Commons Sitting of 1 April 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Co-operative Stores, nominated.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Aire and Calder Navigation; Crystal Palace District Gas *; Ilkley Gas *; Nottingham Corporation*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Licensing Act (1872) Amendment [108]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Inverness) * [112]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Paisley) [110].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Relief of Insane Poor [27].
Committee—Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) [93], [House counted out].
Committee—Report—Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) [3].
Third Reading—Racecourses (Metropolis) * [48], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  CITY OF GLASGOW BANK.—QUESTION.
  MR. YEAMANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that complaints have been made of injustice and oppression sustained under the judicial supervision of the liquidation of the City of Glasgow Bank, in respect of unnecessary litigation and inefficiency of supervision; whether he could state to the House the grounds on which the Court of Session did not frame rules for giving effect to the enactments of the Companies Act of 1862 in this respect in terms of the 171st section; and, whether a number of appeals now before the House of Lords by the liquidators against individual shareholders, and involving great hardships, did receive the judicial sanction of the Court of Session
  132
  under rules framed by the powers of the said Act of 1862?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): Under the 171st section of the Act, the Court of Session was empowered to make such rules as maybe necessary, and until these are made cases coming before them are to be governed by the ordinary procedure. It is also provided that a liquidator is to have the same powers as a trustee in bankruptcy. I have not heard any complaint to the effect that—
  "Injustice and oppression have been sustained under the judicial supervision of the liquidation of the City of Glasgow Bank, in respect of unnecessary litigation and inefficiency of supervision."
  No representation whatever has been made either to the Court of Session or to any other quarter; and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the judicial supervision of the liquidation has been of a very efficient kind. I must add that I regret that such a strong imputation should have been made on the administration of justice without some more definite notice of the grounds on which it is made.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY—"DOGE OF VENICE," BY VANDYCK.—QUESTION.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the portrait of Andrea Spinola, Doge of Venice, painted by Vandyck, which occupied the place of honour at the recent Exhibition of Pictures by Old Masters at Burlington House, had been bequeathed to the National Gallery by the late Sir Joseph Hawley, and refused by the Director of that Institution; and, if refused, why?
  MR. GERARD NOEL: Immediately I saw the Question of the hon. Member I communicated with the Director of the National Gallery. He informs me that the picture to which the hon. Member refers was not bequeathed to the National Gallery by Sir Joseph Hawley, and, therefore, it was not refused by the Director.

  IRELAND—GRAND JURIES—COMPENSATION FOR MALICIOUS INJURIES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in accordance with the prayer of a Petition lately presented to this House by the Grand Jury of the county of Kerry,

    133
    at Spring Assizes assembled, he intends to propose any alteration in the Law respecting the power entrusted to the Grand Juries to grant compensation for malicious injuries?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: There have been suggestions made, with a view to various alterations in the Grand Jury Laws; but I think it is scarcely possible that the Government will be in a position to deal with the question of malicious injuries until the Grand Jury system has been dealt with in the Bill proposed to be introduced this Session.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES— SERGEANT INSTRUCTORS OF VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the sergeant instructors of Volunteers appointed serjeant majors under Article 204 of Volunteer Regulations 1863, and previous to the issue of the Volunteer Regulations of 1878, would, when they retired, be entitled to a pension as laid down for a serjeant major in the Royal Warrant dated 6th of September 1876, and amended July 9th 1877?
  COLONEL STANLEY: There is not, and never has been, any such rank as sergeant-major in the Volunteers, one of the sergeant instructors being allowed to act as such, and being granted an addition of 6d. a-day to his pay; but as these non-commissioned officers do not hold the actual rank of sergeant-major, they are not entitled to the sergeant-major's rate of pension laid down in the Regulation quoted. I may add that there have been some few cases in which the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have, from a want of proper information, granted the higher rates of pension. These cases it is not intended to interfere with; but I do not consider that they should form any ground for admitting others to the higher rate.

  BURMAH—RUMOURED ULTIMATUM.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RICHARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any truth in the announcements which appear in the public journals that an ultimatum was sent last week to the Resident at Mandalay for delivery to the King, and that in this ultimatum the Viceroy demands, among other matters, that the
    134
    British Resident shall be received at the Court without the ceremony of approaching the King without boots; that a British cantonment and garrison be established at Mandalay; that no Europeans be employed at Mandalay without the British sanction; and that all the existing royal monopolies shall be abolished; whether it is true that General Gore, the Officer commanding in British Burmah, has applied for five thousand more troops; and, whether his request for more troops has been granted and to what extent?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: With the permission of the House, I will answer the Question of the hon. Member. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India is in constant communication with the Viceroy, and I have his authority for saying that he has no reason to believe that anything of the kind has taken place. My answer must be understood as applying to both the rumours that have been referred to.

  THE CAPE COLONY—SIR BARTLE FRERE AND SIR HENRY BULWER.

    QUESTION.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the statement made in the telegrams from the Cape is correct, viz., that a serious disagreement has occurred between Sir Bartle Frere and Sir Henry Bulwer with regard to the treatment of the Native levies; and, if that statement is true, what steps the Government propose to take?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom this Question might more properly have been addressed, is not in the House; but I have been informed that he has received no information whatever to the effect stated.

  FOREIGN LOTTERIES ACT.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, inasmuch as by the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 74, the Act now in force for suppression of advertisements of lotteries, action for recovery of penalties is confined to the Law Officers of the Crown and certain other officials; and, that notwithstanding frequent in formations with respect to

    135
    such lotteries actually going on, the Law Officers have not taken action or allowed others to do it in their names, If he will arrange that in future the same course that was taken with the projected Bank Lotteries will be taken with all others?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It appears that this Question relates to the subject of advertising the holding of lotteries, and not to the lotteries themselves. With regard to advertising, any person so doing renders himself liable to penalties to be sued for by the Attorney General in the Court of Exchequer. In several cases I have given warnings to persons that they were liable to be proceeded against in that way, and I have handed over the papers to the Solicitor of the Treasury for him to deal with, and in such cases as, in my opinion, ought to be the subject of proceedings, I shall continue to do so. I do not feel bound to interfere generally in regard to these matters. So far as Scotland is concerned the matter is different. There parties offending are liable to prosecution both on indictment and summary conviction, and at the suit of any individual prosecutor.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— PLANS OF THE CAMPAIGN.

    QUESTION.
    SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, it having been officially stated that Lord Chelmsford's plan of campaign against the Zulu King was submitted to and approved by the Horse Guards or Military Authorities of this Country prior to its being put into execution, his future plan of campaign has also been submitted to and approved by the Horse Guards or Military Authorities in this Country?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Lord Chelmsford's plan of campaign against the Zulu King was not submitted to the Horse Guards or the military authorities of this country in the sense in which that term is generally understood; but the Horse Guards and military authorities—and, I may add, myself—were cognizant of the terms of Lord Chelmsford's Memorandum, which was attached to despatches, and we saw no reason why we should interfere, with, perhaps, imperfect knowledge, with the discretion of the General Officer on the spot. So far as I am aware, Lord Chelmsford has not seen any reason
    136
    to depart from his general ideas respecting military operations in Zululand; and I must say that I should consider that only most exceptional circumstances could be held to justify interference by the home authorities with the plans of a General Officer commanding in the field.

  POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACTS— PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the Postmaster General, What have been the number and the amount of the penalties incurred by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for late arrivals since the year 1874, when the present contract commenced, under the absolute penalty system now in force; and, what would have been the number and amount of the premiums which the Company would have been entitled to for early arrivals of Mails during the same period if the Clause admitting such premiums, calculated as usual at half the amount only of the penalties in each case, had not been struck out by the Postmaster General when the last contract was renewed?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Since the present contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company commenced, in 1874, there have been 117 voyages on which penalties were incurred, amounting to £32,300. Had premiums, calculated at half the amount of penalties in each case been stipulated for in the contract, there would have been earned by the Company on 644 voyages, during the same period, the sum of £92,400.

MOTIONS.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.

    MOTION FOR. AN ADDRESS.
    MR. J. R. YORKE,in rising to move the following Eesolution:—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the origin, objects, and present administration of Wellington College; and to report to Her Majesty whether such administration is or is not in accordance with the conditions, or implied conditions, under which contributions were solicited and obtained from the army and the public when the College was founded; and, if not, to advise Her Majesty what alterations in the present system are required, and by what means they can best be effected,"

    137
    said, he did not wish to make any imputation of misconduct upon the present Staff of the College, which he believed consisted of able and energetic gentlemen, who, within the limits of their powers, had done all that was possible for the interests of the College. Neither was it his intention to cast any imputation of moral misdemeanour on the Governing Body of the College. What he intended to question was the policy which they had deliberately adopted since the opening of the College; and he should endeavour to show that it had not been in accordance with the engagements made when it was founded. The result was that there had been produced a state of things different from that contemplated by the original subscribers. The College was founded as a Memorial of the great Duke under a Charter, granted under the Great Seal in 1853, which stated that it was intended for the orphans of deceased officers, and for none others. In February, 1854, a report from the committee of Governors to a general meeting of subscribers contained a suggestion that the benefits of the College should be extended to the sons of living officers, and that their admission should be made the means of providing, in subordination to the primary object of the institution, a Public School at which the sons of officers might be educated at moderate charges. It was thought that such an extension of the original design would be highly beneficial to the school, and would confer a benefit on the Service by supplying a want long felt, and which they had unsuccessfully attempted to provide by their own unaided efforts. A resolution was passed that all meals should be taken in common, and that all boys admitted as boarders should be treated in this and in every respect as the foundation boys were. In July, 1855, in an appeal issued by the Governors for funds to provide a water supply, complete the chapel, and lay out the grounds, it was stated that it was intended to establish a school for 200 foundation orphans and 40 non-foundationers. The sum required was £26,000; the appeal brought in between£5,000and £6,000; it was, therefore, determined that the upper dormitories should be dispensed with "at present." The original intention of the Governors was, therefore, deferred, but not abandoned. In 1856 the first stone was laid by Her
    138
    Majesty, to whom an address was presented, in which it was stated to be the anxious hope of the Governors that within the walls, at no distant day, 200 orphans of officers would be educated, lodged, boarded, partially clothed, and otherwise provided for between the ages of 11 and 16, and that admission would be regulated by strict attention to the claims of deceased officers and the circumstances of survivors. Finally, the College was opened with 81 orphan foundationers, and it was afterwards resolved that a certain number of non-foundationers should be admitted, the number not to exceed 100, and that for these places the sons of officers should have preference, and pay at the rate of £70 a-year, but that a certain number of the sons of civilians should be admitted at a fee of £100 a-year, The College was opened in January, 1859, the opening being inaugurated by Her Majesty, and at that time promises were held out as to improvements which might take place. The idea at the time was, undoubtedly, to found an efficient and unpretentious school for the orphan sons of military officers, and that they should receive a good education without the example of extravagance—the civilian element to be subservient to the military. What was the contention of the Governors? He gathered from the correspondence between the Adjutant General and the secretary last autumn that, subject to the obligations of maintaining a certain number of the sons of officers, they were to be at liberty to manage the College in other respects very much as they pleased. They put forward two alternative principles—first, that of an orphan charity school, which they regarded as being too narrow in its scope; and, secondly, that of a school for high-class education, conducted on a broader basis, which was the one they adopted. What had been the general result of that course? The school now consisted of 80 orphans, costing £6,400 a-year, or £80 a-year each; also 80 sons of officers, not orphans, paying £80 10 s. a-year each, and £6 entrance fee. That produced neither profit nor loss. There was also a supplementary element, consisting of about 210 boys, and these were a source of profit. Some of these waited for admission to the second class for 15 months, during which they were paying £110 a-year, while some civilians paid as much as £135 a-year in the

    139
    houses of the senior masters. The proportion of boys in the College was 283, as against 82 in houses, thus making a total of 365. There were the primary, subsidiary, and supplementary classes. The first comprised the orphan or primary section. At the opening of the College the prospect had been held out of the number of orphans being increased to 200; but instead of that they had diminished from 81 to 80. The school profits, added to all the other pecuniary donations which the College had received since the opening in 1859, amounted to £70,755; but the total amount received since 1852 was £235,983. So that nearly £236,000 had been contributed for the College, and as the result they had only the maintenance of these 80 orphans. He asked the House to contrast that with the solemn promise of the Governors, made in the presence of Her Majesty at the opening of the College, to increase the number of orphans to 200. The contrast was remarkable, and showed that the College had failed for the purpose for which it was established. With respect to the principles upon which the orphans were admitted, some time ago the limit of age was between 10 and 14; but since that time an alteration had been made, and the limit had been fixed at from 9 to 12. Now, surely an arbitrary limit of this kind was most unreasonable. Suppose that some of the officers who unfortunately lost their lives at Isandlana happened to have boys over 12 years of age. Were they to be considered so hopelessly corrupted and ignorant, that they could not be admitted to receive the education which they would have been eligible for if their parents had died when they were 11. A test examination, which was not originally contemplated, had also been introduced, and boys of the age of nine years were required to pass in Latin, grammar, and French. The result of the mania for a high intellectual standard was that the boys who were, or ought to be, the most eligible, were rejected, because they did not, at that tender age, come up to the requisite standard. An accident in infancy, for example, might so retard a boy's education as to deprive him of the educational advantages intended for him by the promoters of this institution. It was all very well for those in middle age to console themselves in their selfishness by the reflection that they had for-
    140
    tunately been born at a time when there was plenty of room for them in the world; but really, in these days, it was no joke to be a boy. The system adopted at the College virtually excluded the very cases which had the best right to be included. What was required was that this charity school—for such it was—should, so to say, take in the lame, the halt, and the blind. If there was to be any race in the matter, it had better be an intellectual donkey race, in which the most ignorant children would get in. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Yes, he maintained that in a charity school ignorance and poverty ought to be the highest qualifications for admission; and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite cheered ironically, he would refer to a letter written by Mr. Price, the master of Westward Ho! School, North Devon, who pointed out that if the sons of military men were often not so well educated as those of civilians, it was due in a great measure to the fact that their means obliged them to spend a great deal of their time on foreign service, and that, therefore, they were not in a position to supervise the education of their children. He now came to the subsidiary class—the sons of living officers. It was originally intended and officially mentioned that they should be taken at £30 a-year. He did not say that sum was sufficient; but there was a great difference between £30 and £80. Now, the lowest charge was£81 10 s., without clothing, and subject to competitive examination. Surely, that was no great boon, seeing that at some of the Colleges for young gentlemen, where there was no endowment, the charge was only £84. It was stated by the Head Master, in his circular of October, 1874, that the number of those boys should be reduced to 80. It was added that the amount paid by those boys left neither profit nor loss on them. Why, then, their number should be reduced he failed to see. Such was the position of the sons of living officers. If they paid £110 a-year, they were taken without competitive examination; if they paid £81 10s., they were subjected to such examination. When he turned to other large educational establishments, he found that at Cowley, Oxford—the most expensive of them—the sum charged was £89; but there was no endowment. At Westward Ho! one of the best managed of all, the charge was only £67 a-year, and that was sufficient to pay a dividend

    141
    of 4 per cent on the shares of the Company. Among schools that were continually advertised under distinguished patronage—at Trent College, for instance, under the patronage of the Duke of Devonshire—the charge was only £50, and at Dover College, under the patronage of Earl Granville, the same. It was a remarkable thing that such an education as was afforded at Wellington College, could not, in spite of its endowment, be had for less than £80, and he thought there must be some mismanagement. Then, as regarded the supplementary or civilian class, numbering 210, some who were in the College paid £110, others who were in the masters' houses paid up to £135. At Wellington College, instead of making a profit, they had a deficit, and they endeavoured to make it up out of the civilians, which reminded him of some of the interesting writings of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) in reference to those ants which were represented as keeping milch cows. There was one other matter to which he desired to draw attention—namely, that vested interests were gradually growing up on the estate. Two of the masters had built their own houses; and an advertisement had appeared in The Saturday Review under the heading "Wellington College—Educational advantages," stating that a house on the estate was to be sold, carrying the right to send boys to the school. Surely in an establishment of that kind it was very objectionable to allow those vested interests to grow up; and if the question of revising the system should be considered, as he trusted it might be, by a Royal Commission, it was to be hoped that this matter of vested interests would receive attention. His contention in the main was that Wellington College had in 27 years departed nearly as much from the original intention of the founders as Eton had in 400 years. It seemed to him that such progress should be arrested; at all events, that inquiry should be made as to whether the progress was in the right direction. If not he feared they would have another of those little Etons which were growing up over the country; and, instead of its fulfilling the end for which it was intended, they would have, no doubt, a large and well-managed school, but not one which extended its benefits to those for whom they were meant to be provided. There had been a correspondence at the
    142
    instigation of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, in which the attention of the Governing Body was called to the very great and widespread disaffection existing in the Army with regard to the College. He had in his possession a vast collection of letters written by officers of distinction, whose testimony was highly authoritative, although he was not at liberty to mention their names. Among such communications which he had received there were eight from generals, five from lieutenant-generals, and nine from major-generals. In these numbers were included all the generals in command of districts in England and Wales. Nor did these officers speak in their mere individual capacity. They were all representative men, and they recorded the testimony of their particular districts. The only general officer, in fact, who seemed to think the College was well managed was the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute). His (Mr. Yorke's) allegations against the College were that they had only 80 orphans instead of 200, and that they had imposed the test examination, by which they excluded the very boys for whom the institution was intended, and who, by reason of the circumstances of their parents, had not had the advantages of a good education. He contended that it ought not to be necessary to fill the College with civilians. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have cheered him ironically. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Not ironically in the least.] He was glad to hear that such was the case. He objected to the creation of vested interests, and contended that there had been a vast amount of financial mismanagement, against which the Adjutant General had protested in vain. He acknowledged that it was a formidable tiling to attack an establishment which had on its management such a formidable list of Royal and aristocratic names as had this. Nearly all the Royal Family and most of the present Cabinet Ministers were included in the management. He almost felt as if he was moving a vote of want of confidence in the Royal Family as well as in the Governors of the institution; but, of course, it was not to be supposed that all the illustrious and distinguished personages whose names appeared in connection with the College could be unremitting in their attendance at the meetings of the Governors. He

    143
    thought it would be wrong to be deterred from asking for an inquiry by the magnificence of the names on the outside of the College circular. He asked the House to grant him this Royal Commission, because every other means of investigating the evils of which he had complained had hitherto failed. Complaints without number had been made; compromises had been attempted; mixed commissions had had their champions; all sorts of expedients had had their advocates, and they had all broken down. There was, to his mind, something appropriate in appointing a Royal Commission in connection with an institution so largely established and supported by Royal patronage. Though the College authorities were not legally, they were equitably bound to publish their accounts and to act as the public now wished them to act. If the appointment of a Royal Commission were permitted, the House would be doing a great public service, and assisting the onward progress of an institution which at one time had done great good, and was still capable, under proper management, of realizing the expectations formed at the date of its foundation. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    MR. R. E. PLUNKETT,in rising to second the Motion, wished to anticipate one or two objections which might be raised against the case which he advocated, and to prevent one or two possible misconceptions. It might be objected, he said, that he and those who agreed with him were altogether averse from the admission of civilians to Wellington College. But, as a matter of fact, the officers did not complain of the admission of civilians. They were, on social grounds, very glad that the civilian element should be added to the school; but their case was, that the sons of officers had been excluded from the institution while the sons of civilians had been admitted. Why should this have been the case? The Army had subscribed largely towards the foundation of the College; it was instituted as a national memorial of the greatest military leader our Army had ever possessed, and it was understood at the time when it was built that it was to supply a great want in the military education of the country. These facts had been put forward by the officers; but they were met by a rather frigid spirit on the part of the College authorities. He wished the House to
    144
    recollect with what indifference the demands of the officers for facts and figures had been treated. The officers interested in the affairs of the College complained—as they had a right to—of the fact that no full and proper accounts were published as to the expenses incurred, or as to the reasons which might be supposed to exist for increasing the cost of managing the College. In return, the letters they received reminded him of an official correspondence a friend of his had with the War Office. His gallant friend sent in a bill of expenses, in which the item "Porter 1s." occurred; he received a note from the Department on a large sheet of foolscap informing him that refreshments were not allowed. Of course, the officer wrote to explain that, being at one railway station, and requiring to go to another, he employed a "porter" to carry h is luggage. The Department acknowledged the explanation; but suggested that in the future he should in such cases use the word "porterage," to prevent confusion in the Office. His gallant friend concluded the correspondence by asking whether, when he had to charge a cab, he should put it down as "cabbage." He would defy anyone to tell how many boys were in the school, as three different numbers were given by the Directors in the same letter—namely, 301, 365, and 291—so that really one could not tell what reliance to put upon the Directors' report. Nor could they get the amount of money spent upon the boys. The most difficult point to be dealt with was the kind of education to be given in the College. The College was intended for the advantage of the Army; but the Army element was being gradually pushed out from the advantages of the scheme on which the College was based. The Governors maintained that at some indefinite time they might increase the number of the orphans; but as it stood, not only was the number of orphans limited, but the number of paying officers' sons. The motto, "Filii heroum," had been written on the school by its founders; but it now would have to be translated, not "sons of heroes," but "sons of monied men." The help of the House of Commons would be necessary to achieve that object. He desired the College to remain as a military College, and not be turned into a proprietary school. He felt that the Army would receive no

    145
    satisfaction from the Governors unless the House took the matter in hand; and he would, therefore, ask hon. Members, if they granted the request asked for, to grant it in full. If the House determined to proceed, let them proceed in a manner which was worthy of its dignity, and not allow any half-measures to be used, but let them see at once that right be done.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that tier Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the origin, objects, and present administration of Wellington College; and to report to Her Majesty whether such administration is or is not in accordance with the conditions, or implied conditions, under which contributions were solicited and obtained from the army and the public when the College was founded; and, if not, to advise Her Majesty what alterations in the present system are required, and by what moans they can best be effected."—(Mr. Reginald Yorke.)
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, that having served on the last Royal Commission on Military Education, and on the Public Schools Commission, he had taken some pains to ascertain the facts about Wellington College, and to form an opinion. The House would, no doubt, show the utmost consideration for gallant officers who thought themselves aggrieved; but he trusted that hon. Members would approach the question in a spirit somewhat different from that which had pervaded the speeches of the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Motion. As to the facts, there had been much misconception, nor had they now been stated quite correctly. The total subscriptions to Wellington College, including £25,000 from the Patriotic Fund, amounted to £165,000. Of that sum, £60,000 was spent at once upon the site and buildings, and the remaining £105,000 was invested as an Endowment Fund, at 4 per cent, producing £4,200 a-year. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) added a sum of more than £70,000, which he said had been received since the school was opened. But most of that sum was income, laid out as it accrued, partly on current expenses, partly in completing the College, and in adding a Head Master's house, a chapel, an excellent sanatorium, and other buildings, resembling those of the best Public Schools. The endowment with which the Governors bad to deal was £4,200 a-year. With that sum at their disposal,
    146
    two policies were open to them. It was possible to educate a larger number of boys on a cheaper system, or to give to a smaller number a more expensive education. To expect that a sum of £30 a-year would pay for the board and proper education of officers' sons was almost ludicrous. At £40 a-year 100 boys might have been educated, or 80 boys at £50. The Governors decided to take 80 boys, but to give them an education I costing £80 a-year. Where, then, was the additional £30 to come from? It was obtained by admitting sons of civilians, who were willing, seeing the excellence of the education, to pay £110 a-year, being £30 above the cost price. These civilians went in to the open market, and selected Wellington College as likely to give them the best bargain for their money. Thus the College obtained a profit sufficient, not only to make good the deficit for the 80 orphans, but also to give the means of gradually completing the buildings. At the same time, 80 sons of living officers were admitted at the cost price of £80. Their number was limited, because the College could not yet afford to take more of them without profit. These being the facts, the question raised by the hon. Mover I was twofold—first, was there any breach of faith? and, secondly, was the policy; a mistaken one? As regarded the sons of living officers, it could not for a moment; be contended that there was any departure from the original engagements. His hon. Friend did not state what proportion of the endowments was subscribed before there was any mention of this class. He was informed that the subscriptions already in hand before the sons of living officers were mentioned were nearly 95 per cent of the whole. The hon. Member for West Gloucestershire said the Army had subscribed largely. But what they subscribed after the proposal to admit others than orphans was little more, he believed, than ½per cent of the total funds. As to the general policy of the Governors, they had to do honour to the memory of a great man. Their feeling was that both the buildings of Wellington College and the education given there should be worthy of him. They resolved that the instruction should be first-rate, and especially that it should be such as to fit lads for the higher scientific branches of the Army. And, in that respect, the school had been remarkably successful.

    147
    In the year 1877–8, among the candidates entering Woolwich, there were 10 from Wellington College, some of whom took very high places, and 32 obtained direct commissions in the Army without leaving school to go to a crammer, a point to which the Military Education Commissioners attached great importance. Others had won Scholarships and Exhibitions at Oxford and Cambridge. Such results could not be achieved without considerable expense. At Marlborough, it was true, for sons of the clergy the cost was somewhat less; but this was partly owing to the number being greater. With an increase of numbers at Wellington College, the cost per head might be reduced. At Cowley a Military College had been founded on co-operative principles by officers themselves, than whom none knew better how to obtain full value for their money. But the cost at Cowley College was about £10 a-head higher than at Wellington. At Cowley, it was true, there was no endowment; but at Wellington the endowment was only for the orphans, and did not much reduce the price to others. Westward Ho! had also been quoted, but it remained to be seen whether the school there would continue to educate boys up to a good standard at the present charge. As to competition for entrance, there was, no doubt, something to be said against it in the case of officers' sons who had not the advantages enjoyed by others. But it was now applied at Wellington only to a very small extent. Under Dr. Benson, 10 places were reserved for competition. As for the test examination, his hon. Friend would probably not find many in the House to agree with him that it involved any breach of faith, or that the memory of the great Duke would be best honoured by an intellectual donkey race. It could not seriously be maintained that the Governors of Wellington College were taken bound not to hold an ordinary entrance-examination, such as was enforced in almost every school of credit. The hon. Member had dwelt on the hardship to boys who had not received an education suitable to their age. No doubt, there were hard cases of that kind. But in all schools such boys were a most difficult element to deal with. They were, of necessity, classed among the small boys where often, they did a world of mischief. The same difficulty
    148
    led to the superannuation of boys who did not make progress answering to their age. The Head Master, he believed, was desirous that there should be no mechanical rule of superannuation, and the regulations of that kind were worked in a spirit of leniency, and afforded no substantial ground for complaint. The question really at issue was, what kind or "grade" of education should be given? If it was to be of the first grade, the sum of £80 for board and instruction was not excessive. The Schools Inquiry Commission, it was true, alleged the example of Marlborough as proving that if the buildings be provided the best education could be given for less than £60 a-year. But the cost at Marlborough was now £65 a-head with 560 boys. In the opinion of the Head Master of Uppingham, who was an authority on this matter, having given much attention to it, £80 a-year was low for the average cost of a first-grade school of 300 boys. The charge of luxurious living at Wellington he held to be unfounded. This was admitted by the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire with respect to the College itself. In the masters' houses the charge was naturally higher, but did not exceed £130. Bearing in mind that this included a profit of £30 to the College, the living could hardly be called luxurious, as compared with other schools. There might be room for improvements and economies; but, if any inquiry were necessary, he thought it should not be by a Royal Commission, the appointment of which might be supposed to imply some censure upon the policy of the Governors. It would be better to appoint a committee from among the Governors themselves. They were a body of very distinguished men, some of whom, as Cabinet Ministers or otherwise, had little time to spare; but others, not less capable, had leisure for investigation. Such a committee might confer with the officers who had complaints to make, and might report to the Crown as Visitor of the College. His own impression was that the presence of civilians in the College, when rightly understood, would cease to be complained of as a grievance. Financially, as his hon. Friend had said, they might be regarded as milch cows. But they stood also in other and more honourable relations to their companions. It was undesirable that any school should consist exclusively

    149
    of a single element—military, clerical, or commercial. Wellington College was intended chiefly for the sons of soldiers; but, with all the good equalities they displayed—such as manliness and regard for truth, and honour—it was for their own good and for the good of society that they should mingle at school, as in after-life, with the sons of other professional classes. On these grounds he was not disposed to find fault with the policy of the Governors, but rather to admire the success they had achieved within the space of 20 years in founding a great Public School.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not speak with the authority which my hon. Friend who has just sat down derives from having taken part in inquiries relating to education, and military education in particular; but my domestic relation with the Head Master has caused me to become acquainted with the arrangements of the school in some degree, and I am very desirous to do what I can towards assisting the House in this discussion, which involves some elements of obscurity which, in my opinion—and I say it without any disrespect—have not been cleared, but rendered darker, by the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. I think there is a good deal of force in what has fallen from my hon. Friend behind me with regard to the Governors of Wellington College. It has not been a usual proceeding on the part of the House, although it is a thing that has been done, to pay for the appointment of a Royal Commission in invitos. When a Commission was so appointed on the University of Oxford, some of the Colleges refused to give evidence, and there were no means of obtaining it; and when, subsequently, a later Government proceeded to examine the case of the Public Schools, and came to the conclusion that an inquiry by Royal Commission was desirable, they also came to the conclusion that they must either proceed with the goodwill of the authorities or else ask Parliament for authority to appoint a Commission. They made a reference to the Public Schools on the subject, and the authorities were perfectly willing that such a Commission should be issued. In the present case, I think it would be a considerable rebuke to the Governors if the House were to adopt this Motion. It is perfectly true, undoubtedly, that many of the Governors in a body of this
    150
    kind do not pay great attention to the regular and ordinary transaction of business. But it is also true, in this instance, at any rate, that many of the Governors have paid very great attention to it. I believe I may say, among others, that the distinguished father of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did himself give a very great amount of time and attention to the consideration of all these arrangements; and, in fact, I have a strong conviction that there was no important arrangement of the College which had not his consideration and, I believe, his approval. It is rather a serious matter whether you will invade their province and show such a want of confidence in this body as to propose to interfere with their proceedings, and, especially in the case of a College with a constitution of this kind. For the Queen is a Visitor of the College; and I have not the least doubt that, in virtue of that capacity, it would be perfectly possible for Her Majesty's Government to institute any inquiry for which they may think there would be a case conformable with the rules of the College, without implying the slightest reproof or disparagement to those to whom I think we are very considerably indebted for having superintended and regulated the foundation of a very important and efficient institution. It certainly is an efficient College; and it is no small matter in the course of 20 years to put bricks into the soil, and to constitute a school that shall be able to take rank with our other Public Schools; nor can it be done for a small sum of money. I should like to have some of the obscurities in connection with the question cleared up. Both the hon. Member, and Sir Charles Bllice in his later letters, assume that they speak for the Army; they say the Army thinks this and that, and desires such and such a course to be followed. But we have no authentic means of information to tell us in what degree the dissatisfaction which exists is the dissatisfaction of the officers, or even of a portion of the officers, and very naturally that portion, in the persons of their friends, may have been the most unfortunate with regard to obtaining the benefit and provisions of the foundation. The hon. Gentleman has really run a tilt at intellectual excellence; but before I enlist under his banner, I should like to know whither he intends to lead. The hon. Member

    151
    objects to all examinations of children of 9 or 10 years of age. [Mr. J. R. YORKE: Hear, hear!] But what in the world does the hon. Member mean, when he consents to a system of public examination, not for the children of officers, but for the children of peasants, who have infinitely less means of general information, and which system we are endeavouring to work entirely upon the basis of education for children of the most tender years?
    MR. J. R. YORKE: I object to their being excluded from the possibility of instruction, as a consequence of their ignorance, when they present themselves for admission.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is precisely the case. The hon. Member says that this is a College founded for the halt, the lame, and the blind. I will not again refer to his simile of the intellectual donkey race; but let me assure the hon. Member that if this is to be a school for the halt, the lame, and the blind, and if those officers' children who have been better instructed and better prepared are to be put aside in order that the most ignorant as well as the poorest children may be admitted by preference—that if such a state of things is to be established—the hon. Gentleman will, undoubtedly, introduce a revolution into the arrangements of this College. It is quite evident that the intention of the Governors was to establish an institution and an educational system upon a high scale and a high class. They knew very well that there was an idea in the public mind that the officers themselves had not been sufficiently instructed, and they desired to lay the foundations of education in their children and to rear up young men who would afterwards take rank with the most highly instructed officers of the Army. But that could not be done at a small cost; and if, instead of aiming at a high education, they had substituted for their pupils the halt, the lame, and the blind, the staff would disappear. It would be no hardship to the staff, of course; but the hon. Member would have to choose men of a very different stamp to deal with the intellectual hospital that he proposed to establish in honour of the Duke of Wellington. It is really a question between the better and the worse. In my opinion, it is a misfortune that a good education, although an excellent commodity, is
    152
    very expensive, and I am sorry to see it is growing dearer and dearer in this country. There are many who regard the expense of education as a real grievance; but the House must not think to dispose of the matter by referring to the very touching circumstances that may always be brought forward in abundance as to the children of those officers who have fallen in action. The test of the matter is whether the hon. Member has succeeded in dealing with those children. Between him and me there is no difference on one point—we agree that the College was founded for the benefit of the officers of the Army, and certainly not for the benefit of the public at large. It is for the officers of the Army, subject only to the limitation that the funds are to be applied exclusively to the maintenance of the orphan children of officers; and the children of other and non-military persons are introduced there in order that, by their introduction, they may extend to the officers of the Army the advantages that the College was intended to secure. There is no difference of opinion between us on this point; but the hon. Member complains that there are only 80 orphan children in the College, whereas 200 were originally promised—as the hon. Member said, solemnly promised. Another of his complaints is that the paying children are admitted only in limited numbers; and thirdly, he complains of the very large number of civilians. Now, these complaints are absolutely destructive of one another. The hon. Member complains that there are too few orphans, while at the same time there are too many civilians; but it is quite clear that if he cuts down the number of civilians, he will also be obliged to curtail that of the 80 orphans. The figures with respect to the College are not complicated. The income of the College available for eleemosynary purposes is £4,000 a-year, and the sum spent on the orphans is £6,400. There is, therefore, a sum of £2,400 to be found every year in order to meet the eleemosynary expenditure upon the orphan children of officers. How is that sum provided? Simply out of the extra payments and out of the profits afforded to the College by those lay or non-professional scholars of whom the hon. Member complained that there were too many. But if you choose to cut off one-third of them, you

    153
    cut off one-third part, or £800, of your £2,400 a-year, and you must consequently cut down 10 orphans, whose maintenance is represented by that £800.
    MR. J. R. YORKE: I described the mal-administration to which the management of the Governors had brought the College.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am glad of that, because it leads me to endeavour to disentangle two questions which are entirely distinct, but which have been unfortunately mixed in the letters of Sir Charles Ellice and in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion. Those questions are—Have the Government been guilty in the past of sacrificing to the lay element the interests of the professional element in the College? I do not hesitate to say that the main strain and stress of Sir Charles Ellice's letter is upon that charge, and that strikes at the whole foundation of the system of government in the College. In my opinion, it is an argument which cannot be sustained in argument, but which is perfectly self-destructive; because the most superficial examination of the figures will show any Member of this House that it is by the lay element that the Governors are enabled, as matters now stand, to extend the eleemosynary expenditure of the College. The same thing applies, only in a minor degree, to the other complaint of the hon. Member, that the paying children of officers are not admitted except in limited numbers; but it is easy to see that there is no force in that argument. Let us suppose, for example, that instead of 80 paying children of officers we took 160; the meaning of that is, you put in 80 laymen who have paid £30 a-piece towards the maintenance of the 80 orphans who have not paid at all. You may say "No," because, though I eject 80 lay scholars from the College buildings, they may go into the masters' houses. Yes, but we have not done with the inconsistencies of the case; because one of the specific causes of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that there was such a large number of masters' houses, so that he has cut himself off entirely from that refuge. [Mr. J. R. YORKE: I complained simply of the terms.] Yes; but could the masters find houses for nothing? If you are to have a great addition to the officers' children, and you are not to eject the paying boys altogether in order to re-
    154
    ceive that great addition, you must provide for them by sending them elsewhere where the charge will be higher; and I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman approves the large invasion of the Endowment Fund which will be necessary in order to raise the new College buildings which would, in these circumstances, be required. But let us carefully separate the question whether the lay element is to be sacrified to the professional from that other question which ran more or less obscurely through the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. The question is a very serious one—Have the Governors of Wellington College been right or wrong infixing the scale on which the institution has been established? And this embraces two essential points—first, as to the scale of living; and, secondly, as to the education which is given. There can be no doubt that, upon the whole, the College has been administered on the same principles from the first. I quite agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman on one point, and that is that it was most unfortunate that before any practical step was taken philanthropy had an opportunity of putting its dreams into pen and ink ad libitum, and that the officers who naturally would be ready to catch at such a prospect should be told that for £30 a-year they could have their boys supported and educated. That was an extraordinary miscalculation; but very shortly after it was made the Governors were employed in taking into consideration the erection of the structure, and they determined that they would build a single room for every boy. Now, I ask any hon. Gentleman who is conversant with the arrangements of our Public Schools what he thinks of the accordance between a magnificent building, with a spacious room for each boy, and the charge of £30 a-year? But there is another curious fact which has reached me from authentic sources, and that is that at the time when, of course, the Governors were very reluctant to recede from the expectation of providing education for £30 a-year, once that expectation had been held out, the question was being taken seriously into consideration whether it would be necessary to give the boys meat every day in the week, or only upon a certain number of days. What satisfaction would it now give if the dietary of Wellington Col-

    155
    lege should be fixed so that there should be meat only on three days a-week? The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) will correct me if I am wrong; but I believe that within no very long time the Governors have thought it right and wise that the boys should have meat twice a-day if it suited them—in fact, there is an upward tendency in expenditure that is a most serious matter to examine into. Those who have given so much time and thought to the organization of this institution from the first were of opinion, if I am not mistaken, that it should be a school of a high class, and that it could not be made a school of that class in regard to its intellectual standard unless the mode of living were also fixed on a certain scale, which, however, is not extravagantly high. That has been, I believe, a fundamental idea in the arrangement of the institution all along. Now, is it possible to bring that question to an issue? There is no use or advantage in blinking the matter. The lay element is made to contribute to the support of the military element. It contributes largely, and I hope may be made to contribute more liberally. But if complaint is made of the sacrifice of the military to the lay element, I am very sorry that that pressure for a more economical system of expenditure has not been brought before the public by officers in the Army. If there are a large number of officers who want a change of system, there is no reason why they should not put it forward. It has never, in fact, been put before the Governors; but representations to the Governors have all along been founded upon the accusations which were made in the course of the speech of the hon. Member to-night. The hon. Member was not quite fair towards the Governors. He says they promised that 200 orphans should be supported out of these funds, but they never proposed anything of the kind. Lord Derby, indeed, stated that he anxiously hoped that, at some not distant time, 200 orphans might be provided for. That expression of a hope was magnified into an expectation; but there are a great many things which I am sure hon. Gentlemen anxiously hope—there are certainly a great many things which I anxiously hope which I am far from expecting. The House will, I trust, draw a broad distinction between the
    156
    two questions which have been raised. As to the alleged unfairness towards the Army and in favour of the lay part of the population in casting the balance of the different positions of the professional and the non-professional pupils, I hope it will answer in the firmest manner, "No." The other question is the possibility of affording an education substantially as good as that now given on a lower scale of expenditure. My hon. Friend behind me has adduced some very formidable evidence on that point; but it is a question which has never been laid fairly before the Governors, and which, if raised, ought to be raised in the first instance for their consideration. I know not whether it was or was not strictly prudent; but it certainly was a very gallant determination on the part of those who fixed the original arrangements for the College which led them to found it on a scale so liberal, with a building which cannot be called anything less than magnificent, and with the firm intention that the boys should find themselves substantially on a footing with those in the first Public Schools in England. I do not deny the right of those to have the question examined who wished to lower the scale of living, or even of the education, though I trust the language of the Mover of this Address will not be adopted. They are perfectly justified in asking that the question should be considered; but if it is to be considered at all, it should be considered by the Governors, and should not be based on the slightest accusation against them, which I maintain, even as the case has been stated by the hon. Gentleman, has not a shadow of justice.
    GENERAL SHUTEsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. YORKE) frequently joined in military debates, but generally took a part adverse to the Army. It was only a few months ago that he specially exerted himself to induce the Government to expel our fine Household Cavalry from Hyde Park and transport them to the slums of London. He congratulated his hon. Friend on the more kindly interest he had in this instance shown in the Military Profession. He felt deeply obliged to him for having brought forward this question. Every patriotic Englishman must take a deep interest in a charitable institution, the object of which was to educate the orphans of

    157
    gallant officers who had fallen in action, or prematurely died from, the hardships of military service, and whoso little all might have been expended in the purchase of a commission, the value of which had been, by death, forfeited to the country. The right hon. Gentleman, after whose eloquent speech he (General Shute) hardly dared venture to rise, had proved to the House how much these orphans owed their education to the profits derived from the high rate charged to the sons of civilians also educated at the College, whose numbers, therefore, might gradually fall off and occasion a great loss to the charity were it not shown by this debate, as he hoped it would be, how excellent an educational establishment Wellington College was. The daily Press had been flooded with articles to the school's discredit. Even within the last few weeks he had met two old Winchester schoolfellows, one in London, the other in Brighton, and each remarked—"Well, I was going to send my boy where your son was; but I have now sent him to our old public school, Winchester." On inquiring why, the reply was to the effect—"Oh! I have heard that Wellington is infamously conducted. They tell me that it has been shown up in all the papers, and at last its management is to be inquired into in the House of Commons." He said, in reply, how sorry he was, for that his friends would have obtained for their sons, in a social and literary sense, the best education in England, at a far lower rate than at Winchester, besides contributing, at the same time, £30 a-year towards an admirable charity. It had been complained that the funds of the College had increased, but that there had been no proportional increase in the charity; but the absolute necessity of gradual additions to the building, erecting a sanatorium, hall, courts, &c., for the boys, seemed to have been forgotten. But, besides this, originally there were only 60 orphans, who paid from £10 to £20 a-year each; there were now 80, educated, boarded, &c, for nothing. There were also now 80 sons of living officers admitted at cost price—namely, £80 a-year. In fact, they had now 80 orphans paying nothing, 80 sons of living officers paying £80 a-year, and 223 sons of noblemen and gentlemen paying, those in the dormitories, £110 a-year each, and those in masters' houses, about
    158
    £130 each, giving a profit to the College of a fraction over £5,000, to whom, therefore, the orphans, in a great degree, owed their education. His hon. Friend wanted to reduce this College to a second-rate school, or, as he would seem to call it, a "College for failures." Where, under such circumstances, would he find a civil element to produce £5,000 a-year? His hon. Friend complained that there was an invidious distinction between private gentlemen's sons and foundationers; but he (General Shute) had questioned his own boy, and at least a dozen other Wellingtonians, who all said that they did not oven know the difference. At Winchester and Eton the foundationers were gowns; but at Wellington no one knew which was which. His hon. Friend was quite incorrect in saying that the civil element, by their example, got extravagant notions; but such was not the case. The sons of the newly-made rich, and who made a display of wealth, were more frequently sent to Eton. At Wellington they had the sons of a few noblemen, who had been connected in earlier life with the Army; sons of officers who had formerly loft the Army; sons of some of! the Bishops and clergy, and sons of country gentlemen; and that this mixed society was socially, as well as in a pecuniary sense, a great advantage to the orphans, and would increase their acquaintance much to their advantage in after-life. His hon. Friend complained that when there there were more orphans and £80 candidates than there was room for, that a test examination had been applied; but he maintained that that was better than selection, which usually meant jobbery, social, personal, or political interest. To prove how discontented the Army were with Wellington College, his hon. Friend held up a largo bundle of letters, which, he said, however, that he was not at liberty to read; but it so happened that he could read to the House extracts from the contents of one of them, and, as it exactly expressed his own opinions, he would do so.
    "I cannot but speak in the highest terms of the education the boys receive, and am fully satisfied with the entire management of the institution. The masters are both scholars and gentlemen, and I am inclined to think that the College would degenerate if it were confined solely to the use of the sons of officers at the rate claimed by them. …. It is, of course, obvious that for officers dependent on their pay the charge for education is put at rates

    159
    far beyond their means; but I do not think that the present standard of education could be maintained at a lower figure than now exists…I dissent from the opinion that the whole of the arrangements of the College are too luxurious, unsuited for the sons of poor men who have to make their way in the world. I have no proof of any tendency to extravagance. … The tone of the school is good, the boys are well satisfied and happy."
    This letter was written by one of the only two writers of the 26 letters that his hon. Friend had displayed rolled up in a bundle to the House, who had themselves had boys at the school. Of the others, many of the writers had little experience in education, having had no children of their own, and never being likely to have any. He considered that the Motion was an undeserved censure on a most influential and competent Governing Body, the names of some of whom he would read, who had been most attentive to the interests of the College—President, H.R.H. the Prince of Wales; Vice President, Colonel the hon. W. P. Talbot; Ex-officio Governors, the Commander-in-Chief, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of Wellington, and the Secretary of State for War; Governors, the Duke of Connaught, Prince Leopold, the Duke of Cambridge, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Buccleuch, the Marquess of Salisbury, Earl Granville, Viscount Eversley, Viscount Cranbrook, Lord Hampton, Lord Napier of Magdala, the right hon. S. H. Walpole, General Sir John Simmons, General Sir Alfred Hereford, General Sir H. D. Harness, John Walter, Esq., M.P., Henry Cox, Esq., and the Rev. G. R. Gleig. He admitted that a good deal of money had been expended on the building of the College; but it must be remembered that it was, he might say, a monument to the great Duke. For the present fine approaches to the College, and planting and laying out of the ground, they were almost entirely indebted to the liberality of his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). As to the bundle of complaining letters, none of which had been read, they were as easily obtained as signatures to Petitions. Finally, he trusted that the House would not grant a Royal Commission, not that the College had any reasons to fear inquiry, but because it would be a very undeserved snub to the Governing Body; inconvenient, and an uncalled-for expense. It was clearly
    160
    shown that there was no just cause to complain of this most admirable College, which was no "little Eton," as his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had designated it, but one of the best Public Schools in the country.
    MR. WALTERthought the Body of Governors might well be satisfied to leave their case in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), who had so gallantly come forward to defend them a few minutes ago. But as he had the honour during the last 14 years to be a member of that Board, and as he did not think he had missed a single occasion of its yearly meeting, and as he saw another right hon. Friend who was also a member of that Board, he thought it would hardly be becoming in him to refrain from saying a few words in defence of that Body on the occasion of the attack which had been made upon them. He gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. J. R. Yorke), that the Governors would, at any rate, not be indicted for malversation of public money. But the hon. Member had, nevertheless, spoken, in a tone which was somewhat slighting, and hardly justified by the facts of the case, of what he conceived to be the almost irresponsible position of that distinguished Body. If the hon. Member really believed that those distinguished personages did take an active share in the concerns of the College, he would have hesitated to prefer so serious an indictment against them. He should not trouble the House by reading the names again of that Board. The list contained the names, as the hon. Member stated, of members of the Royal Family, of a great many Cabinet and ex-Cabinet Members, Archbishops, and Bishops, and, in fact, the names, he might almost say, of the eminent men of rank who had figured before the country for many years past. But if the hon. Member thought that because the Board of Wellington College was a very distinguished Body therefore it did not attend to its duties, he was under a great mistake. He might say that at every half-yearly meeting from 12 to 14 members were present, who devoted two or three hours a-day to a painstaking examination, not only of the financial affairs of the College generally, but of those educational matters on

    161
    which the hon. Member had touched. How could the hon. Member suppose that the professional members of the Board—officers who had served on it for many years past—could have been so utterly neglectful of their duties to their professional brethren as to allow the whole concerns of the College to go wrong; to allow the revenues to be perverted from the original foundation, from the professional to the civilian; and to admit the imposition of improper examination tests, and all the other wrongs imputed to them. He would read the names of the professional officers who had been, or were now, active members of the Board, and who had devoted, at least, as constant attendance to the Board as any other members:—Tho Duke of Cambridge, the Marquess of Anglesey, Lord Hardinge, Lord Gough, Lord Seaton, Lord Raglan, Lord Herbert of Lea, Sir Howard Douglas, Sir James Scarlett; and, in addition to these and other members, the College had had the services for a great many years, until prevented by ago and infirmity, of the Chaplain General. He did not know how the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire could suppose that all the abuses he alleged could exist while those gentlemen were active members of the Board. Surely the hon. Member might have been charitable enough to suppose that they acted from a strict sense of duty, and that they were impressed with a full sense of their responsibility, not only to the public, but to the noble Profession. Now, a great deal of this misconception, he believed, arose from this—that the promises on which so much stress was laid were given several years before the College really was on its legs, the promises were given in 1856, and the College only assumed an active shape in 1859. The growth of an institution of that kind must be of a progressive character. It had to grow; it had to obtain a character; it had to decide on a course of policy, and that was decided, to a great extent, by the means at its disposal. This question was partly one of policy. It was also in a great measure—at least, for the purpose of the present discussion—a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, and that was the point on which he would insist. He contended, in opposition to the hon. Member, that those interesting
    162
    members of society for whoso benefit the College was founded really owed at present their education not so much to the liberality of the public as to the profits supplied by the sons of civilians. It was said the public supplied an enormous sum, and he heard it said this sum amounted to £250,000. Now, what were the facts? The public, from first to last, had subscribed £121,000, in round figures, the interest on that sum which could be applied to the use of the College was about £20,000. That made £140,000. The Patriotic Fund subscribed £25,000, and the legacies about £14,000; and that was literally almost the whole amount the public had really subscribed to the purposes of the College. The sum which it was found possible actually to invest for permanent endowment had been only £105,000, producing about £4,200 a-year. The education of the 80 boys on the foundation cost about £6,200 a-year. This left a margin of about £2,000 to be made up out of some other source, and what source could that be but the profits from the sons of civilians? He did not think the figures had been stated; but he might mention that the profits accruing to the College from the sons of civilians amounted to no less than £5,200 a-year. That was the sum which kept the College going, and enabled it to retain its status as a great College. With the permission of the House, he would submit a few figures from the balance-sheet, showing what sums of money had been received by the College from the year 1852 to 1878 inclusive; and he should leave it to his hon. Friend to make any complaint he might think fit on the result of that statement. The receipts—and he begged his hon. Friend's attention to this—for College subscriptions to December, 31, 1878, amounted to £120,785—he omitted shillings and pence; received from Patriotic Fund, £25,000; interest on investments, £20,642; legacies, £13,804; subscriptions to building chapel, £2,445; loans outstanding, £5,000—he was sorry to say, like many other people, they began to borrow—donations for prizes, £2,917. Bents of houses and ground-rent, £7,056; new estate receipts, £2,255; miscellaneous, £739; and the donation by the Duke of Wellington for sanitarium, £1,160—amounting in ail to £201,808. That was the whole of

    163
    the money that had been subscribed from the year 1852 to the end of last year. To that must be added a balance, made up partly out of the profits of the school, and partly out of a sum borrowed from the Endowment Fund, of £62,982, making a total of £264,790, all of which had been subscribed by the public before the College was opened, as they were told; but it was nothing of the kind. He had now to state the payments. Purchase and laying out lands and grounds, £21,401; the main building—which had to be added to from time to time to meet the wants of the school, and very much on the suggestion of the professional members of the Board—£77,116; Head Masters' house, £5,184; chapel, £9,365; sanitarium, £4,145; gasworks—a large item—£5,744; waterworks—an artesian well was sunk 500 feet or 600 feet deep to get water; the amount included steam-engine—£4,131; racquet-court, £996; farm and garden buildings, steward's house, and lodge, £1,842; building materials, furniture, and preliminary expenses before the opening of the College, £10,476; payments on account of new estate, £3,416; interest on loans and donations, £5,857; invested for prizes, £1,566; expended on buildings producing rents, £8,545—making £159,790; and, adding the Endowment Fund £105,000, there was a total of £264,790. The School Surplus Fund amounted altogether to about £50,099, and he did not know in what way this money could have been better spent. The hon. Member said it ought to have been spent in introducing more foundationers. A Public School, to be a good school, must be a large school. A small Public School could not be well conducted. There must be a proper competition among the boys. The forms must contain a certain number of pupils, The College would be far richer and better calculated to meet the views of the hon. Member if the numbers were 500—and he hoped to see them up to that number—than at the present figure. But he repeated that the whole question came to this—that the only means of extension and further benefiting the class of the foundationers was to increase the civil element of the school. Why? Because the country had not subscribed the sum requisite to produce the great results it ought to secure. He would say a word with regard to the test examina-
    164
    tions. For boys between 9 and 10 they were really of the most moderate, he might say even trifling, character. Many of the children sent up knew much less at the same age than those brought up at an ordinary elementary school. How was it possible to conduct any class satisfactorily, if it consisted of those who were not fairly up to the mark? That was simply what the test came to. The actual state of the test was this—For boys between 9 and 10, what was required was reading and spelling—good reading being indispensable—simple addition and subtraction, and to say the multiplication table. Surely that was a most moderate standard. A boy who could not pass such an examination would hardly obtain a capitation grant in an ordinary elementary school. The standard for boys from 10 to 11 was reading, writing, and spelling, and the four first simple rules of arithmetic. In grammar, either Latin to the end of the first conjugation, or French to the end of the verbs être, avoir, and parler, construing very easy sentences with a dictionary, and doing exercises in easy combinations of French words. Surely that was not an examination to terrify parents or call down the censure of that House. With regard to the remarks which fell from the hon. Member as to some sort of attempt to obtain a friendly settlement by four members of the Board and four officers, that had fallen through. If the Government should think that a Royal Commission should be appointed, or if the House thought fit to adopt any other means of inquiry, he would take no part in it, leaving it to others to judge whether the conduct of the Board had been such as to entitle it to the confidence of the House. In carrying on the business of the school, the only object was—he could speak for himself, and he was sure it would be endorsed by the other members of the Board—to make Wellington College a great Public School worthy of the name of the founder, not only without detriment to the interests of the foundationers, but greatly to their benefit. In his opinion, a professional school, consisting merely of the sons of officers and the sons of clergymen, would be an unmixed evil. Nothing could be better than a fair admixture of those classes with the civilian element, especially where the latter contributed largely to the higher education

    165
    of the school. He left the case with confidence in the hands of the House.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONwished to say a few words, especially as his Iron. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke), at the conclusion of his speech, seemed to think that the Motion implied some censure on the Government. He did not look upon it as a censure on the Government. It was perfectly true that certain Members of the Government were members of the Governing Body of Wellington College; but, with one exception—that of the Secretary of State for War—they acted only in a private and unofficial sense. Indeed, the only connection that really existed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governing Body of the institution was to be found in the fact that the Vice President of the Council was ex officio a Charity Commissioner, and that Wellington College, as an endowed school, came within the cognizance of the Charity Commission. The only object, therefore, which the Government considered was to promote the education of that important establishment in regard to the officers in Her Majesty's Army. The education of the sons of officers of the Army was a matter in which the House ought to take great interest. A largo proportion of the officers of the British Army being stationed abroad, their great concern was that while they were absent from England their sons should have a good and sufficient education. Suppose a Royal Commission—
    "To inquire into the origin, objects, and present administration of Wellington College; and to report to Her Majesty whether such administration is or is not in accordance with the conditions, or implied conditions, under which Contributions were solicited and obtained from the army and the public when the College was founded; and, if not, to advise Her Majesty what alterations in the present system are required, and by what means they can best be effected."
    What might be the result? The hon. Gentleman distinctly stated his own opinion that the Governors were wrong in not treating this school as a charity, expressly using the words "for both poor and ignorant." Was that an object which the wishes of the founder, if they could now be ascertained, would have contemplated? He understood that this College was established in order that a certain education should be
    166
    given to a certain number of orphans, the sons of military officers; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had made it conclusively clear that in proportion as they eliminated or diminished the civilian element they would reduce the income of the College. Indeed, if they altogether eliminated that element the College would be practically bankrupt. The right hon. Member for Greenwich spoke with some authority upon one point, because he was nearly connected with the Head Master of the College, and his statement confirmed previous reports that if the Commission was to report in favour of making this College nothing more than a charity school, one and all of the masters would resign. Therefore, if this Commission went in the only direction in which it was intended to go, one of the possible results was that the Governing Body, and the administrative officers, or the whole of the teaching staff of Wellington College might resign, and the Government or the House of Commons would have to establish de novo all the machinery necessary for carrying on the work of education there. That might possibly be the result of a Motion of this sort. It was said that a certain amount of dissatisfaction existed amongst the officers of the Army with respect to the present administration of the College. He could quite understand it. They knew that a certain sum was subscribed and invested for the foundation and maintenance of the College. They knew that admirable instruction was given there; but they found that the charge for boys not on the foundation was outside their means in many instances, and they asked that the cost should be reduced, so as to bring the advantages of the College within their reach. It was a question of finance. Could the cost be reduced without impairing the present efficiency of the institution? If that could be done, it seemed to him that, instead of appointing a Royal Commission, a more reasonable method of ascertaining what could really be effected would be for the officers to join with the Governors of the College and carry on a joint investigation as to whether or not that object could be attained. It had been admitted that the reason why the Governors had not promoted such an inquiry had been that Notice had been

    167
    given of this Motion, the success of which would probably lead to the resignation of the Governors and to changes in the teaching staff. He knew that there was a feeling amongst many hon. Members that some inquiry was necessary, and the Government would be happy to facilitate an investigation of the nature which he had just indicated. The cost of education in Wellington College had not increased during the last 16 years. He did not think this could be said of any other similar institution in the country. The hon. Member, however, now proposed a Commission which would have no power to create, and which would simply upset the whole of the present existing arrangements without putting anything in their place. There was an increasing tendency on the part of the House of Commons to interfere in the administration of local and other legally constituted institutions, and this was to be regretted as involving transfer of responsibility to the House or the Government. Although, in the circumstances, some inquiry might be necessary in this case, the Government could not support such an inquiry as would leave to it, or to the House, the future administration of the College. They had no desire to burke any inquiry into the present administration of Wellington College—all they looked to see was that education should not deteriorate, and that a plan should not be adopted the result of which would be that the officers of the Army would be able to say that they asked for bread and were given a stone. He hoped that those who supported the Motion would see that the inquiry he had suggested was more desirable than one by a Commission.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken had painted in alarming colours what he thought would happen if the Commission were granted. But he did not think there need be such apprehensions. He would remind the noble Lord that the Government had granted him a Commission in connection with the Stock Exchange, and that the committee of that Body did not resign in consequence, and that no great crisis had taken place in the Money Market as the result of the appointment of that Commission. He did not think his position had been in any way materially shaken by what had been said in the course of the discussion,
    168
    and what he had said about the tendency of the Governors' policy had been substantially confirmed; therefore, he should leave the matter to the House.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, the threats about the resignation of the Governing Body and of the teachers must be taken for what they were worth; but, considering the high character of those who had filled those posts at Wellington College, he thought that that was not a way in which they would wish to be brought before that House. That it was not necessary to spend a sum of £110 a-year on a pupil in a first grade school provided with buildings was shown by detailed statements in the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, in which it was remarked that good schools had a tendency to become expensive almost in proportion to their goodness, and that this was illustrated by what was then going on at Marlborough, Haileybury, and Wellington College. The conclusion of the Commission was that as good an education as could be had ought to be given for £60 a-year. The officers of the Army complained that at Wellington College there was an expenditure of something like £2,000 a-year, of which they could get no real account. They complained of the general charges, and also of the charges for extras. He had seen bills for Brussels and Kidderminster carpets for newly-admitted boys, and these were matters which officers with limited means desired to have looked into, because it could not be necessary to renew the carpets for each fresh boy. There was a case for inquiry, and it would be better to promote it than to talk about Governors and teachers threatening to resign.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 66: Majority 7.—(Div. List, No. 55.)

    CO-OPERATIVE STORES.
    Select Committee on Co-operative Stores to consist of Seventeen Members:—Sir MASSEY LOPES, Mr. OTWAY, Mr. RIDLEY, Mr. BLAKE, Sir GEORGE ELLIOT, VISCOUNT MACDUFF, Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. RIPLEY, Mr. BAXTER, Earl of DALKEITH, Mr. MACDONALD, Mr. ISAAC, Mr. JAMES, Mr. FORSYTH, Mr. CALLAN, and Sir CHARLES RUSSELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 3.]
  (Mr. Vans Agnew, Mr. Baillie Hamilton, Sir George Douglas, Colonel Alexander.)
  HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 3.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Vans Agnew.)
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEhoped that the Motion would not be proceeded with, especially in the present thin state of the Benches on both sides of the House. There was a singular defection of Scotch Members—in fact, he was reminded by the state of the House of an anecdote told of a French preacher who had said that if he were to hold up his prayer-book and threaten to throw it at the head of a woman who had been disobedient to her husband, every head would be bowed. So, in the present case, he was sure that if he were to say he would throw the paper he held in his hand at the head of anyone who objected to the Bill before the House, every head would be bowed. He looked upon the measure as one which, if it did not savour of Communism, was at least an attack upon private property. If it were carried it would have the effect of upsetting all the existing arrangements as to land in Scotland. The measure would inflict great injury upon a most estimable class of Scotchmen—namely, the small farmers who by their industry had developed the agricultural interests of the country. The Bill was only supported by the largo farmers, who thought that after the abolition of hypothec there would be less competition in regard to the land; but it would be a great blow to the agricultural interest generally. Hon. Members who whilst the Bill was on the Paper had kept away from the House, appeared to have come to an arrangement amongst each other that it should be counted out or got rid of in some way or other. [Mr. VANS AGNEW: No, no.] He admitted that his hon. Friend was a most energetic Member, and gallantly stuck up for the Bill. The hon. Member stuck up for the measure more than any other Scotch Representative, and there was an earnestness about him which he did not find else-
    170
    where. What, then, had become of all the others? Where was the phalanx of Scotch Members usually seen in the House when Scotch Bills were under discussion? They were conspicuous by their absence. If the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill was thoroughly sincere, he would not press the measure in the absence of the other Scotch Members. He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) might, if he cared to do so, call attention to the state of the House, and point to the fact that there was not present a sufficient number to justify their proceeding with the measure; but he did not wish to move a count, but, at the same time, he trusted the Bill would not be pressed. The Bill, he contended, was nothing more nor less than an electoral move, and he, therefore, begged to move its rejection.
    MR. DALRYMPLErose to make a single remark. They had again heard from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that this was an election move. He only desired to say, in answer to that statement, that this was exactly the same move which was made in 1874, when it could hardly be described as an election move. The Bill had been brought forward year after year by his hon. Friend in the most straightforward and wholehearted manner, and the real explanation of the fact that the Bill had not made progress was to be found in the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite who had not been so good as to assist in keeping a House when the subject was coming on. When his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) spoke of the state of the Benches on the present occasion, he might, at all events, have observed that they were pretty well studded with Representatives from Scotland. That was a proof that they were interested in this subject, which, he might remind his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wright, referred entirely to Scotland. He (Mr. Dalrymple) only desired to protest against the repetition of the charge which had been made on a former occasion by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) in a most unfounded manner. The charge was indeed a preposterous one, when it was recollected that the same Bill was brought forward at the beginning of the present Parliament, and only fell through from want of encouragement from those who formerly expressed such zeal for the abolition of the Law of Hypothec.

    171
    He hoped the House would consent to go into Committee on the Bill.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he only rose to protest against the language which had been used by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. He had imputed to the Scotch Members, in plain language, dishonest conduct. He had said that while in that House they were supporting the Bill, they were in their hearts opposed to it. That was a sentiment he (Mr. M'Laren) begged to deny in the most emphatic language which the Rules of the House permitted, and he wished to say that the hon. Member had no ground whatever for holding or expressing that opinion, so far as he (Mr. M'Laren) was concerned.
    Ms. RAMSAYsaid, he might be allowed to express the hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight would not persist in opposing the Motion for going into Committee. He had a conversation with the hon. Member in private, when he endeavoured to persuade him to withdraw his opposition to this measure, in order to enable it to pass speedily into law. On that occasion he (Mr. Ramsay) stated that he did not expect that the farmers of Scotland would derive from the measure the numerous advantages which they expected might accrue; but, at the same time, he did say that so many of the farmers having made up their minds in favour of this measure, he felt that the hon. Member, not being directly interested as a Scotch Representative, might very well withdraw his opposition, and leave the Scotch Members to decide the question for themselves. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (MR. M'Laren) was well entitled to object to have such motives imputed when really Members like himself, who represented borough constituencies, had no interest in this question, although their connection with the land otherwise might lead them to take as direct an interest in the Bill as the hon. Gentleman, who described it as approaching to Communism. He regretted that the hon. Member should apply such a term to a measure so ardently desired by agriculturists in Scotland. He hoped that no further opposition would be made to the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSStrusted that enough had now been said, and that they should be allowed to proceed
    172
    to Business. He only wished to say that he differed as strongly as he could from the language of his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) as to the character of the Bill; because, if he thought it supported Communism in any form or shape, he would be found absolutely opposed to it. But knowing, as he did, that the feeling throughout Scotland was in favour of the measure, he supported it, and hoped it would become law.
    Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Landlord's hypothec to cease after 11th November 1880).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved, in page 1, line 7, after the word "land," to insert "including the rent of any building thereon." It seemed to him that some ambiguity might arise in the interpretation of the Act if the clause were allowed to stand in its present shape; because it occurred to him that if a house and over two acres of land were let, it might be contended on the part of the landlord that the rent of the land was intended to be separate from the rent of the house. If the learned Lord Advocate said that doubt was not likely to arise on this point, he would not press his Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)intimated that he did not think there would be any doubt in the matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "Provided" to end of Clause. The hon. Gentleman stated that the object of the Amendment was to bring hypothec to an end at the beginning of November of next year. Great difficulties would arise if the Law of Hypothec ceased to exist on a certain number of farms while it existed on other farms for years to come. If the learned Lord Advocate would agree to a compromise and say that hypothec would come to an end absolutely at a certain stated period, he should not press for the omission of the Proviso.

    173
    He wished to point out that, apart altogether from hypothec, the landlord had a very great advantage in dealing with a tenant's creditors; because, according to the present system, he had control over the straw and manure upon the farm, the removal of which was prohibited. Then, in a good many leases, there had been inserted by the landlords or their agents a proviso that if the Law of Hypothec were abolished the tenant should pay the rent six months sooner. Therefore, while in many leases, the landlords had taken precautious for securing themselves if hypothec were abolished, in many others it would be altogether unnecessary, because there was as much manure and straw left as would secure the landlord against loss.
    MR. MARK STEWARTcould not suppose for one moment that the proposition which the hon. Member for Forfarshire had made to the Committee would be acceded to, because he could not help thinking that a great deal of support had been given to this Bill on the condition that it should not apply to existing contracts. There was no doubt that the abolition of the Law of Hypothec would make a great change in the relations that existed at present between landlord and tenant; and, no doubt, tenants, who were now allowed considerable latitude in paying their rents, would in future lose that latitude. He thought it would be most unwise and injurious to accept the Amendment.
    MR. RAMSAYhoped that the hon. Member for Forfarshire would consent to withdraw his Amendment. The Bill, when it became law, was not likely to be very popular with all the people of Scotland; and he thought it would be a pity to mar it by a proposal which, as far as he knew, had never previously been made—for what was proposed was to set aside the terms of an existing lease or contract.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that, without the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire, the clause would take away from the farmers of Scotland the benefit which they thought they would obtain by the abolition of hypothec.
    MR. VANS AGNEWhoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. To preserve rights under existing contracts seemed to be absolutely necessary when
    174
    taking away a certain right which formerly existed, and hypothec in those cases must be allowed to expire in the course of time. He thought it was a necessary safeguard to allow existing leases to run out under the same conditions as those under which they were entered on.
    MR. M'LARENalso expressed a hope that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the Committee on his proposal, especially after the statement which had been made, that many hon. Members had voted for the second reading of the Bill on the understanding that existing leases should not be interfered with. If such an Amendment as that proposed was agreed to, he was afraid it would cause the loss of the Bill either hero or in "another place" on a future day. Half-a-loaf was better than no bread, and therefore he trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): The feeling of the Committee seems to me to be against interference with existing contracts beyond a certain extent. That was even indicated by the hon. Member for Forfarshire, who rather suggested that if a compromise were offered he would be ready to accept it. I do not see that any compromise can be made on this question except it be a compromise in point of time; and I doubt the propriety of fixing a limit of five or 10 years from the passing of the Act, because, in that case, a great many tenants under leases of short currency would derive no advantage whatever from the provisions of the Bill, and those who had long leases would get a benefit beyond others which they were not in the least entitled to.
    MR. M'LAGANhoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment. If they abolished the law as applied to existing leases, the landlord would have no security whatever, and all other creditors would have a preferable security for 18 months. He was aware it was quite the custom to enter into contracts in which it was stated that if the Law of Hypothec were abolished the tenant would be called upon to pay his rent six months or a year sooner, proving clearly that in the matter of contracts the parties felt that the abolition of the Law of Hypothec would alter their relations. It would be unjust to

    175
    alter that law as regarded existing leases.
    MR. CLARE READwas sure that many Members on the Conservative side of the House voted for the second reading of the Bill on the express understanding that existing contracts should be exempted from the operation of the Act. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persist with his Amendment, because it would be most unfair to landlords, and he also thought it would be most unsatisfactory to many tenants, and it would be unjust to abolish hypothec if they did not give landlords some better means of recovering arrears of rent.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not understand what the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) meant when he said this was a proposal to overrule existing contracts. He did not propose to interfere with the lease or its conditions—but to abolish an unjust law There never was a proposal in that House for a change of law in which there was not some interference with individual interests. When the Corn Laws were abolished, the farmers got no compensation. He was not aware of any case of long credit on rents. It had been explained over and over again in that House that the tenant in Scotland always paid his landlord within three months after the time when the landlord would have got the money from the farm if he had had it in his own hands. He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, as he did not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily; but, in order to test the opinion of the House on this subject, he would propose to add to the clause words that would abolish hypothec absolutely within 10 years from the year 1880.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MARK STEWART (for Sir WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER)moved, in page 1, line 9, after "rent due," to insert "or becoming due." The principle of this Amendment had already been conceded.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)did not oppose the Amendment, but suggested that if the hon. Member desired to remove all ambiguity, the words he proposed to insert should be "or which may hereafter become due."
    Amendment, so amended, agreed to.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved to add to the end of the clause the words "within ten years," the effect of which would be that the right of hypothec would absolutely expire in all cases at the end of 10 years from November, 1880. One great advantage of the abolition of hypothec at some definite time would be to improve agricultural credit. The abolition of the law in respect to future leases would place farmers on more equal terms with their landlords. But so long as the Law of Hypothec existed, the credit of the agriculturist would not be in the least improved by this measure; and it would be in the interest of the landlords, as well as of the tenants, that the law should come to an end at some definite period. He thought 10 years was a long period; but as the Bill stood, hypothec would not come to an end for about 20 years. He hoped the Committee would look upon the Amendment as a reasonable proposal, and accept it.
    MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the proposition. He could not see the justice, if existing contracts having less than 10 years to expire were to be protected by the Bill, why those over that period should be excluded. There would be, no doubt, many leases which would have expired before then, but still there would be some going on, and he could not see the justice of applying the new law to the long lease and not to the short one.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he did not suppose his hon. Friend was really in earnest in proposing these Amendments. Certainly, as far as his (Mr. Ramsay's) knowledge extended, the farmers themselves did not desire to have any such law or regulation. The contracts existing between landlord and tenant were very formal and precise, and the Law of Hypothec was applicable in every case. The House was anxious now to see that law done away with. He had himself wanted to make some Amendments in the Bill; but he had refrained from proposing them because he did not wish to delay the passing of the measure. One of the proposals he had desired to introduce was that urban as well as rural hypothec should be abolished, although he knew that some hon. Members did not agree that the principle was the same in both cases. He had not pressed that point, however, because he felt that if he

    177
    had succeeded in introducing it into the Bill it might have had the effect of preventing the Bill from becoming law at an early date. Therefore, as he was anxious that a question of this kind should be settled without delay, he had been willing to forego all his Amendments in order to get through with the Bill. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would relieve the Committee from any trouble in dividing; because at the end of 10 years it would be just as much interference with existing contracts as it would at the end of two or three years.
    MR. R. W. DUFFhoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, as well from expediency as on the question of principle. He could not see that there was any justice in the proposal. Assuming that a landlord had let his farm, and the agreement was recognized by the law as it stood at the date of the agreement, he did not think there were any circumstances which justified the State coming in and saying that what it had recognized should not be legal tenure. He felt satisfied that the House would not pass an Amendment of this character. If it did, the Bill would certainly be in danger "elsewhere." He thought, with the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), that urban hypothec was in the same category as rural hypothec, but was also desirous not to risk delay by intruding that question. He hoped the Committee would not be detained any longer with a proposal which would interfere with existing contracts.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to point out to the hon. Members who had just spoken that the Law of Hypothec was no part of the contract between landlords and tenants. Hypothec was the law of the land, and the position hon. Members took up was that the law of the land could not be altered unless compensation was given to all those who were affected, even in a remote degree, by the change of law. Upon that principle it would be almost impossible ever to make any improvement in legislation.
    MR. ANDERSONdid not care much about the Amendment the hon. Member was now moving, because he did not see any clear principle in it. He thought there was a definite and clear principle in the one he withdrew—that principle being that the Bill should immediately abolish hypothec and thereby improve
    178
    the credit of the tenants. It clearly would not improve the credit of the tenants now for about 20 years, for it would be impossible for traders to know which leases were under this law and which under the old. The actual operation of the Bill would thus be practically postponed for about 20 years. Had the hon. Member divided on that Amendment he would have supported him, as he thought such postponed operation would be injurious. However, as the hon. Member, perhaps exercising a wise judgment, had not divided on his previous Amendment, he thought he would make a great mistake if he went to a Division on the present one.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN,while thinking that this Bill did not go far enough, believed that it went in the right direction; but considering the perils it had yet to undergo here and "elsewhere," they ought to be careful not to put more weight on it than was absolutely necessary. He therefore trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that as, in the opinion of friends, they had got as far as they could, he did not see the wisdom of persevering with this Amendment, seeing that it would be rejected by a large majority on division.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, hon. Members appeared to be tolerably unanimous on this point—namely, that if they admitted the principle of not interfering with existing contracts, they must treat consistently all these contracts. At the same time, it was a matter for consideration whether the terms of the Bill were meant to include unreasonably long contracts. He doubted whether the framer of the measure had in view contracts for the lease of land of a longer duration than 19 years, and he confessed that he had agreed to the terms of this clause very much in that view. He should be very sorry that portions of unexpired leases longer than the ordinary agricultural lease of 19 years should carry along with them a right to use the Law of Hypothec. He thought that a lease of 50 or 100 years ought to be deprived of that incident within a reasonable time, and he merely indicated that because he was quite prepared to concur with any hon. Member in framing a clause upon the Report which should give effect to that

    179
    view. While he thought an unexpired lease not exceeding 19 years ought to be considered, and the implied contract given effect to, he should be sorry to give advantage to leases practically in perpetuity.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that representing a large agricultural constituency in Scotland, he was quite sure that the remarks which had just been made by the learned Lord Advocate would meet with the approval and support of a great majority of the farmers in Scotland, for a lease of 19 years was the basis of their contracts.
    MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, that in framing the clause he certainly had not in view a lease of longer duration than 19 years.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Landlord's remedy when six months rent is due and unpaid).
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Watson), the following Amendments were made in the Clause:—
    Page 1, line 14, after "shall" insert "subject to the provisions of the preceding section of this Act."
    Page 1, line 14, leave out "remedy," and insert "rights and remedies."
    Page 1, line 16, at end of Clause, add—
    "And shall also have the same rights and remedies against his tenant when twelve months rent is due and unpaid as is now provided by the Law of Scotland when two years rent is due and unpaid, but subject always to the provision following (that is to say): It shall not be lawful for the sheriff in any proceedings under the Act of Sederunt of the fourteenth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six, to decern the tenant to find caution for any sum exceeding the arrears of rent due and the rent for two crops following, or during the currency of the lease if the lease is of shorter endurance than two years."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYproposed to leave out the whole of Clause 2 as amended. He said he objected to this clause for the same reason which hon. Members had so strenuously urged against him in the previous case. It would be an interference with existing contracts. The landlord had very drastic, extreme, and arbitrary powers against
    180
    the tenant in arrear, and under this clause he would have the power of put, ting them in force whenever six months, rent was due and unpaid. If the rent were even a day past due, the landlord would have the power to call the tenant before the Sheriff, and unless he found caution for the rent past due, and for two crops to come, the landlord might claim his ejectment. Now, supposing the landlord took his remedy in the month of June, would the learned Lord Advocate explain to the House whose would be the property of the crops in the ground sown by the tenant, and what recourse the tenants' creditors would have against the landlord for the value of these crops? There was an implied contract on the part of the creditors in this matter which should be respected as much as the implied contract under the Law of Hypothec was in the last discussion. If the tenant failed to pay on the very day his rent was due, he might be summoned on the following day before the Sheriff to find caution. It was not every tenant who had a friend he could call in to suppport him, and hon. Members surely could not understand the power they were putting into the hands of unscrupulous landlords by this clause.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, the observations of the hon. Member for Forfarshire had recalled to him a defect in the Amendment which he had not been aware of. It was not his intention that in regard to current leases any fresh or new remedies should be given to landlords. The new remedy must apply only when the abolition of hypothec applied, and he would at the proper time move to add a provision to that effect.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYhoped the learned Lord Advocate would explain the law more fully. If this clause became part of the Bill, any tenant whose rent was one day past due would be liable to all the pains and penalties which the law provided, and he had already specified.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, he thought it right—and that appeared to him to be the feeling of the House on the second reading of the Bill—that if hypothec was abolished the landlord should have some means of recovering his property if the rent was not paid. The law at present in regard to a landlord having the right of hypothec was that if one year's rent was un-

    181
    paid, upon the very next day he might apply to the Judge Ordinary, and if the fact were proved to the satisfaction of the Judge that the rent was unpaid, the Judge had no alternative but to require the tenant to find security for the payment, not only of the arrears, but for five years' future rent. That was a very serious, and it appeared to him to be a hard thing for the tenant. And unless that was done within the period limited in the Judge's order, a further order for the expulsion of the tenant was at once granted. In the case of a tenant being two years in arrear the landlord had a right to apply for an order of ejectment, and the tenant had no appeal, but must go out the moment the order was granted. The difficulties raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire were of the same character as those existing or which might arise under the present law. There was a legal term of rent and a conventional term. The legal term for a pasture farm was one thing, and the legal term for an arable farm was another, and the conventional term, that was what was agreed upon by the parties themselves, was different from both. By the existing law it was not necessary that the arrears should be for one particular half-year in order to entitle the landlord to take proceedings for ejecting the tenant. It was simply required that the sum in arrear should amount to half-a-year's rent, or should amount to two full years' rent, and might have been running with interest for eight or ten years. By this clause they would be making no change whatever in the established law, excepting a change in favour of the landlord to this effect—that having taken away his preferable claim over crop and stock they gave him a more summary means of recovery, and at the same time laid a less heavy weight on the tenant; because there were many men who would be able to find the Security demanded by this Bill, but who, under the existing law, would be turned out of house and home owing to the obligation to pay a year's rent and find security for five more.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,admitting that no tenant ought to be allowed to run into arrears for two years, yet thought that he might be in arrears for six months without being at all blameful. Therefore, the increased
    182
    difficulties caused to tenants by making them pay rents in so peremptory a manner as were raised under this clause would be highly objectionable to the tenants of Scotland. He was in hopes that the passing of this Bill would bring about better relations between landlord and tenant than had hitherto; prevailed, and to this end he trusted the t learned Lord Advocate would alter the clause, so as to leave to landlords and tenants the power of fixing the dates on which rents due for terms expired might be paid, and thus draw a clear distinction between "due" and "payment."
    MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken, and the hon. Member for Forfarshire, seemed to keep out of view the fact that by the 1st clause of the Bill they took away the landlord's power of sequestration. This clause would enable him to enter upon his land as soon as the tenant failed—that was to say, that when the tenant could not pay, the landlord might enter upon his land. He had proposed in the Bill merely to shorten by six months the period at which a law which had long existed should come into operation. In this respect he had thought that if any change was to be made it should come from the learned Lord Advocate. He believed five years was much too long a period for which security should be found. All he desired was that the landlord should have the power to recover possession of his land in lieu of the power of sequestration which he had before.
    MR. RAMSAYunderstood the object of the Amendment of the learned Lord Advocate was to place the relations between landlord and tenant on the same footing as the relations between the tenant and his seedsman or manure merchant, or anyone who supplied him with any commodity. It would be obvious that if the tenant could remain in possession of the land for six months after the rent had become due, and if the landlord had no security or certainty of receiving payment of either rent or arrears, then the landlord would by no means be in the same commercial position as the tradesman who supplied the; farmer with seed or manure. The moment the tenant had given his order for any commodity whatsoever and he failed to pay, the merchant had power to stop the supply whenever he ceased to pay;

    183
    but here hon. Gentlemen seemed to consider that the tenant should continue in I possession of the land after he had ceased to pay the rent, and that the tenant, having become bankrupt, should take the fruit of the soil and apply it to the payment of a dividend to his other creditors. It was quite obvious that that was not placing the relations of landlord and tenant in the same commercial position as the tenant occupied with the creditor from whom he bought any particular goods; and unless something of the kind proposed in this clause were done, the effect of the repeal of hypothec would be to place the landlord in a position different from that of all other creditors. The tenant might cease to pay his rent for 12 months, and the landlord would have no means of getting possession of the land or of obtaining redress in any other way. He could not think the farmers or any other class would ask to have the law amended to enable them to use the goods of one man while under no obligation to pay him for that use. If there was anything objectionable in the law as applied to existing leases, he understood that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was going to propose that no lease for a longer term than 19 years should be brought under the Bill. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: Unprincipled.] He had thought the hon. Member approved of that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman said "unprincipled;" but he could not see anything unprincipled in saying that no lease of longer duration than 19 years should be affected by this law.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not think hon. Members understood what was proposed to be done by this clause. He was rather disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was not in his place, because he wished to appeal to him in this matter. He was exceedingly surprised to find the hon. Member's (Mr. Ramsay's) intellect was so clouded by the landlords' interest, that he found him saying that the landlords would be in a worse position than the manure merchant. The manure merchant supplied the farmer with manure; but if the farmer did not pay him, did the manure merchant get back his manure? The landlord would get back his land in three months or six months, and could lose only the interest. The manure mer-
    184
    chant who sold manure was usually paid in six months. The farmer gave him a six months' bill and he had three days' grace; but under this clause of the Bill, if a farmer did not pay his half-year's rent on the day it was due, the next day he could be summoned before the Sheriff, and made to give security for what was due and for two years more. That seemed to him the most extreme legislation that had in recent times been passed in that House. It was far more extreme than the barbarous edict passed by the Court of Session 100 years ago. A tenant must pay upon the very day, and if he did not pay the landlord could call upon him to give security, and if he did not, could eject him summarily out of the farm. He did not believe the hon. Member for Wigtownshire (Mr. Vans Agnew) perceived the effect of this clause when he proposed that it should be inserted in the Bill. He should have thought that he would have given the farmer six days' grace or 10 days' grace. The landlord did not risk his capital, he only risked his interest, and very few manure merchants would think much of giving a tenant six months' time to pay without receiving anything for it. He hoped the learned Lord Advocate would agree to amend the clause.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)observed, that although the landlord had a right to his remedy within a day of the rent being unpaid, yet it was always a matter of consideration with the landlord as to what sort of tenant he was dealing with. He could hardly suppose that there existed such extreme cases as those supposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). There would be nothing done without the intervention of a Judge, who was empowered to deal with the case according to circumstances. If a tenant was unable to pay, it was for the Judge, after giving him the opportunity of stating why he was not paying his rent, to determine whether the tenant's statements were entitled to credit, and no Judge would refuse to give to a tenant who was a man of substance the chance to make good his profession that he meant to pay his rent. There was no Judge who would not give him time to satisfy the law. Speaking of the want of three days' grace, he would rather be under the hardest pressure the hard-

    185
    est landlord could put on than under a Bill giving three days' grace.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, if it be true that the landlord, when his six months' rent was due, without giving any notice, and without demanding the rent in any way, could bring his action against the tenant, it did seem to be an arbitrary clause, and one that demanded consideration. He should say it would be very seldom done; but it was quite within the bounds of possibility that some unreasonable landlord, having a grudge against his tenant, might put it into operation. He was of opinion that the landlord should be required to demand the rout before any of these proceedings could be taken.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYwould be far from attempting to dispute the law with the learned Lord Advocate; but the Act of Sederunt provided distinctly that—
    "Whore a tenant shall ran in arrear one year's rent," [which was now going to be six months not in arrear, but due,] "it shall be lawful for the landlord to bring his action against the tenant before the Judge Ordinary, who is hereby empowered and required to decern and ordain the tenant to find caution."
    The Sheriff, as he understood it, had no option or discretion.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 34: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 56.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)proposed to move a new clause, by which, he desired to limit the effect of the 2nd clause entirely to those cases where the landlords' hypothec had been abolished, and, accordingly, he would move a clause to the effect—
    "That the provisions of the second section of this Act shall not apply in any case in which the landlords' right of hypothec has not ceased or determined."
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

  RELIEF OF INSANE POOR BILL.
  (Mr. Rodwell, Sir Baldwin Leighton, Mr. Bristowe.)
  RELIEF OF INSANE POOR BILL.

    [BILL 27.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. RODWELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, briefly
    186
    stated the object of the measure and the mode in which it was sought to effect it. At the present moment, the demand for the accommodation of pauper lunatics throughout England had become a great burden upon local taxation. He could state, from Returns which he had seen, that there were only six counties in England which were not under peremptory orders to provide increased accommodation, in some form or another, for pauper lunatics, and under the present system an appalling amount of money would be required. As the law stood at present, the Commissioners in Lunacy were bound to treat anyone whose mind was affected in any way—all harmless crazy, imbecile, curable, or incurable persons—as lunatics, and the consequence was that their lunatic asylums were crowded with chronic, harmless, and imbecile patients who did not require those expensive establishments, or that scientific attendance and treatment which was provided in them, and who might be taken care of at a much smaller expense. There were many vacant workhouses and other public buildings in the country which were now useless, and the object of his Bill, was to enable a special Board to take front the lunatic asylums and the union workhouses those patients who were imbecile or incurable, and who were harmless, and put them in what he would call infirmaries, which might be hired or purchased by the county authorities. There were two reasons why the Bill must find favour with the public. The first was that it would lessen the local taxation, which was very much increased by the expense of lunatic asylums; and the second consisted in the fact that curable patients were likely to recover with greater rapidity if separated from the incurable. The County Boards Bill contained provisions which would operate in much the same way as the Belief of Insane Poor Bill; but as the former Bill appeared to give rise to a good deal of opposition, he had determined to proceed with his own measure. He proposed that each county should provide establishments for paupers who were pronounced to be imbecile or incurable, and, at the same time, harmless. He also proposed that the Governing Body of these establishments, which might be purchased or hired, should be the Visiting Justices for the time being, together with the Chairmen of all the Boards of

    187
    Guardians within the county. Following the lines of the Lunatic Act, his Bill made the county provide for the establishment and fitting up of the necessary buildings, and the parishes responsible for the maintenance, clothing, and medical attendance of the inmates. The infirmaries, he thought, should be controlled and supervised by the Local Government Board, and not by the Commissioners in Lunacy. He believed it would be a great advantage to the Commissioners if they were relieved from this class of lunatics, and, in fact, this Bill would be a boon to the ratepayers and to the imbeciles and lunatics themselves.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Rodwell.)
    MR. SALTsaid, that everyone must have felt that his hon. and learned Friend had made out a good case for some action in this matter. It was a very important measure, and it was also one of great difficulty; but he would not object to the second reading, though he doubted whether the lines upon which it was drawn would work well. His hon. and learned Friend had been brief, and he would promise to be brief in his reply. At present there were two systems providing for the insane and imbecile poor. On the one hand, there were the Justices in Quarter Sessions, with their committees, managing the large county asylums subject to the Lunacy Acts. The Lunacy Acts were designed to provide care for the insane; and they contained many special provisions to prevent the risk of dealing with any person of sound mind as insane. But there were also the Poor Law Acts, under which imbecile paupers might be kept in the workhouses of the county. The lunatic asylums were directly under the control of the Commissioners in Lunacy; but the imbecile wards of the workhouses were under the Local Government Board, subject to occasional inspection by some person from the Lunacy Commission. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire had mixed up these two schemes. This might or might not be a good thing; but he was not prepared to pronounce upon it without serious consideration and careful inquiry. On this point his hon. and learned Friend would be wise to adopt
    188
    the proposal which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Somerset (Mr. Paget) and refer the Bill to a Select Committee. About the details of the Bill he had still more doubt than about its general principles. Many of its provisions were of a novel and remarkable nature. Some of the clauses contained powers that he believed to be quite unprecedented; but to these at this stage of the Bill he could only very imperfectly allude. He felt a tenderness towards the Bill because its principle was good, and because it was the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend. He would, therefore, not oppose the second reading; but, at the same time, he strongly urged his hon. and learned Friend to refer the measure to a Select Committee, with power to the Committee to inquire into the whole subject of the custody of the insane poor.
    MR. WHITWELLthought the proposal to erect new institutions and establish new Boards was a very large one. He entirely sympathized with the object of the hon. and learned Member and the poor imbeciles, whose interests and comfort were of great moment; but the subject was a wide one, not only as to the object, but as to the mode of treatment and kind of institution, and that, therefore, the subject should, in the interest of the ratepayers, be carefully considered before a Committee.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, the system advocated by the hon. and learned Member who introduced this Bill had been very beneficial in Scotland. The great point to be considered in extending this system was whether they could do so without requiring large staffs in cases where there were comparatively only a few persons requiring restraint?
    DR. CAMERONwas afraid that in this Bill economy had been more studied than the comfort and well-being of the unfortunate imbeciles concerned. In Metropolitan asylums where such separation was practised, and where the best treatment was adopted, very excellent results were produced upon the inmates, many of whom reached a condition vastly more human than when they entered, and were enabled to enjoy in their own way some of the pleasures of life; but to talk of putting incurable imbeciles into some miserable workhouse ward, and maintain them at, say, 4s. 6d. per week, was a

    189
    thing that ought not to be aimed at. He was sure such a thing was not intended by the hon. and learned Member who proposed this measure.
    MR. RODWELLsaid, he would accept the proposal to send the Bill before a Select Committee. The importance of the subject could not be exaggerated in any point of view.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  LICENSING ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 108.]
  (Mr. Rodwell, Mr. Serjeant Simon, Mr. Arthur Mills, Mr. Leatham, Mr. Mark Stewart.)
  LICENSING ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 108.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. RODWELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he might explain in a few words that this little measure was simply an extremely small development of the Amendments which he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had submitted to the House on the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). It spoke for itself, and, therefore, he need not weary the House with any explanation. It simply rendered it incumbent on the Justices before they granted a new licence that they should be satisfied that the licence was necessary on public grounds, in the words of the clause of the Bill, that the application for such licence was supported by a requisition sufficient to satisfy the licensing authority, and that it was sustained by evidence taken on oath that such licence was necessary to supply a present want. At present there were only two matters about which the Justices were bound to concern themselves—namely, the respectability of the tenant and the capacity of the house. These two matters were prominently brought forward, but frequently nothing further. He did not say the Justices did not sufficiently inquire into the facts brought before them; yet he thought the Bill would carry out the principle, at any rate, of a qualified local option to such an extent as to be a safeguard against the multiplication of unnecessary public-houses. The subject
    190
    had been already so fully discussed that; he would not go into it further than to say that those who agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) seemed to be satisfied with the Bill, as well as many of the advocates of a Permissive Bill. Indeed, he believed that there was no serious opposition to it, and that it met with universal favour. He should be glad if the Secretary of State for the Home Department would say one word as to the views of the Government; and with that remark he would ask the House to read the Bill a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second, time."—(Mr. Rodwell.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time. He was quite sure the action taken by the magistrates throughout the country of late years was very much in the direction in which the House wished to move; but he did not think they had received that appreciation to which they were entitled for their conduct in this matter. What was laid down in this Bill had been for some time past the practice of the magistrates; and if anyone looked at the record of the licences which they had lately granted he would be struck at the small number of them. This Bill, then, proceeded upon the right lines. The great objection which he entertained to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle and similar projects was that they made the granting of licences the subject of a popular vote which ought to be a matter of judicial decision. Judges so elected would be elected either to refuse or to grant licences just to suit the wishes of their constituents; but under this Bill the magistrates would act judicially, and judge for themselves whether a licence was required or not, and the Bill would bind them to take notice of certain things before they decided whether a licence was or was not wanted. In reading this Bill they would strengthen the hands of those magistrates who had hitherto acted up to their duty, while they would, at the same time, compel the others to do what they ought all along to have done. He was rejoiced to find the Bill introduced, and hoped it would be carried.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, it had been said that there was no necessity for this Bill, inasmuch as the magistrates did all the Bill required them to do. That was to some extent true; but what the magistrates did, they did without the authority of the law, and their inquiries were consequently irregular and uncertain. This Bill, by imposing a legal obligation upon them, would make the inquiry, he hoped, effective; for it would be what it was not now—a formal solemn judicial inquiry; and there could be no reason to suspect what was called jobbery in the granting and refusing of licences. When magistrates were found deciding such questions in the teeth of the evidence before them, there got abroad the idea that they were actuated by improper influences. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be, in the course of time, without injury to any interest, to bring the number of licensed houses within reasonable limits, and more in accord with actual public requirements.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he did not wish that it should be for a moment supposed that the magistrates had not done the work committed to their charge with that amount of care and supervision which was required of them. They had done so in such a way as entitled them to the commendation of the public. He knew that for the last 20 years the Yorkshire magistrates required to have three things proved to them before they granted a licence—First of all, the character of the applicant; secondly, the suitability of the house; but beyond everything, that a public-house was required in the neighbourhood. He believed that that had been done in other parts of England; and where it was not done, there could be no objection to make the tribunal more strict in requiring proof for the necessity of the licence.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he had, as a Scotch Member, placed his name on the back of the Bill, feeling that it would be of great advantage to Scotland, an idea which had been confirmed by inquiry. If the Bill went into Committee he should move an Amendment extending it to Scotland, and, if necessary, he should bring in a separate Bill for the purpose. In Ireland, whenever a new road was proposed to be made, the magistrates had six persons sum-
    192
    moned to advise them as to the need for it. If such a course should be adopted in reference to a road, it was reasonable that it should be done in reference to a licence. He hoped the Home Secretary would use his influence to have the Bill extended to Scotland.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL— [BILL 93.]
  (Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lusk, Mr. Scott, MR. Isaac, Mr. Benjamin Williams.)
  BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL— [BILL 93.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    MR. DILLWTNexpressed his intention of moving Amendments in Committee, instead of opposing the Bill at the present stage.
    MR. MONKasked for information as to the amount of the burden which the Bill would throw upon the counties. He would not press his opposition to the present Motion, if the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wheelhouse), who had charge of the Bill, would consent to go into Committee that evening pro formâ.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after Ten o'clock.