere inadvertence. It was, of course, impossible at the moment for him to fix any particular day; but the Bill was one in respect to the further stages of which the convenience of the House would, of necessity, be consulted.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he should certainly move the adjournment of the House, unless they could receive an assurance that the Bill should be fixed as the first Order on a Government night.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the reason why he had not given the pledge was, that he thought the hon. Member for Westminster might find that the best period for raising the question between him and the Government would be on going into Committee.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEurged that the Government ought to agree to put the Bill as the first Order on a Government night.
  MR. RYLANDSthought the course of the Government was just and conciliatory. ["Oh!"] He objected to a small metropolitan matter like this taking up the time of the House on a Government night.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONcould not understand the course the Government adopted that evening. They had recommended the Royal Parks Bill, on the ground that it embodied the recommendations of a Select Committee, and they now endeavoured to press forward another Bill, which entirely ignored the recommendations of another Select Committee.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTbelieved he could solve the difficulty suggested by the noble Lord. In the case of the Public Parks Bill, the Select Committee had made a report unfavourable to the rights of the people; in the case of the Thames Embankment, the Select Committee had reported in their favour. The Government had acted with perfect consistency, for they had accepted the recommendations of the Public Parks Committee and rejected the recommendations of the other Committee, in both cases acting adversely to the interests of the people.
  MR. CARNEGIEremarked that the Thames Embankment Committee was unfairly constituted, and there were Members on it who dared not oppose any course taken by the hon. Member for Westminster. ["Order!"]
  MR. LOCKEcontended that the Government had already been twice defeated on the question, and, in not acting in accordance with the Report of the
  1746
  Committee, were placing the Crown in an invidious position, as if it was one of the duties of the Crown to rob the public. The question really was, whether this piece of land should be devoted to the ratepayers of the metropolis, at whose expense it was reclaimed. The preventing the bringing forward the Motion was an unfair mode of proceeding. By introducing a Bill the best mode of bringing the question to an issue had, in his opinion, been taken.
  MR. ANDERSONmaintained that the Government, if ever they were right, had been altogether in the right in the present question.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsuggested the postponement of the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order that the ground might be cleared by the discussion of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Westminster on Tuesday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the adoption of such a course instead of clearing the ground would encumber it. The wish of the Government was to bring the question to a distinct issue, and that, relating as it did to the quantum of price, could be best done in Committee on the Bill. Whenever that issue was raised, the first Government night at his disposal would be given for the discussion of the question, whether on the second reading or in Committee.
  MR. W. H. SMITHexpressed himself satisfied with this assurance.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 82.]

  ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BAXTER, Bill for amending the Law relating to the Harbours and Coasts of the Isle of Man, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BAXTER and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 83.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.