Commons Sitting of 6 March 1885

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Glasgow, v. George Anderson, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Telephone and Telegraph Wires, Sir Henry Tyler discharged; Mr. Coleridge Kennard added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 6] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Shannon Navigation * [54], nominated.
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm.) [49]—R.P. [First Night].
Considered as amended—Elections in Counties (Hours of Poll) [19–85].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)
    MR. RITCHIErose to move—
    "That this House regrets that the Bill contains no provision to confer powers on the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Metropolitan Board of Works (Thames Crossings) Bill, 1884, to the effect that two crossings being immediately required a subway at or near Shadwell should be constructed by the Metropolitan Board of Works."
    The hon. Member said, he should have preferred that his hon. and gallant Friend should have followed the usual practice of making a statement in moving the second reading of the Bill; but he was not surprised that, under the circumstances, his hon. and gallant Friend had not adopted the usual course. What he (Mr. Ritchie) proposed to ask the House to do was not so much to object to the Bill, or anything it contained, as rather to express regret for what it did not contain. As far as the propositions in the Bill were concerned, he had not a word to say against them. The Motion which he had placed on the Paper expressed regret that the Bill included no provision or power within it to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out what was admitted, on all hands, to be a very necessary communication between the two sides of the River Thames, and which had been strongly recommended by a Parliamentary Select Committee which sat only last Session. It would be unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House by any lengthened remarks as to the absolute necessity and great urgency of establishing permanent communication between the two sides of the River below London Bridge. It was unnecessary to go over ground which had so often been gone over before, or to show that a large mass of the labouring and industrial population of London, living upon an area which extended for three or four miles East of London Bridge, were without any means whatever of crossing from one side of the River to the other. The question had been the subject of much discussion before; and in every quarter of the House it was admitted that the East End of London was unfairly handicapped in consequence of this want of communication. As long ago as 1882 the engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works recommended that three permanent crossings should be made—one by means of a High Level Bridge at or near the Tower, a second by a subway
    246
    at Shadwell, and a third by means of a subway or tunnel at Blackwall. Not only did the engineer of the Board recommend that the requirements of the East End of London should thus be met, but he also submitted full plans of the means by which he proposed to provide the accommodation which he considered necessary, after a careful investigation had been made by him into the whole subject. The plans and estimates submitted by Sir Joseph Bazalgette were for the construction of a High Level Bridge at Tower Hill, and subways at Shadwell and Blackwall. It would not be correct to say that the Metropolitan Board of Works ever adopted the Re-port of their engineer. But his hon. and gallant Friend would not consider that he (Mr. Ritchie) went too far when he said that the proposal of the engineer of the Board was, to say the least of it, favourably regarded by the Metropolitan Board; and, indeed, more than once, they gave as a reason why the Board did not proceed to carry out the plans suggested by their own engineer that they did not think they had sufficient funds at their disposal to permit them to entertain so large and important a scheme. They hinted, however, that if they could induce the Government to renew the Coal and Wine Duties for another period of years they might probably then be in a position to carry out the suggestions of their engineer. But it soon became known that Her Majesty's Government did not propose to renew the Coal and Wine Duties, so that any idea of carrying out this important system of crossings by that means was given up by the Metropolitan Board of Works. They had received propositions without number from the East End of London asking them, if they did not see their way to the carrying out of the entire scheme of their own engineer, but found themselves only able to proceed with one part of it, that the crossing decided upon should be in a more central position than those proposed by Sir Joseph Bazalgette. It was pointed out that if only one crossing was to he made, that ought to be one that would be most convenient for the three miles of district at present without accommodation. The utmost importance was attached, in the interests of the population, to the central position of the subway, if the full scheme of Sir

    247
    Joseph Bazalgette were not to be carried out. But, notwithstanding the representations made to the Metropolitan Board of Works by deputations and otherwise, the Board declined to consent to the wishes of the inhabitants, and put them entirely on one side. All the public Bodies in the East End of London, with one exception, were absolutely unanimous in deciding that the subway at Shadwell was that which ought to be constructed. But, notwithstanding that fact, the Metropolitan Board of Works, although they came to a resolution that one scheme only should be proceeded with, resolved that it should not be a tunnel at Shadwell—that, in point of fact, it should not be any one of the three schemes suggested by their own engineer, but that it should be a tunnel or subway from Wapping to Bermondsey known as the Nightingale Lane Tunnel. That scheme was unanimously opposed by the East End of London, quite as unanimously as the Shadwell scheme was recommended by the Local Authorities. It was felt that, as the question was one which directly affected the interests of a large body of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, it ought not to be dealt with by an ordinary Private Bill Committee, but by a Hybrid Committee, where all persons who were interested might be heard and evidence fully taken. A proposal to that effect was made by himself (Mr. Ritchie) and brought forward in the House, but objected to by his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). The House, however, thought that it was a reasonable proposal and consented to it, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) was appointed Chairman of the Committee. After a long, patient, and very careful inquiry, this Hybrid Committee, having heard all the evidence laid before them on the subject, unanimously came to the conclusion that the public Bodies and deputations which had waited on the Metropolitan Board of Works, and recommended them to proceed, not with the Nightingale Lane scheme, but with the Shadwell scheme, were right. They, therefore, threw out the Bill of the Board of Works. But they felt that the evidence they had received was of so important a character, and that the whole question was of such vital
    248
    interest to the Metropolis, that they asked leave of the House to make a special Report, in addition to the ordinary Report it was customary to make as to the merits of a Private Bill. The Committee, in this special Report, stated that there were two objects to be served—one was the relief of the congested traffic of London Bridge and the district North and North-East of the Tower and Bermondsey, while a second object was to meet the requirements of Mile End, Shadwell, Bethnal Green, Limehouse, Poplar, Bow, Bromley, and Hackney, also the largely increasing traffic between the factories of the Silver Town Estate and West India Docks, Mill-wall, and Victoria Docks on the North, and Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, the Surrey Commercial Docks, and Deptford on the South. This Report applied to a stretch of four miles East of London Bridge, containing 1,500,000 people. To secure these objects the Committee recommended—
    "That two crossings are immediately required, and should he sanctioned by Parliament. One a Low Level Bridge at Little Tower Hill; the other a subway at or near Shadwell, which would be central, and would best meet the wants and wishes of the inhabitants East of London Bridge."
    The Committee concluded their Report as follows:—
    "Your Committee cannot avoid expressing a hope that the Corporation of the City of London may be induced to undertake this great and useful work (a Bridge) contemporaneously with the construction of a subway at Shadwell by the Metropolitan Board of Works."
    It would thus be seen that the Committee entirely agreed with the Local Bodies and deputations which had waited on the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that they entirely concurred with the Metropolitan Board's own engineer, who had two years before recommended the very work which the Select Committee of the House of Commons, after hearing evidence, also felt themselves bound to recommend. It was a somewhat remarkable fact that the Report of the Select Committee met with more approval than the Report of almost any Select Committee for years. It was not only approved by the Local Bodies in the East End of London and by the Corporation of the City of London, but by the whole of the Press of the Metropolis. It was felt that the Report was a fair

    249
    one, and that it dealt adequately with the necessities of the case. In regard to the action of the City of London, it must not be forgotten that the Bridge upon which the City was about to commence operations was not within the area of the City at all, but outside of it; and he was bound to give the highest praise to the Corporation of the City when he felt that they were not bound to take the construction of a Bridge into consideration at all. They followed a different course, and at once referred the Report of the Select Committee to a Committee specially appointed to inquire into all the circumstances, and to suggest what action was, in their opinion, necessary to enable the Corporation to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Committee sat without delay, and, after full inquiry, reported in favour of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and it was only yesterday that the House read a second time a Bill promoted by the Corporation of the City of London for carrying out the first of the proposals originally suggested by Sir Joseph Bazalgette—namely, the construction of a Bridge near Tower Hill, which was not to cost the ratepayers of the Metropolis one single penny. He maintained that action like this on the part of the Corporation of London evinced a public spirit which the House, he was sure, would cordially approve. It was only another evidence, added to many other evidences, which the City of London had invariably given of their great desire to meet the wants and wishes, not only of the inhabitants of the City proper, but of the larger portion of the Metropolis situated outside the area of the City. And now he would endeavour to show what the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works had been. He believed that the Metropolitan Board also referred the Report of the Select Committee to a Committee of their own about the middle of July; but, unlike the action of the Corporation of London, no Report emerged from that Committee until the 7th of November, exhibiting a marked contrast to the speedy and energetic manner in which the Corporation of London had taken up the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Ultimately, the Metropolitan Board of Works, notwithstanding the views that
    250
    were placed before them by many deputations upon the subject, declined to proceed with the recommendations of the Select Committee. And why? He gathered from the discussion, which took place at the Board that they did not believe the City of London was in earnest in regard to the construction of the Bridge, a fear which, he was glad to say, had been altogether falsified by the result. In the next place, the Metropolitan Board were of opinion that the Select Committee was not a strong Committee; and, further, they did not see why they should be dictated to by a Committee of the House of Commons. As he (Mr. Ritchie) was a Member of the Select Committee, he would not say much about the Committee generally; but he would point out that they had in the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) a Chairman of such strength as was not often equalled, and certainly could not be exceeded, upon any Committee of that House. He had the authority of that hon. Member for saying that he had rarely, if ever, presided over a stronger, or, indeed, as strong a Committee. If his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had addressed the House when moving the second reading of the Bill, he might probably have enlightened the House as to the reason why the Board of Works had not proceeded to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee; but, unfortunately, by the course which his hon. and gallant Friend had taken, he (Mr. Ritchie) had been precluded from knowing what the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works was. He found that, in the Report which was made by the Committee of the Metropolitan Board, one or two reasons were given. The first was that it would be objectionable—
    "To construct a subway immediately under the bed of the River, for which purpose it would be necessary to form a cofferdam, and thereby interfere to a serious extent with the entrances to the London and to the Surrey Commercial Docks; or (2) to construct the Tunnel at a much greater depth involving the use of mechanical means for lowering and lifting the traffic on both sides of the River. That having regard to the stringent conditions as to the navigable waterway which were sought to be imposed upon the Board last Session in connection with their Bill for a subway at Nightingale Lane by wharfingers and others interested in the

    251
    navigation of the River, as well as the wharfingers adjacent to the site of the works, and to the objections raised by the Conservators to the interruption of the River traffic by cofferdams, the Board is of opinion that the opposition to the formation of a shallow subway at Shad-well by cofferdams would be of a formidable character."
    What did those reasons amount to? If they were of any value at all, they would, of course, with equal force apply to any scheme. They equally went to prove that it would be impossible for the Metropolitan Board of Works to make any subway there at all; and he would ask why these two objections were not brought forward last year, when the Board were themselves before Parliament? They included a provision in their Bill for enabling them to pay proper and adequate compensation to the Conservators and wharfingers for any interference with their property; and if in this case any difficulty were to arise in that respect, it could be got over in precisely the same way. He might say, also, in reference to that declaration, that the objection existed just as strongly in 1882, when the engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works recommended the construction of this very subway. The same difficulty was raised by the wharfingers and the Conservators as to the obstruction of the River traffic by the construction of the subway; and if there was one thing on which the Committee last year were more unanimous and agreed upon than another, it was that if the Metropolitan Board of Works, provided that their scheme was a scheme in the public interest, and one which was necessary in order to serve a great public purpose, desired to carry out this plan, they ought not to be deterred from proceeding with it by objections such as those which had been raised by the wharfingers or the Conservators. No doubt, some temporary inconvenience must be suffered while works of this nature were in progress. It was felt that in carrying out a great public object some little temporary inconvenience must have to be put up with; but such little temporary inconvenience was no reason why the works should not be carried out. If the wharfingers or Conservators could show that they were likely to sustain inconvenience of a serious character, it would have been possible to insert Wharfinger Clauses in the Bill to provide compensation for
    252
    them for any injury they might suffer in consequence of the carrying out of the works. What the East End of London was now unanimously asking for was that the Metropolitan Board of Works should undertake a scheme that was approved by everybody. Nevertheless, they preferred last year to promote a scheme which was approved by no one, setting aside the proposal which originated from their own engineer, and which had received the unanimous consent of all the public Bodies concerned. It was unnecessary for him to urge the great and pressing need for this important public improvement. The House knew very well that improved means of communication had always developed the traffic of the Metropolis to an enormous extent, and there was no part of London where it was more necessary that something should be done to improve the condition of the traffic. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Board of Works, in their present Bill, made no provision for a permanent communication by means of a crossing or a subway; but they did propose to make provision for establishing free ferries across the Thames at Woolwich and Greenwich. It was recognized that that would be a purely temporary accommodation, and it was recognized by no one more that the engineer of the Metropolitan Board himself, who pointed out, in reference to a Report in 1882, suggesting that ferries should be made for local traffic, that the establishment of ferries would be a serious mistake, as, for instance, in the case of New York, where it had been found impossible to conduct the traffic by means of ferries. So far as he could understand, the ferries proposed to be established by the Bill wore simply a temporary means of communication, which could not and ought not, for a single moment, to stand in the way of that permanent communication for which the East End of London for a long series of years had been languishing, and would continue to languish, unless Parliament would bring some pressure to bear upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. It might be asked why it was that he came down to the House to propose the Resolution he had placed upon the Paper. His answer to that was that all matters affecting the Metropolis had always been considered by Parliament to be matters with which it

    253
    might fairly be asked to deal. In such an enormous area, with such a vast population, and with such important public interests, it had long been held that all matters affecting the Metropolis ought to be treated much more as Imperial questions than a mere measure promoted by an ordinary Corporate Body. If the proposal he had placed upon the Paper were assented to by the House, expressing regret that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not seen its way to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee of last year, he desired to point out that it would in no way affect the position of the Bill. The only effect it would have upon the Bill would be that the Bill itself would have to be set down for a second reading on another day—perhaps Monday; and, therefore, it would be seen that if the suggestion in opposition to the Resolution were that the only effect of carrying it would be to delay the second reading of the Bill, the real result of adopting it would only be to delay the progress of the Bill for a day or two. He hoped the House of Commons would express a strong opinion that, after the careful recommendations which had been made in the Report of the Select Committee, it was the duty of the Metropolitan Board of Works to take up the question; and he hoped and believed that the result would be that next Session the Metropolitan Board would come forward with a proposal for the construction of this subway. He deeply regretted that they were not coming forward with that proposal now. One word more, and he would have done. Yesterday a deputation upon this subject waited upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt). He (Mr. Ritchie) was asked whether he would accompany that deputation; but he declined to do so for two reasons—first, because he did not see what the Home Secretary could do in the matter except what he would probably do now—namely, give them a word of sympathy in regard to the wants and requirements of the East End of London—and, secondly, because he knew very well that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would readily take advantage of the presence of the deputation to read them a lecture on London Government. There-
    254
    fore, as he would have been unable to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and reply to the arguments made use of, he thought it was better that he should not accompany the deputation. He now found that what actually took place was exactly what he had anticipated. The Home Secretary, while expressing sympathy for the East End of London, took advantage of the opportunity—as he always took advantage of every opportunity—to read the deputation a lecture upon the apathy with which the scheme he had brought forward last Session for the reform of London Government had been regarded, and to tell them, further, that if they had not got subways, bridges, and crossings it was entirely their own fault. At the same time, he failed to see, from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, what proof there was that, if the House had passed the Bill introduced by the Government last year, the people of London would have been one whit better off in this respect. In fact, he was very strongly of opinion that if they had had that Bill they would have been much worse off, because he remembered that one portion of the Government proposals was to abolish the existing Corporation of the City of London; and, at any rate, as that Corporation had not been abolished, the public had obtained this advantage from the existing state of things in the East End of London—that the Corporation were promoting the construction of a Bridge which, if Parliament consented to their proposals, would not cost the ratepayers generally one farthing. That, he maintained, was a very great advantage indeed, and even if it were not so the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot, and many other people always appeared to forget, that London was not like Glasgow, or Liverpool, or Manchester—one homogeneous whole, but that it was composed of what might be regarded as half-a-dozen large towns, with aims entirely different, with objects wholly distinct and separate, and with hardly a single thing in common. Therefore, if the Bill of the Government had been passed, what chance would they have had in the East End of London, with the small influence they were likely to possess in a Central Board, of inducing the authorities to spend millions of money in opening up

    255
    communications across the River? If they had a Corporation of their own, of course they could have dealt with the matter themselves; but even then the result might not have been satisfactory, because, although the necessity for having these communications was admitted on all hands, there were a good many persons who would not be so anxious to pay for them. He did not wish, however, to enter into a discussion of the question of London Government; but he would venture to express a hope that, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was not very much pleased with the people of London for not having adopted his scheme, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say one or two words in sympathy with the wants and requirements of the East End of the Metropolis. He believed that such a declaration from the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have a good effect upon the Metropolitan Board of "Works, and that next year they might be prepared with a Bill to give the people of the East End of London that which they were now asking for.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House regrets that the Bill contains no provision to confer powers on the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Metropolitan Board of Works (Thames Crossings) Bill, 1884, to the effect that two crossings being immediately required a subway at or near Shad well should he constructed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, his hon. Friend had complained that an unusual course had been taken in moving the second reading of the Bill without entering into any explanation with regard to it. He thought that the speech of his hon. Friend, as well as the Resolution which he had moved, afforded ample justification for him (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) for having said nothing until he heard what his hon. Friend had to say on behalf of himself and the Resolution. The Resolution now before the House, if
    256
    not one of direct censure, certainly involved an indirect censure upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, although he dared say that his hon. Friend did not mean that. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), for one, entertained the greatest possible consideration and respect, not only for that House, but for all the recommendations made by the House or by its Committees; but he ventured to say that Committees of the House of Commons were not always infallible, even if they were of the stupendous strength of the Committee of last year, as described by his hon. Friend. The Metropolitan Board of Works had had some experience of Committees; and he might say they found that sometimes a Committee of the House of Commons passed a strong Resolution in one way, and if the same Bill was introduced in another Session that Resolution was entirely reversed. That was certainly the experience which the Metropolitan Board of Works had acquired; and although they were anxious to treat the recommendations of the Committees of the House of Commons with every possible respect, it was the duty of the Metropolitan Board to go carefully into the recommendations of the Select Committee of last year, and to dissect them thoroughly. They had done so, and the result was the Bill which he held in his hand. He would not trouble the House with specifying every subject that was dealt with in the Bill, further than to say that it included subjects of the greatest possible importance to every district in the Metropolis. He would go at once to the points which had been raised by his hon. Friend with regard to the Report of Sir Joseph Bazalgette. That Report was made to the Metropolitan Board of Works when they wanted to ascertain the best means of establishing a communication between the two aides of the River below London Bridge; and he might here say that they always had, and did still, most thoroughly sympathize with a desire that existed, not only in the East End, but in other parts of the Metropolis, to have this communication established. The Metropolitan Board of Works had already proved their sympathy, because in 1879 they brought in a Bill to enable them to erect a High Level Bridge. That Bill was thrown out, and last year they brought in a Bill for the construc-

    257
    tion of a subway at Nightingale Lane. That Bill was also thrown out, and now they were bringing in a Bill for establishing and regulating ferries across the Thames at Woolwich and Greenwich. The reason they had not applied for subways was this—when their engineer was directed to report upon the subject, the Board of Works hoped that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to continuing the Coal and Wine Duties. He was sorry to say that they had not done so, and he regretted the step they had taken. He thought they had displayed a want of intelligence in not having taken advantage of the opportunity afforded to them. As a matter of fact, they refused to do anything of the sort; but when Sir Joseph Bazalgette was told by the Board to report, he suggested several schemes, all of which, if they could have been carried out, would have been of manifest advantage to the public. The cost, however, would have been very great. No doubt, when Sir Joseph Bazalgette reported with regard to the communications across the Lower Thames, he suggested, as his hon. Friend behind had stated, that there ought to be a bridge at the Tower, and two subways at Shadwell and Blackwall. That was quite true; but when the Metropolitan Board of Works found that they had not got the money for the construction of a bridge and two subways, they were obliged to reconsider their position. Unfortunately, it was very difficult for him, without a map, to explain the matter clearly to the House; but those who were conversant with these localities would know that what would have been a great public convenience with two subways and one bridge, would not have been a convenience at all if there was only to be one subway. Therefore, the engineer of the Board of Works was directed to consider what would be the best means of communication below Bridge for the inhabitants generally, in the event of only one subway being provided. It must be borne in mind that the Metropolitan Board of Works could not take into consideration the wants of one district alone. They were bound to think of every locality concerned. They had studied the interests of all, and they maintained that the subway proposed to be made under the Bill which was brought in last year was the one which was best, and which, if con-
    258
    structed, would have been most conducive to the public interests. He was sorry he was obliged to leave the deliberations of the Committee on which he had had the honour to serve on account of stress of business elsewhere; but he could not withhold his opinion that the Committee were not right in what they did in rejecting the Preamble of the Bill, and that the recommendations which were come to afterwards were adopted without due consideration and without hearing the wharfingers. That statement might not meet the approval of the Committee; but he would point out to the House that a Motion was moved in the Committee itself by his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Wenlock (Mr. Brown), which proposed to add the words—
    "Although the evidence of the wharfingers and others against such means of crossing would have to he considered."
    That Amendment was rejected; but it was evident that some of the Members of the Committee thought that the case of the wharfingers ought to have been considered more than it was. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had gone to a great deal of trouble in quoting a Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works in answer to representations made to them by various Vestries and District Boards. The engineer of the Metropolitan Board went most carefully into the question of the subway recommended by the Committee which his hon. Friend thought ought to have been made; but the Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works was as follows:—
    "To construct a subway immediately under the bed of the River, for which purpose it would he necessary to form a cofferdam, and thereby interfere to a serious extent with the entrances to the London and to the Surrey Commercial Docks; or (2) to construct the Tunnel at a much greater depth, involving the use of mechanical means for lowering and lifting the traffic on both sides of the River."
    That Report called attention to the importance of abstaining, as far as possible, from interfering with the traffic on the River, and that point was pressed strongly upon the Board by various persons who were interested in the traffic of the River. In addition they had this fact, that the House of Commons and Committees of the House

    259
    were very jealous of any proposal that was calculated to interfere in any shape or form with the traffic of the River. If the recommendation of the Select Committee that a subway should be constructed at or near Shadwell had been carried out, it would have been necessary to construct the tunnel at an enormous depth, which would have involved the use of hydraulic power, and the Board were confident that not only? would the cost be excessive, but that the House of Commons would not consent to pass the scheme. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had alluded to the fact that the Corporation of the City of London had kindly undertaken to make a bridge at the Tower. All he could say was that he believed they were perfectly right in doing so; and, instead of complaining of the Metropolitan Board of Works for not taxing the ratepayers unnecessarily, he thought they ought to be applauded for the course they had pursued, seeing that the City of London? was now going to do the work out of their own funds. Under such circumstances, the Metropolitan Board of Works, as guardians of the public purse, would certainly have done wrong if they had undertaken this work at the expense of the ratepayers. The bridge would now be constructed by the Corporation of London without expense to anybody. But the undertaking of the City of London to construct this bridge had considerably changed and modified the place where the subway should be constructed, because if they were to have another crossing they must look lower down the River for a subway. The proposal of the Board of Works was to establish steam ferries, which he maintained would be very useful to the inhabitants on both sides of the River, and he did not see why they should not be permanently kept up. The inhabitants of Woolwich and Greenwich were quite satisfied, and these steam ferries would give accommodation to hundreds of thousands of working men who desired to cross from one side of the River to the other. He thought it was an act of presumption for the persons who waited yesterday upon the Home Secretary to arrogate to themselves that they represented everybody and everything. He did not propose to deliver a lecture upon London Govern-
    260
    ment; but he might state that the Board of Works had also received a deputation from working men, who had represented their case in a very proper spirit. He had expressed to them the same sympathy which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) had expressed, and he wished it was in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to do something for them; but he did not happen to be the Head of a Board of Guardians, or of a Relief Committee. The position he occupied was that of Chairman of a Body which was accountable for every penny of the public money they expended, and who were looked after in the most extraordinary and careful manner by the auditors. Therefore, with all their sympathy for the East End of London, they found it impossible to spend the money of the Board in relieving the necessities of these distressed people. There were many other things he should like to bring under the notice of the House; but he could not believe that the House would consent to carry this extraordinary Resolution, involving as it did a most undeserved vote of censure upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, who in this very Bill were trying to help every part of London—North, South, East, and West. He would reiterate that the case of the East End of London had been thoroughly and amply considered by a Committee of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but they could not confine their operations to one single district. It was their duty to consider the Metropolis at large, and he repudiated the idea that they would ever consent to give more consideration to one part of the Metropolis than another. The Board had a difficult duty to discharge, and they had endeavoured to discharge it to the best of their ability. The requirements of the East End of London had been considered in every shape and form, and they would be still further considered as far as was possible. He therefore hoped that the House would read the Bill a second time, and reject the Resolution which had been moved by his hon. Friend.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he thought that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down had laid down, in excellent terms, the principle on which the Metropolitan Board ought to proceed, and upon which

    261
    he thought, in this matter, they were proceeding. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was that the House should pass practically a vote of censure upon the Metropolitan Board for not including in their Bill this year a proposition to erect crossings over the Thames which would probably have involved an expenditure, charged on the whole of London, of a very considerable amount. With regard to the arguments used by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) as to the necessity of these communications, they were all agreed; but it was also requisite that that necessity should be supplied by an expenditure of money. And then came the question, "How was the money to be raised?" Whenever it was proposed to spend money, the principle was laid down that those who had to supply the money should give their consent. It appeared from the statement of the hon. Member opposite that the Report of the Select Committee of last year had been referred to a Committee of the Metropolitan Board of Works, with whom rested the discretion of fulfilling the condition as to supplying the money. Of course, it was highly desirable, when a scheme was proposed which would involve a large expenditure of public money, that some authority in which the public were duly represented should first give their consent to it. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) praised the Corporation of the City of London for its generosity, because, forsooth, in their Tower Bridge Bill, they proposed to charge a Trust Estate—the Bridge House Estate—with the sum of £750,000 for the purpose of building the bridge. He did not object to that Bill being passed; but with respect to the suggestion that the Metropolitan Board of Works should expend a considerable sum more without the opinion being taken upon it of those who would have to provide the money, he thought it was a most unreasonable suggestion altogether. He failed to see why a vote of censure should be passed upon a spending body because they declined to spend the money of the inhabitants of the Metropolis upon a project of which they did not approve. References had been made to lectures on Local Government; but the only point connected with London Government in-
    262
    volved in this case was the desirability of having in existence some directly representative Body who should control the expenditure of the money of the ratepayers. He had no wish to say anything personal to the hon. Member opposite; but he thought that a considerable amount of blame rested upon the hon. Member's shoulders for the condition of things which he condemned that day, and which he proposed to remedy by moving a vote of censure upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. He (Mr. Firth) should certainly oppose the Motion.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) deprecated very much the introduction into the discussion of lectures upon London Government; but the hon. Member had done something more practical than deliver a lecture upon London Government, because he had brought forward a Resolution which was properly described as a vote of censure, and a vote of want of confidence in one of the principal Bodies engaged in conducting the government of London. That was something that went a little further than a lecture, because the hon. Member wanted the House, by a direct vote, to condemn the Metropolitan Board of Works for the mode in which they conducted their own business. It was not necessary that he (Sir William Harcourt) should deliver any lecture on the government of London; because, if the House should by this vote assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, it would entirely condemn the present government of London by a vote of censure upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said that if the London Reform Bill of last year had been passed they would not have had the new bridge which was to be constructed by the Corporation of London; but he (Sir William Harcourt) did not know why the work should not have been undertaken by the new Municipal Council, which would have charge of the Bridge House Estate of the Corporation, just as much as the Corporation had now. The hon. Member had asked for an expression of sympathy on his (Sir William Harcourt's) part with the East End of London. Certainly, that expression was freely granted to the constituents of the hon. Member in

    263
    the East End, and he had said so yesterday. It was granted all the more because they could not help themselves. They had no choice in the matter, and the Home Office could not help them. The Governing Bodies of London, whether good or bad, were the only persons from whom they could get help. How was Her Majesty's Government or the House of Commons to take the administration of the details of this work out of the hands of those to whom it had been intrusted? The Metropolitan Board of "Works had power to raise the money to do the work, and they ought to be able to judge what work should be done, and what money should be spent upon it. If they were unable to judge of that, he did not know who could. How could a Legislative Body take out of the hands of an Administrative Body like the Metropolitan Board of Works the details of the administration in which they were engaged? How could they say to the Metropolitan Board of Works—"We think that you are not fit to undertake such work; but we insist upon your doing it, and we insist that you shall raise £2,000,000 "—whioh he was told this work would cost—"and expend it in a certain way?" How could they say to this Legislative Body whose duty it was to raise the money, and to whom the whole administration of it was confided—"You shall spend £2,000,000, and raise the money by means of rates, whether you think it right to do the work or not?" He ventured to say that no Government and no Legislative Assembly would ever consent to say anything of the kind. The Metropolitan Board of Works had arrived at a decision. He did not say that they were right in the decision they had arrived at; but he had not himself spoken of them in the terms of condemnation used by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). On a former occasion, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the Board of Works as if they were perfect, and now he was the first to condemn them.
    MR. RITCHIEbegged the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was alluding now to a former debate which took place in that House. Ho had expressly stated that he by no means considered the Board of Works perfect, and he had also expressed the opinion that
    264
    there was a large necessity for reform in their constitution.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was glad to find that the hon. Member was not what he believed him to be—namely, a trusty champion of the existing constitution of the London Government. The hon. Member must be perfectly aware that in other towns the richer portion of the population contributed to the wants of those who were not so fortunately circumstanced. The hon. Gentleman himself spoke of Glasgow and Liverpool as homogeneous. Had the hon. Gentleman ever been in Liverpool? Did he mean that all parts of Liverpool were exactly the same? Because, if so, he was altogether wrong. There were poor parts which corresponded with the East End of London, and so also in Glasgow; but in Liverpool and Glasgow there was a system of government by which the superfluities of the wealthy could be brought in in aid of the wants of the poor, and that was what was required in London. It could, however, only be done by having a proper representative Body, representing both sections of the people, to manage the details of the administration and to raise the money that was required for the wants of both. The Metropolitan Board of Works was a representative Body. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman did not think that it was a representative Body, and that was why he asked for a vote of want of confidence. With regard to this particular proposal, he could not himself undertake to pass a general vote of censure. Before doing so, it would be necessary to enter into a detailed examination, and that was not a duty which fell within the province of the Government. The Legislature had already decided the matter by constituting the Metropolitan Board of Works. There was one argument which everybody could understand, and that was that very large sums of money had been expended on the upper parts of the River in freeing the bridges; and the people below Bridge were entitled to proportionate consideration and outlay in respect of their means of getting across the River. No doubt, the money hitherto spent upon the River had been mainly for the benefit of those who inhabited the districts extending over the upper parts of it, and which affected what might, generally speaking, be

    265
    called the heart of the population of London. Similar considerations to those which had applied to the accommodation afforded above London Bridge did not apply to the lower part of the River, and consequently there had been a suggestion that subways should be constructed under the River for the benefit of the Eastern part of the Metropolis. He should have thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works would have done well to have considered the requirements of the East End of London; and he should have thought that the construction of the subway which had been recommended would have had some claim upon them for their favour. But he understood that the Metropolitan Board of Works had proposed a subway, and so far he could not see that they had failed in the discharge of their duty. Whether the subway ought to be made in the place proposed by the Board of Works, or at the place proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), he had no means of judging.
    MR. RITCHIEremarked that a Select Committee might inquire.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not see how anybody outside the Metropolitan Board of Works could determine what work was to be done, or what amount of money should be expended. By all means, if the Metropolitan Board did not understand their work, remove and change them; but he did not believe that either the Government or the House of Commons could undertake the work of the Board. Therefore, he went back to the point with which he commenced. The Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was practically a vote of censure upon the Metropolitan Board. He shared to a great degree in that want of confidence in the existing government of London, and he was very much disposed to vote with the hon. Member in a Motion of this kind, which might lay a good foundation for the proposition that a great and sweeping change was necessary. Therefore he would not say that if the hon. Gentleman went to a division he would not vote with him. But, on the other hand, he must point out the extreme difficulty of endeavouring to force the Metropolitan Board of Works to undertake any particular work, and
    266
    raise the money that was necessary for carrying it out.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he would only say one or two words in endeavouring to show the House how simple the issue was against the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Metropolitan Board had admitted that communications were needed, and they had twice brought in a Bill which had gone before a Select Committee of the House, and been rejected on each occasion. The Board had further reported, through their own engineer, that these communications were necessary; and in that state of the facts the Board brought forward a proposal which went before a Committee last year, and as the Committee rejected it in favour of another proposal, the House, without further information upon the matter, must take it that the decision of the Committee was right. Whenever a measure was rejected by a Select Committee, the House was disposed to assume that the decision of the Committee was not to be disturbed. In this case there had been a long investigation, and he believed that the Committee, which was a strong one, had arrived, unanimously at a clear decision. In that state of facts, the Metropolitan Board of Works in the very next year came forward with a Bill in which they took no steps whatever to give effect to the suggestions of the Select Committee. Having already admitted that the communications were necessary, having the decision of a tribunal of the House that they were needed, the Board of Works deliberately refused to take any action in the matter. Therefore, he thought that a very strong case indeed had been made out for condemning the inaction of the Metropolitan Board. To what cause that inaction was due he would not stop to discuss; but he wished to remind the House that there was a very strong feeling in London upon this subject. The East End of London had been altogether neglected, while hundreds of thousands of pounds had been expended upon communications in the upper part of the Thames. Under these circumstances, he confessed that he drew the conclusion which was not drawn by the hon. Gentleman opposite—that not only had the Metropolitan Board acted in this case with very little regard to the interests of the people of London, but that the case for a reform

    267
    of London Government which the feebleness or wilfulness of that Board disclosed was very strong indeed.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that as he was Chairman of the Select Committee of last year, it was only fitting that he should say a few words on this question. He had no desire to censure the Metropolitan Board of "Works. It was very unfortunate, he thought, that in a question of this kind, which seriously affected the material interests of 1,500,000 people, the question of censure upon the Metropolitan Board of Works should have been introduced at all. What the House had to do was to see that justice was done to the inhabitants of the Metropolis as far as they were able, and in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) he did not desire to convey any censure upon the action of the Metropolitan Board. All he desired to express was a strong opinion that the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to take measures to afford facilities for the communication across the Thames of large bodies of the people who lived East of London Bridge. The case stood thus—something like 1,500,000 people resided East of London Bridge, in a space about four miles in length. The proposition of the Metropolitan Board, last year, which came before the Select Committee, was to construct a subway at a cost of £1,900,000, or, in round numbers, of £2,000,000, at a point only one mile East of London Bridge. Therefore, it was clear that the population, for three miles below, would be very inadequately accommodated. And the Metropolitan Board proposed to do this without consulting the wishes of those who resided North of the River Thames and East of London Bridge. It was a very painful fact that a serious opposition was raised to the Bill before the Committee by every public body North and East of London Bridge. He felt that to be a very important matter. The Committee had before them what he might almost call the scandal of an enormous expenditure of money going on on account of disputes between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the whole of the public bodies representing the inhabitants of the North-East of London. A great many eminent counsel were employed in the case, and the investigation of the Select Committee lasted for 20
    268
    days. For his own part he had approached the question, as he was sure every Member of the Committee approached it, with an entirely unbiased mind. If he had any bias at all it was the belief that a Body like the Metropolitan Board of Works would have duly weighed and considered the question before they came to Parliament to authorize the expenditure of so large a sum of money. But as the investigation proceeded it became evident that they had not done so. The evidence proved that the consideration of the case by the Metropolitan Board of Works was of an extremely brief and perfunctory character. The Committee had it in evidence that it was on the 8th of October, 1883, that they instructed their surveyor to report as to the best means of crossing the River Thames below London Bridge. That Report was brought up on the 15th of October; on the 22nd it was approved, and on the 26th it was adopted. Therefore, only one week elapsed during which the engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works could consider this most important question, and only six day days elapsed before the Report of the engineer was adopted by the Board of Works. Where £2,000,000 were being spent and 1,600,000 people accommodated, greater consideration should be given to the case than had been given to it by the Metropolitan Board of Works. When the matter came to be investigated, they found that the proposal of the Metropolitan Board was a mere compromise. They had to consider the question of the remedying of congested traffic at London Bridge and the accommodation of a large population stretching down the Thames for four miles; and when they endeavoured to meet these two eases they effected a compromise—and compromises, as hon. Members knew, were as a rule very bad things. It became evident that no one was satisfied with the arrangement which had been proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The whole of the population interested were opposed to it, and it became evident that not only would this £2,000,000 have to be expended, but that a further £2,000,000 would have to be raised for the construction of a subway lower down the river. They had reason to believe that the Corporation of London, with funds which they had at

    269
    their disposal—the Bridge House Estate Funds, which could only be devoted to Metropolitan bridges—would construct a bridge where they were now proposing to construct it—at Tower Hill. That bridge would deal with the difficulty and the obstruction and congestion of traffic on London Bridge. It would be within half-a-mile of London Bridge, and remedy that portion of the difficulty. Then it became more evident that a subway ought to be constructed lower down the River, and the Committee had suggested that that should be made—that a subway should be constructed at Shadwell, where the surveyor of the Metropolitan Board of Works had proposed to construct a subway. The Committee had reason to believe that there was no substantial difficulty in the way of the construction of such a subway, and therefore they ventured to suggest that this would be the right way of solving this difficult problem. The Metropolitan Board of Works might complain that two Parliamentary Committees had considered the proposals they had made, and had rejected them. He (Sir Hussey Vivian) felt sure that last year's Committee had rejected the proposals submitted to them on very good grounds. The Committee thought that it would be in the interest of the Metropolitan Board if, after the very protracted and careful investigation they had conducted, they could make such a suggestion as would probably be carried by Parliament when next proposed. Therefore it was that they suggested that a tunnel should be constructed at Shadwell, and he very much regretted that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not availed themselves of the suggestion, and proposed to carry out that or some analogous scheme. He believed it due to the great body of ratepayers living to the East of London Bridge that this communication should be made. The expenditure on the bridges above London Bridge had been very heavy indeed—about £1,300,000 having been expended in freeing bridges from tolls. In order to do this, the ratepayers of the Metropolis were taxed. The ratepayers in the East of London did not escape, but were taxed with the rest on account of the bridges above London Bridge, though they got very little or no benefit from them. The Committee over which he presided had certainly
    270
    thought it was incumbent on the Metropolitan Board of Works to meet the wants of the people living to the East of London Bridge, and he must say that he regretted that that matter had not been dealt with. He supposed it could not be dealt with now, because the necessary Parliamentary Notice could not be given; but he trusted that if this discussion had no other result, it would, at any rate, have the effect of bringing strong pressure to bear on the Metropolitan Board of Works to induce them to carry out such a work as the Committee had suggested, and as he believed it was their duty to carry out, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the North-East of London.
    MR. MARRIOTTsaid, there was no Question before the House—as might be gathered from the speeches which had been delivered—in relation to a Bill for the better government of London. The only question was, whether the Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works of this year was a right one or a wrong one? Now, with regard to these bridges, the Metropolitan Board felt as much as anyone else the wants of those who lived in the East of London, and desired as much as anybody to meet those wants with regard to means of communication between the two shores of the Thames. In 1879 the Board brought in a Bill for the purpose of affording that communication, and they brought in another last year; but both measures had been rejected, by Parliamentary Committees. He did not wish to blame the Committees—he would not say whether they were right or wrong in the course they had taken; but they had rejected them, and what had occurred this year? Why, the Corporation of London had brought in a Bill to construct a bridge below London Bridge, and those who had the charge of the money of the ratepayers of the Metropolis said that they would not move in the matter of a subway. If they did propose such a scheme, what would happen? Why, there would be two Committees sitting in the House, one considering the measure brought in by the Corporation of the City of London, and the other inquiring into the merits of the scheme promoted by the Metropolitan Board. There would be two Committees. Why two Committees? The Committees were not acting together, and they could not do so. What

    271
    the Metropolitan Board said -was that they would not propose any bridge, but?would propose means which would be a great advantage to the poorer classes who lived on the North and South sides of the Thames. They proposed to establish two free ferries, which would be, no doubt, of immense benefit to the inhabitants of Woolwich, Poplar, and Greenwich. With regard to the tunnel, it was a very serious matter, and would require an enormous amount of scientific opinion. It interfered with a great many rights; and whether they had a Central Government for London or not, it would not simplify the passing of such a scheme, because it would still be necessary to come to the House of Commons and submit the proposal to a Parliamentary Committee before they could obtain sanction to it. It was not the City of London or the Metropolitan Board of Works that stood in the way of the improvements; it was the House of Commons itself which had declined to allow the Metropolitan Board of Works to do what it proposed to do on a former occasion. The Metropolitan Board of Works, looking at the present position of the question, considered that it would be desirable, while experiments were going on, to supply these ferries. No doubt, the House would be of opinion that no vote should be passed throwing upon them work which they could not possibly perform this year; and he therefore thought that, so far from deserving a vote of censure, they had endeavoured to meet the wants of the people of the East of London, and had exercised a wise judgment in the action they had taken.
    MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had shown some arguments why the Metropolitan Board of Works should not be called upon to promote a Bill this year for the construction of a bridge below London Bridge. The fact was, as anyone who sat on the Committee of last year knew, that below London Bridge there was an enormous population growing up and rapidly developing manufacturing interests, all of whom felt most intensely the want of sufficient communication across the Thames. Then it had been said that it was as well to save the pockets of the ratepayers, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works should not be asked to make this tunnel for the benefit of Shad well. That would
    272
    have been an argument to use last year; but it was no good now. Last year the Metropolitan Board of Works came down and asked Parliament to sanction the expenditure of £2,000,000 for the purpose of providing efficient means for crossing the Thames; but now they refused to come to the House for any sum of money for the same purpose. Everyone who knew anything about the district was well aware that there was a great and increasing traffic on the River at the point in question, consequent on the increased population in the neighbourhood. There was only one Authority in London which could take the matter in hand, and that was the Metropolitan Board of Works; and therefore he regretted that they had not proposed to construct a tunnel at Shadwell this year, Shadwell being, in the opinion of the engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the right place for it.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that his object had been to obtain an expression of opinion. He was satisfied with the expression of opinion which had been given, and he would not, therefore, ask the House to divide upon the Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF EMERGENCY MEN AT CLARE ISLAND, CO. MAYO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government are aware that the Emergency men quartered on Clare Island (county Mayo) are in the habit of obtaining and consuming liquor at a public-house on Sundays, in contravention of the Sunday Closing Act, without any notice being taken of the practice by the police; whether the resulting intoxication has recently led to several disorderly and dangerous acts, one being the discharge of a revolver, by an Emergency man, at a dog, to the peril of the owner of the dog, who was

  273
  standing by at the moment, and another being "a stand-up fight," in the presence of a number of persons, between an Emergency man and a policeman; whether the police have information that the Emergency men are suspected of plundering hen-roosts by night; and, what steps will be taken to deal with the circumstances stated, and also with the fact that these Emergency men are in the habit of carrying and displaying firearms?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEBMAN: In The Western People newspaper of the 21st ultimo, there were published an anonymous letter and a leading article which taken together contained all the specific charges against the police and Emergency men in Clare Island which are included in this Question. Inquiry was at once made by the police authorities with the result that there was shown to be no foundation for the charges, with the exception that it did appear that one of the Emergency men some time ago fired his revolver at a dog which had been sent to drive away some sheep that he was taking to the pound; but it is not true that the owner of the dog was near, or in any danger. The man was cautioned as to the use he made of his revolver; and with this exception it did not appear that there had been any display of their fire-arms by the Emergency men, who are reported to be well-conducted.

  EGYPT—THE COURBASH.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Globe of 3rd March, to the effect—
  "That, without the usual delays and formalities attending the action of the tribunals, four men belonging to the village of Matarieh were courbashed, "the reason given being" the increasing insolence of the native population towards Englishmen,"
  and an alleged assault by some of the villagers on two unarmed Hussars; whether inquiry will be made as to the nature of the provocation given by the Hussars; how is it they went about unarmed; and, whether the punishment inflicted on their alleged assailants was not in direct contravention of the undertaking to abolish the courbash?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, Whether there is any truth in the circum-
  274
  stantial statement published in The Standard of the 3rd March, and substantially repeated in several journals, that an alleged assault, in a village in Lower Egypt, was punished by the Egyptian Military Police by way of lynching, without trial; the village being surrounded, a statement implicating certain persons extorted from the Sheiks by threat of immediate flogging, and the persons so implicated being tied to a tree in front of the Mosque, and flogged, first with a stirrup leather, and then with a courbash, by the Military Police; and, if he is not informed, whether he will at once inquire and ascertain whether such things have happened under the reformed regime; particularly whether what was done was a mere rough reprisal by British Military, or was really the act of the Military Police, enrolled under European officers for the express purpose of maintaing the Law; and, if in the latter case, he can give an assurance that the Police officers will be adequately dealt with?
  MR. M'COANasked, Whether it was not the fact that the only tribunal to which the men assaulted could have carried their case was the Court of the Cadi, in which Christian evidence was not admissible?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to my hon. Friend, and to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I have to state that the Foreign Office have as yet received no information with regard to this occurrence; but they cannot undertake to exercise minute supervision over the administration of Egypt. Inquiry will, however, be made as to the facts. I cannot answer the Question of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan).

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE ON INDIA.
MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government received, several months ago, important information with regard to the advance of the Russian Forces towards Herat and the Frontier of India, from a high official and military authority in India, to the following effect:—
"Russia can, in from 80 to 100 days after the orders are spread from the War Office, put 95,000 regular Troops in positions from which we can hardly drive her, and from which she can undertake the invasion of India at her own

275
convenience, and with a very fair prospect of success;"
whether the same authority did not make urgent recommendations in regard to that advance; and, whether Her Majesty's Government considered that information to have been reliable; and, if so, whether he is able to state, consistently with the public interest, what steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government have taken in consequence?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I understand the hon. Gentleman's Question to refer to a Memorandum which was privately circulated in India by the Quartermaster General, but which has not been officially submitted by him to the Government of India. In these circumstances, the Government decline to express any opinion upon the subjects discussed in the Memorandum. Even if it were desirable in the public interest—which I certainly do not think it is—it would not be possible to make any statement as to the steps which have been taken by the Government of India in regard to these matters.
MR. CHAPLIN: Do I understand from that answer that the noble Marquess has received the information to which I have referred?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have received the Memorandum, which I presume has also been received by the hon. Gentleman in the same manner.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Government intend to introduce a Bill dealing with Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Irish Government and the Home Office have been in communication on the subject of legislation for carrying out certain suggestions of the Royal Commission on Reformatory and Industrial Schools which extended to the United Kingdom; but I am not in a position to say anything as to the introduction of a Bill on this subject.

EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1876 (IRELAND).
MR. DEASYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is compulsory on Public Boards
276
in Ireland to appoint Inspectors under the Explosives Act of 1876; and, what responsibility do those Boards incur by making such appointments?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, it was the duty of the Local Authorities to appoint Inspectors under the Explosives Acts, and if they did not perform that duty they would have the responsibility which attached to Public Bodies which refused to perform the duty imposed by Parliament. In order to facilitate the matter, and not to put the Local Authorities in Ireland to unnecessary expense, the Government of Ireland had, ho believed, signified their permission that the Constabulary might be employed as Inspectors if the Local Authorities thought fit to do so.
MR. DEASYasked, whether the same responsibility would attach to the constable appointed as would to a private individual if a private individual was appointed?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: So I understand. He would be the Inspector appointed by the Local Authority.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what legal authority he founds his statement of the 2nd instant, that magistrates in Ireland are entitled to do what the magistrates of England are prohibited from doing, by a Judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (13th June, 1882), namely, forbidding a lawful assembly or procession, because information had been shown that such assembly or procession, if held, would tend to a breach of the peace?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Question of the hon. Member does not quite accurately recite what I stated. I did not say that magistrates in England are prohibited from stopping processions. Magistrates in both countries, in the exercise of their discretionary powers for the preservation of the peace, are bound to have regard to the law as laid down in their respective countries. Without laying down any abstract proposition of law on the subject, I stated that the law in Ireland, as interpreted by the highest Court there, justified the action of the magistrates in the particular case of the intended procession in Derry.

BOARD OF TRADE—PAY OF LIGHT-KEEPERS, GREAT BRITAIN.
MR. SEXTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, What is the allowance made to light-keepers in England as good conduct pay, and if this allowance is of a fixed amount, or increases according to length of service; what allowance is made to light-keepers in England for fog signal duties, and if it is permanent or only during continuance of fog; what is the allowance to light-keepers in England in lieu of gardens where no land is attached to stations; what is the allowance to female assistants at single light stations on the English coast; what is the extent of the inequality existing in this service between England and Ireland in respect to those several allowances; why the inequality exists; and, whether it will be ended?
MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had a very long answer to the Question; and, if the hon. Member would permit him, would send it to him in writing.

NAVY—THE ROYAL YACHT "VICTORIA AND ALBERT."
MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the repairs of Her Majesty's Yacht, Victoria and Albert, have been completed; if so, will he inform the House the total amount expended upon the hull, engines, cabins, and general outfit; also the intended complement of officers and crew, together with the probable annual cost for wages, provisions, fuel, and other stores; and, if he can state how often, and in what service, the yacht is to be employed; also if it be connect that the Lords of the Admiralty have authorised a large sum to be expended in the erection of a special shed for the storage of coals for the Queen's yachts?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The repairs to the Victoria and Albert will be completed in a fortnight. The original Estimate as stated to Parliament was £55,000; the actual cost will be £58,000. The chief items in the additional expenditure are alterations of the bridge, which were desirable for the safe navigation of the vessel, and an improved fire service. The complement of the yacht and tenders is 157, or, including 75 riggers, 282. The details of the annual cost were given to Parliament in a Return ordered by the House in 1883.
278
The net amount is £7,968. The crew are continuous service men, all of whom are available in time of war for the general service of the Navy. The full pay of the officers is the chief item in the extra net annual cost. No sum has been taken in the Estimates for a coal shed. It is impossible to state beforehand on what services the yacht may be employed.

NAVY-SHIPBUILDING—PRIVATE SHIPBUILDERS.
MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will be good enough to inform the House the number and description of ships for which he has accepted tenders from private shipbuilders; whether the lowest tenders have in all cases been accepted alike for ships and machinery; and, if it is correct that the Admiralty have declined allowing builders, who have not hitherto built torpedo boats, to tender for this type of craft without first building experimental specimens at their own cost?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Tenders have been accepted for six Scouts. In their invitations calling for tenders for shipbuilding, the Admiralty expressly state that they do not bind themselves to accept the lowest tender. They accept, in all cases, the tender which is considered best for the Public Service. It happens in this instance to have been the lowest. It has been thought desirable that the recent invitations to tender for 10 first-class torpedo boats should be addressed to those firms who have the greatest experience in the special work required; but the Admiralty are anxious to encourage a more general competition, and they propose to invite firms to build experimental boats on their own design, which they will be prepared to accept on condition that a minimum speed is realized.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE —INTRUSION OF THE POLICE AT CASHEL.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether two policemen intruded themselves at a meeting held in Cashel on the 22nd February last, which was presided over by the Very Rev. Dean Quirk, Parish Priest of Cashel;

279
whether the Very Rev. Chairman strongly protested against the intrusion; if the policemen still remained, stating they had authority from their superior officer to attend the meeting; and, whether the Government approves of policemen forcing themselves on lawful and peaceful meetings; and, if not, whether they will issue instructions to prevent a repetition of such conduct?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A sergeant and constable were directed to attend this meeting of the local branch of the National League, and request admittance. They entered the meeting without any objection being made, and, therefore, did not formerly request admittance. On the Chairman asking their authority for being present, the sergeant produced the written order, which showed the condition on which he was directed to attend. Although remarks were made on the presence of the two police men, they were not expressly asked to retire, and the sergeant thought he was justified in remaining. I consider that this was an error of judgment, and that they ought to have withdrawn when the meeting objected to their presence.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be good enough to state why he thinks it necessary that policemen should intrude themselves upon these peaceable meetings of the National League?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: According to the published report in the newspaper of a previous meeting there was a direct incitement to violence in one of the resolutions.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Arising out of this Question, I have to ask the Chief Secretary if he has received a letter from the Very Rev. Dean Quirk, who presided over the meeting, in which the following occurred:—
"Now I have to complain of this most un-warrantable and, to us, most offensive proceeding. I am determined that there shall he no violation of the law, and all present are similarly disposed. One of your predecessors, Mr. Trevelyan, said that police should not attend National League meetings unless there was some special reason for their doing so."
He would ask whether the Stipendiary, Captain Slacke, had any authority for instituting such a system of espionage over a respectable body of Irishmen; and, whether the English Government
280
believed it would tend to promote the interests of law and order?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; I have received that letter from the rev. gentleman, to which I have replied. I have given in my answer to the hon. Member, and the other hon. Members who have addressed me to-day, an answer tantamount to that addressed to the rev. gentleman.
MR. DEASY: I would wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if a warrant in such cases discloses the reason for the intrusion of the police?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; it does not disclose the reason.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF ROMAN CATHOLICS, CO. CLARE.
MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the number of Catholics appointed to the Commission of the Peace in county Clare within the past two years; if Colonel Lloyd, recently appointed Justice of the Peace for Knock District, county Clare, is a stranger and a Protestant; and whether he is aware that the district is almost exclusively Catholic; if it is a fact that the only property he has in the county is about sixty acres of land, which he rents; and, whether the Irish Government purpose to redeem their pledge of last year, to appoint to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland a just proportion of eligible Catholics?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand 11 gentlemen have been appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the County Clare within the past two years, three of whom are believed to be Roman Catholics. Colonel Lloyd is a Protestant, and the district in which he will serve has certainly a very large Roman Catholic population; but it is inaccurate to describe him as a stranger, or as having only 60 acres of land. He has a residence, and farms about 250 acres in the county. The Lord Chancellor, with whom the appointment of county magistrates rests, is most anxious, whenever he properly can, to redress any religious inequality on the Magisterial Bench, and thus carry into practice the declaration made by the late Chief Secretary.
MR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he only farms 60

281
acres of land in the district, and that there are Catholic gentlemen who farm 1,000 and 2,000 acres of land who have been refused appointment by the Lord Chancellor on account of their religion?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know anyone—I am sure that no one would be—excluded by the Lord Chancellor on account of religion. If the names are submitted to the Lord Chancellor, he will inquire as to the most suitable.
MR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Lieutenant of the county refuses to send forward the names of Catholic gentlemen sent to him?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the names are sent forward direct to the Lord Chancellor, he will take care to inquire into them.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE COMMONERS AT ST. ALBANS.
MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution of certain of the inhabitants of Saint Albans for pulling down the fences of an inclosure made upon a large strip of roadside waste or common land, in violation of what they conceived to be their rights; whether he is aware that the Bench of Magistrates inflicted fines upon these people, most of whom were working men, amounting, with damages and costs, altogether to a sum of £111 7 s. (of which £30 was subsequently remitted); whether he is aware that the fences have been re-erected at their own expense by some of the defendants; and, whether, under the special circumstances of the case, and considering that the defendants acted on behalf of what they believed to be public rights, he will advise the remission of the fines not yet paid, and direct the amounts already paid to be refunded?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I carefully inquired some weeks ago into this case. It is true that the fines imposed were large; but the Chairman of the Bench reported to me—and here I wish to draw special attention to the important words in the hon. Member's Question, "that the defendants acted on behalf of what they believed to be public rights"—that the judgment of the Court was based on the remarkable
282
fact that the defendants were shown to have been given two legal opinions adverse to the mode of proceeding which they adopted. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the defendants were not justified in the course which they took. Appeals were lodged on behalf of the defendants, but they have not been proceeded with; and, under those circumstances, I thought that I ought not to interfere.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. VAUGHAN MONTGOMERY, J.P.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Vaughan Montgomery, J.P. against whom an abortive prosecution was directed, is to be retained in the Commission of the Peace?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Lord Chancellor inquired into this case, and called upon Mr. Montgomery for an explanation of his conduct in connection with a claim which he made to vote at the Cootehill Poor Law election last year. Mr. Montgomery having failed to give a satisfactory explanation, the Lord Chancellor deemed it his duty to remove him from the Commission of the Peace. This decision was communicated to Mr. Montgomery on the 24th of January last.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If that portion of the Irish Judicature Bill dealing with the District Registrars of the Court of Probate was submitted to the Judge of that Court before its introduction into this House, in accordance with the pledge given last year by the late Chief Secretary, in reply to a Question, that any Bill dealing with such Registrars would be so submitted; if not, why was this pledge not fulfilled; and, whether any, and, if so, which, of the Judges were so consulted?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I find that my right hon. Predecessor did say in March last year that the Judge of the Court of Probate would be consulted as to proposals which were then in contemplation affecting the District Registries of his Court. The Lord Chancellor had previously communicated

283
to the Judge the intentions of the Government on this subject, and the proposals then in view are embodied in the present Bill, which deals with the whole judicature. The precise statement of the late Chief Secretary was overlooked; but the Government will be quite willing to consider any objections which the Judge of the Court of Probate may now offer to the poposals of the Bill in the points referred to.
MR. GIBSON: Is it intended to submit these parts of the Bill to the Judge of the Court of Probate for his approbation?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know whether it is intended that the Bill should be submitted to him as it is now before the House. If the Judge of the Court of Probate has any observations to make, they will be carefully considered.

ORDNANCE SURVEY—THE SALE OF ORDNANCE MAPS.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that the Government have granted to one firm of booksellers a monopoly of the sale of ordnance maps in England for a term of years; and, if so, what consideration has been given for this privilege, and why were not open tenders invited from the trade for so valuable a concession?
MR. HIBBERT: A temporary arrangement has been made to the effect stated, under pressure of circumstances, until January 1, 1887, when the new general arrangements will come into force, after public competition. Messrs. Stanford were selected because they already did the largest business in ordnance maps. The trade remains in the same position as before, Messrs. Stanford being bound to give the same discount to them as was allowed by the Office of Works.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVERPRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS—DR. CRICHTON BROWNE'S REPORT.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether any action has been taken by the Department, or the London School Board, in consequence of Dr. Crichton Browne's Report, presented last year to Parliament; and, whether
284
anything is likely to be done to mitigate the evils of over-pressure therein declared to exist?
MR. MUNDELLA: The London School Board is at present conducting a searching inquiry into the allegations made in Dr. Crichton Browne's Report, all of which relate to London schools. The Education Department has taken no stops in consequence of that Report, inasmuch as long before anything was heard of it provisions were introduced into the Code which, by general testimony, have done all that the Central Government can do to prevent overpressure.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD TAXATION.
LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, before moving the Education Estimates, he will lay before Parliament a separate statement of the Local Taxation imposed by School Boards throughout Great Britain?
MR. MUNDELLA: I shall be very happy to give the noble Lord the statement he requires as soon as the audited accounts have been furnished to the Department. There are still a large number to come in; and I hope they will come in before I make my annual Statement.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS— EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES—LEGISLATION.
MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General, When the Government intend to set about the fulfilment of their promise, made last year, to initiate legislation on the subject of the expenses of candidates at Parliamentary elections; and, whether they mean to bring forward a distinct measure, or to include their proposals on this subject in any Bill now before the House?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he had not forgotten the promise made by the Prime Minister last Session that there should be some legislation on the subject of candidates' expenses at uncontested Parliamentary Elections. He was sorry to say, however, that a good deal of agitation was now being raised to increase the expenses of Returning Officers at elections in view of the extension of the hours of polling, and the Under

285
Sheriffs had taken such action that he thought it necessary to listen to what they had to say before doing anything.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ASSAULT ON DENIS MURPHY, CASTLEISLAND, CO. KERRY.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the facts connected with the wounding of Denis Murphy at Castle-island, county Kerry?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not yet received a full Report on this subject, and will ask the hon. Member to be good enough to allow me to postpone answering his Question for a few days.

EGYPT—THE NILE RAILROAD.
MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state what are Lord Wolseley's proposals, of which he spoke on Tuesday, with regard to the continuance of the Nile Railroad, and whether Her Majesty's Government have yet made up their minds on the subject; whether it is the fact that the making of about 220 miles of Railway, in different sections, along certain parts of the Nile between Wady Haifa and the south end of the Hanneth cataract, would afford the means of continuous communication either by rail or by water, navigable for steamboats or other large boats, the whole of the way from Siout to Ambukol at all seasons of the year; was such a railroad commenced by the ex-Khedive of Egypt, and were large quantities of rails and other materials transported beyond Wady Haifa, and deposited on the banks of the Nile for its construction; can he say whether there is any of that material left on the Nile, and still available for that purpose; has the whole of the route necessary for such a railroad along the banks of the Nile, and again from Ambukol across the Desert to Khartoum, been already thoroughly surveyed by a competent engineer, and are the facilities for making it infinitely greater than for making a Railway from Suakin to Berber; were the Government advised by Lord Wolseley to make any part or parts of the railroad along the Nile for purposes of transport last year; and, can he say when it is proposed to de-
286
spatch the reinforcements, asked for by Lord Wolseley, to Korti?
THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTON: Lord Wolseley originally proposed to continue the Wady Haifa Railway—which was completed when we commenced operations from Angash to Sarras—to a more southerly terminus at Absarat. Later he has restricted his proposals to an extension from Sarras to Ferket, about 62 miles to the southward, and above the Dal rapids. Of this extension 15 miles have been already constructed. He also requires light tramways to be laid at Fatmeh and Kaibar, where there are cataracts. It is believed that with this assistance there will be a practicable route by rail and water available at all seasons as far as Korti. The ex-Khedive commenced the Wady Haifa Railway, and laid the rails as far as Sarras, leaving at Wady Haifa 16 miles of rails. These have been utilized in the extension of 15 miles to which I allude above, and no other materials remain available on the spot. The route has been surveyed for the purpose of a permanent railway, involving heavy rock cuttings, possibly some tunnels, and one or more bridges across the Nile. The line required by Lord Wolseley is a surface railway, and the facilities for its construction—the presence of an enemy in the neighbourhood excepted—are probably less than those for the construction of the line from Suakin to Berber. Last summer Lord Wolseley recommended the extension of the railway towards Ambukol, which was sanctioned; but the work was stopped by him on the 28th of October in consequence of the dearth of native labour. Subsequently operations were resumed, with the result I have already mentioned. Lord Wolseley does not wish to have reinforcements on the Upper Nile before the autumn. We have been in almost daily communication with Lord Wolseley on the subject; but have only just received the information necessary for coming to a decision, which will be arrived at without delay.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will the cost of this railway be a charge on the taxpayers of this country, or on the finances of Egypt?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am afraid it will be a charge on the taxpayers of this country.
Afterwards,
MR. CHAPLINasked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War a Question arising out of that put by him just now with reference to the Nile Railway. He understood the noble Marquess to say that facilities for making a permanent railroad along the Nile would be less than the facilities from Suakin to Berber. What he wished to know was, Whether that observation applied to the making of a purely military line along the Nile?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; I think so; but it is only a matter of opinion. I adhere to that opinion. At Suakin we have abase on the sea to which all our necessary plant can be forwarded without any great difficulty. At Wady Haifa the base is a considerable distance inland; and it is necessary to forward the plant first to Cairo, then from Cairo to Assiout, and finally by water transport a considerable distance to Wady Haifa.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE BATTLE OF TAMAI—MR. CATHIE, R.N.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Mr. Cathie, a gunner in the Royal Navy, who was recommended by General Graham for bravery at the battle of Tamai, has as yet received any recognition for his services on that occasion?
MR. CAINE(who replied) said: The notice of Mr. Cathie in Major General Graham's despatch is in these words—
"Brigadier General Buller also specially noticed Mr. It. A. Cathie, gunner, of Her Majesty's ship Sphinx."
This favourable mention of Mr. Cathie in the despatch will not be lost sight of; but it is not proposed to confer upon him any special mark of recognition.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will there be a reward of any kind?
MR. CAINE: No reward of any kind, beyond the recognition he has received with the despatch.

NAVY—ORPHANS OF WARRANT OFFICERS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can state when the Admiralty will come to a decision on the subject of granting a compassionate allowance to the orphans of Warrant Officers in the Royal Navy?
MR. CAINE(who replied) said: In dealing with the question of the grant of compassionate allowances to the children of Warrant Officers of the Navy who lose their lives in the service of the Crown, the Admiralty have thought it expedient to consult the Secretary of State for War, similar claims being under consideration in the Army. I trust that an early decision will be arrived at.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS NOT SUPPORTED BY PRIVATE SUBSCRIPTIONS— SCALE OF FEES.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If he will state the number, if any, of voluntary schools which have no income from private subscriptions but which are supported by school fees and Government grants; and if he will state the scale of fees usually adopted in those schools?
MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot at once supply the information asked, as the Return will require the examination of the balance-sheets of 19,000 schools; but I shall be very happy to settle with the hon. Member the form of a Return which will give such information at the expiration of a year. I think it should refer to all sohools—Board and Voluntary.

MINES REGULATION ACT—USWORTH COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will appoint a competent legal gentleman to represent the Home Office at the Coroner's inquiry into the explosion at Us worth Colliery?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, a competent legal gentleman had already been appointed.

EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— LISTS OF CASUALTIES.
MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the delays which have occurred in publishing the lists of casualties to non-commissioned officers and privates serving in the Soudan, and the anxiety of the relatives of these soldiers as to their safety, the War Office can arrange to have complete lists of killed and wounded

289
published in England as soon as they are received from Egypt; and, whether he will impress on the military authorities in the field the importance of supplying such lists of casualties to private soldiers, as well as to officers, as soon as they can possibly do so without risk of error?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is no avoidable delay in the publication of these lists. They are telegraphed from abroad as soon as the information can be collected after an action, and they are published at home directly the names and numbers can be verified. This process takes longer in the case of men than of officers, as the verification of the former has to be made from the pay lists of the regiments, where there are often several soldiers of the same name. In the case of officers, The Army List at once settles any question of identity.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— WATER SUPPLY—PIPES AND PUMPS.
COLONEL STANLEY (for Mr. W. H. SMITH)asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the fact that an experimental pipe-water service was laid down at Aldershot last year and tested, in order to ascertain the feasibility of supplying water by pumps from Suakin on the road to Berber; that the pipes and pumps were supplied by English makers, and that the experiment was entirely satisfactory; but that no opportunity was afforded to these manufacturers to tender for or to supply the pumps which are required for the water supply from Suakin, and that without calling for any tenders in England the pumps have been ordered from New York?
MR. BRAND(who replied) said: Experiments on a small scale were made at Aldershot with apparatus made by English makers, but supplied by Mr. Tweddle, an American gentleman, who has had great and recent experience on petroleum lines. The trial proved successful, and resulted in Mr. Tweddle being intrusted with the supply of pipes and pumps for the first 50 miles. The pipes have been obtained in England; but Mr. Tweddle preferred to operate with pumps from New York, which had the additional advantage of being ready to hand. It has already been stated that it is not contemplated by the War Office to use American apparatus for
290
other sections. As this question has attracted considerable attention, I may, perhaps, be allowed to add that at the time engines of a similar class were working on this identical system in America, and I thought it desirable to purchase one of these engines in order to secure a pattern.
MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether it was the case that no pumps or engines of that character were to be obtained in England?
MR. BRANDsaid, the Government were aware these pumps existed in New York, and had been used by New York gentlemen, and Mr. Tweddle certified that they would answer the purpose for which they were required. Under the circumstances, the Government considered it the best plan to purchase engines that had been used in New York.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not answered the Question. It was not whether the engines were known to exist in America; but whether the Department thought they could not be got in England?
MR. BRANDsaid, that although considerable interest attached to the experiments at Aldershot, which were described in the public Press at the time, the Government were never informed by any English manufacturers that they had the particular pumps wanted in their possession. It was the intention of the War Office, having got the pattern, to employ English manufacturers in future.
MR. STAVELEY HILLasked whether all the pipes to be employed were to be purchased in England?
MR. BRAND: Yes.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORGES)—MARTINI -HENRYS FOR THE YEOMANRY.
MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the Secretary of State for War, When there is any prospect of the Yeomanry being armed with the Martini-Henry Carbine instead of the Snider; and, whether there are not a sufficient number in store to enable them to be provided with those arms at once?
MR. BRAND(who replied) said: There is a fair supply of these carbines in store; but the Secretary of State is not at present prepared to sanction their issue to the Yeomanry.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT—REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the Minute which the Treasury have resolved to issue, altering the terms on which loans are to be given for the purposes of the Labourers' Act, What will be the amount of the annual instalment payable, for each of the terms of years to be adopted by the Minute, in respect of each £100 borrowed?
MR. HIBBERT: The annuity for 35 years would be £4 16s. 2d. or thereabouts; for 40 years £4 13 s. 4d.; and for 45 years £4 12 s. 5d.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— MURDER OF FRANCIS HUGHES, KEADY, CO. ARMAGH.
MR. DEASYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, "Whether it is intended that the three Orangemen charged with the murder of Francis Hughes, a Catholic, within a few perches of the Orange Hall at Keady, county Armagh, shall be tried at the assizes of Armagh, in which county the jury panel is very largely composed of members of the Orange Society; and, whether it is intended to change the venue so as to ensure an impartial trial?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The Attorney General for Ireland has this matter under consideration at present.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF THOMAS LYDON.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Were charges of drunkenness and assault brought against the Recess police by Thomas Lydon on the 31st October 1884; why was not a sworn inquiry granted, as demanded, and were the charges forwarded; did the police at Recess then bring two charges against Thomas Lydon, and were the cases dismissed; did the police then bring a charge against Thomas Lydon in connection with illicit whiskey, and was it dismissed on the merits; did the police appeal in the latter case, and did the Recorder of Galway attribute partiality to the Bench who dismissed the case, consisting as it did of two resident magistrates; was Lydon then convicted; and, will the
292
Government obtain from the resident magistrates their opinion on the case, and consider the advisability of remitting the fine?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Question, which obviously involves local inquiries in the West of Ireland, only appeared on the Paper to-day; and I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to postpone it until Thursday next.

PRISONS (IRELAND)—CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD.
MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Honourable Charles Bourke is to continue Chairman of the Irish Prisons Board; whether it is the fact that Captain Barlow and Sir John Lentaigne are to retire; and, whether it is intended that an English medical man is to go to Ireland periodically to report on Irish prisons?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Bourke will retain the office of Chairman of the Prisons Board. Captain Barlow is about to retire; but Sir John Lentaigne will continue, as at present, an unpaid member of the Board. It is not the intention of the Irish Government to employ an English medical man, as suggested in the Question. Dr. M'Cabe, at present an Inspector under the Local Government Board, will be appointed medical officer to the Prisons Board.

PIERS AND HARBOURS (SCOTLAND)— SCOTCH FISHERIES COMMISSIONERS.
MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the recommendations on the subject of fisheries made in the Report of the Crofters Commission, it is intended by the Government to take any action on that branch of the Report; and, whether those localities named by the Commissioners as requiring piers or harbours will be inspected by official engineers, in order that they may report on the practicability of giving effect to those recommendations?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is a matter which will have to be considered in connection with the Report of the Piers and Harbours Committee for Scotland. The suggestion of my hon.

293
Friend, that the other places referred to in the Report should be officially examined, I think well deserves consideration.

EGYPT AND THE SULTAN—SPEECH OF PRINCE BISMARCK IN THE REICHSTAG.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the important statements made by Prince Bismarck in the German Reichstag on Monday, and especially to the following passage:—
"Being further asked whether I would not give my opinion as to what might be done, I said, If I were an English Minister I would not advise the annexation of Egypt, hut, at the same time, I admitted that it was necessary for England to establish a certain security of position in this connecting link between her European and her Asiatic possessions. In my opinion, however, I said, she could only gain this position through the Sultan, and thus avoid coming into contact with Treaties. Therefore, said I, if I were an English Minister, I would seek the mediation of the Sultan, in order through him to obtain a position in Egypt by means of which English interests would be safeguarded;"
and, whether, in order to safeguard the vital interests of England in Egypt, Her Majesty's Ministers will adopt this counsel?
MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps I am entirely behind the world in not having seen the text of the speech of Prince Bismarck. With regard to the suggestion in the Question, I may say that at all times in the regulation of our proceedings in Egypt—under circumstances of great difficulty—we have been very desirous indeed, and continue very desirous, to recognize the rights of the Sultan. That is the principle on which we proceed; but as to the application of it, of course I reserve a discretion on behalf of the Government according to circumstances.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will afford him facilities for bringing on his Motion for a Select Committee on Irish Manufacturing and Productive Industries, now standing on the Paper for Tuesday 10th March, and the appointment of which was promised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Autumn
294
Session, when the matter was fully discussed in debate?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am unable to give any facilities to the hon. Member until after the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill has passed. I am not aware that at the present moment there is any very particular necessity for departing from the usual course in order to give the hon. Member an opportunity of testing the opinions of the House upon the Motion he has obtained. He will have, doubtless, opportunities of availing himself of the facilities given him by the Ballot. I perfectly understand the feeling of the hon. Member on the subject, and shall be happy to see what can be more particularly done should he address me a Question on the subject later on. What we propose on Monday is to begin with the Supplemental Army Estimates in Supply. The remainder of the Civil Service Estimates will be taken after the Army Estimates, if time permits; but, at any rate, we shall not continue Supply beyond 11 o'clock, in order that we may then bring on the Motion of the Under Secretary of State for India with respect to the Indian troops.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to understand whether the Vote of Credit will be brought on before the Budget. Another Question I might ask is, when we may expect the communication with regard to the arrangements for the final administration of Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think it may be taken for granted that the Vote of Credit will be taken before the Budget; but I do not think it is likely either of them will be taken before Easter, owing to the great pressure upon the time of the House. I am not able to name a day when the arrangements in regard to Egyptian finance will be before the House. I am bound to say that the House and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who put Questions on the subject at a very early date have exercised very great patience. I make that admission freely; and I certainly had not the smallest expectation at the end of November, when Questions were put on the subject, that so long a time would be occupied in the settlement. The House is aware that we are dependent upon others, whom we have no right to call to account by reason of the despatch

295
or slowness of their proceedings; but I feel confident that when Papers are submitted to the House they will show that there has been no slackness or delay on the part of the Government. However, if the delay should continue much longer, I must admit it may become a question whether we should not depart from the usual rule, and produce Papers even without the consent of others concerned.
MR. COURTNEYasked if the Supplementary Estimates were to be the first Order on Monday, which included a sum of about £100,000 for the proposed railway? He would like to know whether they would have by Monday morning the promised Papers for the Suakin-Berber Railway?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not tell whether Papers would be in the hands of Members before Monday; but he would see whether it could be done. He was not aware that any Paper had been promised, except that containing the arrangement entered into with Messrs. Lucas and Aird.
MR. COURTNEYinquired whether the Supplementary Votes with respect to the railway works would be postponed, if the Papers were not produced on Monday?
THE MARQUESS OF HAETINGTONsaid, he thought the sums required for the construction of the railway were included in the Supplementary Estimates, and he did not think it would be possible to separate them.

REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) —REPORTS OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
MR. SMALLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the manner in which the Boundary Commissioners in Ireland have divided several counties by townlands, not adhering to either barony or parish boundaries, and of the great dissatisfaction occasioned thereby, and also in view of the very small scale on which the maps inserted in the Report have been drawn, he can see his way to furnish Members with maps of the contentious counties in Ireland on the scale of six inches to the mile, reproduced from the townland ordnance maps, showing thereon the proposed divisional boundaries?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am not aware that there is any great dissatisfaction occasioned by the adoption of townlands as the unit for division, where it was necessary to do so for the purpose of equalizing the population. The townland is a well-known area, and does not, like parishes, overlap either counties or baronies. The scale adopted for the maps is the same as that adopted for both England and Scotland. The size of the 6-inch maps altogether precludes their being furnished to Members, as suggested. For example, the town-land map of Donegal is about 36 feet square, and that of Antrim 30 feet by 24 feet. In fact, the maps would be 24 times the size of those in the Report.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—OBSERVANCE OF THE RULES OF CIVILIZED WARFARE.
In reply to Colonel NOLAN,
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the responsibility of bringing about an observance of the rules of civilized warfare in the Soudan must be left to the General commanding, who would surely use all efforts to secure such observance.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRAWLING—THE REPORT.
SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he could explain how it was that the Report of the Royal Commission on Trawling was in The Times on Wednesday, and all the Scottish papers yesterday, and had not yet been delivered to the Members of this House; and, whether the blame rested on the printer at the Home Office?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he must inform his hon. and gallant Friend that there was no printer at the Home Office. When Reports of Commissions were presented, they were printed under the direction of this House. If his hon. and gallant Friend had given him a day's Notice, he would have inquired into the matter; but he would now ascertain for him what had happened in regard to this Report.

REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (SCOTLAND) —BOROUGHS AND BURGHS.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Before we go into Committee on the Parliamen-

297
tary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, I should like to ask the right hon. Baronet who is in charge of the Bill, the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he could not arrange a conference of English and Scotch Members with the view of some compromise in the spelling of the word "borough," so as to avoid, in connection with Bills applying to the whole of the United Kingdom, the shocking mispronunciation of the word "burgh" as applied to Scotch burghs by Members of this House?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)

  [BILL 49.] COMMITTEE.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [3rd March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill.
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. PARNELL: I cannot allow this stage of the Bill to be taken without expressing the strongest protest in my power against the deliberate system of jerrymandering which the Boundaries Commission in Ireland has been guilty of with regard to certain of the Ulster counties, and also with regard to the City and County of Dublin. I confess that I was very much disappointed at the nature of the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). I expected from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) the partizan defence which he made the other day of the proceedings of the Boundary Commission. Demoralized as the right hon. Gentleman must have been, more or less, by his contact with Dublin Castle officials, nothing else could have been expected than that he, a leading Radical in England, the exponent for many years of the rights of the people to self-government and to full representation, should have changed his skin when he went over to Ireland, and
  298
  should have become there a Tory of the Tories. But from the President of the Local Government Board certainly I expected better things. I did not expect that he would have devoted his great and distinguished talents to a special pleading defence of the proceedings of the Irish Boundaries Commission; and I should have hoped that he would have contented himself with pointing out the necessities of the case and of his position; the fact that a compromise had been arrived at between the Head of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition; and that the Government were, therefore, bound by the details settled by the Commission, imperfect and unfair and one-sided as many of those details undoubtedly are to the Catholic population of the North of Ireland. We complain of the jerrymandering of certain counties in the North, because it was impossible for the Commission to act unfairly with any constituencies, except the City and County of Dublin, outside Ulster; and because we do not complain of the proceedings of the Commission outside the Province of Ulster, the Government are not entitled to claim from us any gratitude or appreciation of the proceedings of that Commission. Wherever in an Ulster county it was possible for them by any device, no matter how barefaced, to obtain for the English Party—I call them the English Party in Ireland, because I think that more correctly designates them than the title of the "loyal minority," which they have assumed—a seat, though the Catholic population was in an overwhelming majority, as in Donegal, they did so. Wherever it was possible, on the other hand, for them to deprive the Catholics of a seat where they were the small part of the population, they did so. They were not guided by the precedents which they set up for themselves—they went upon one rule in one county, when it suited the English Party, and they followed an exactly contrary rule in other counties. In fact, the Irish Boundaries Commission only too well fulfilled the prediction which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board ventured upon at the close of last Session, when he said that it was impossible to find men free from political bias for the services in question. The Irish Boundary Commissioners have shown themselves entirely regardless of that spirit of fair play which has, so far

  299
  as I am able to learn, distinguished the proceedings of their brothers in England. How is the North of Ireland situated with regard to the division of political Parties? The Catholics of the Province of Ulster number close upon one-half of the entire population. There was only a difference of 2 or 3 per cent in the respective boroughs of Catholics and Protestants. Allowing, for the sake of argument—although I shall not allow it any further—that the English Party—the Whigs and Tories—can claim all the Protestants in Ireland as belonging to their fold, and we claim, as we undoubtedly can do—all the Catholics as belonging to us, the representation of Ulster should have been very nearly evenly distributed between the two English Parties on one side, and the Irish Party on the other. What has been the result? Out of 33 Members the English Parties will take something like 23, leaving only 10 to the Catholics. Now, it is manifest upon the face of it that such a scheme as that cannot be fair to the Catholics of the North of Ireland; and a very noteworthy fact is that in the only Province where it was possible for them to act unfairly the Commissioners have made the largest number of alterations—in fact, made all the alterations which have been made, with the exception of those made in the City and County of Dublin. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) disputed the accuracy of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy's) figures as to the number of alterations, and said that the number of alterations outside Ulster was larger than that given by my hon. and learned Friend. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot, in his anxiety to defend a weak case, to inform the House that the alterations outside Ulster were merely nominal, and in some cases involved only the change of name. In Mayo the Island of Achill was added to one division instead of the other. Inside Ulster every alteration made had an effect upon the balance of political Parties. It was scarcely candid of the right hon. Gentleman to make a point of so technical a character, and to put forward merely technical alterations as evidence of the inaccuracy of my hon. and learned Friend's statement. That statement was perfectly accurate, so far as the arguments of the Nationalist Party are concerned. Seven alterations were made in Ulster, of which six were
  300
  in favour of the English Parties, and one partially in our favour. In the three other Provinces there are 70 Members; whereas in Ulster there are only 33. But in those three Provinces there were only two alterations of any account, and those had reference to the City and County of Dublin. These two constituencies are the only constituencies outside Ulster where it was possible for the Commissioners, by deviating from the original scheme, to punish us and serve their friends. The bias of these Commissioners has been rendered very evident by the details which have been given by my hon. Friends the Members for Sligo and Monaghan (Mr. Sexton and Mr. Healy). I cannot think that the Commissioners could have taken it upon themselves to act as they have done, unless they got a hint from some higher quarter. We have the fact of the published letter of the Marquess of Salisbury, who, being in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility than any Member of the Government, did not think it necessary to cloak his views in any way; and he wrote, after the publication of the original scheme of the Boundary Commission with regard to Ulster, to his discontented Conservative friends that the future position of what he called the "loyal minority in Ulster" would depend very much upon the spirit in which the Boundaries Commissioners approached their work. I do not think that the Boundaries Commissioners would have felt themselves bound to regard the hint from the Marquess of Salisbury; and I shall believe, until the contrary is shown, that they would not have ventured upon such daring and one-sided action as has been theirs without a hint from some high quarter or personage in Ireland that the Government would stand by and defend their action, as, in fact, it has been defended by the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not wish to go into the details of the jerrymandering in the North of Ireland, which have been sufficiently explained by my hon. Friends; but I will give one or two salient facts with regard to each county which will show the direction and the nature and extent of this jerrymandering. Take, for instance, the County Antrim. We had lately a very interesting debate on the representation of minorities, and the position of the

  301
  "loyal minority" in Ireland was brought forward as a forcible argument on behalf of the scheme which was proposed in favour of proportional representation, at all events, in Ireland; and I am convinced that under the very best and most favourable system of proportional representation which could be devised you would not secure for the English Parties in Ireland so large a representation as has been secured for them by the proportional system of the Boundaries Commission. What will the House say to the County Antrim, entitled, under the redistribution scheme, to four Members? In Antrim a population of 50,000 Catholics will not have a single Member to represent them. Has the Catholic minority in the county of Antrim no claim for consideration upon the lines which have been adopted? Take, again, the county of Armagh. Forty-seven per cent of the population of Armagh are Catholics, and all the Catholics have been put into one division, so as to make it absolutely certain, so far as the Boundaries Commission could make it, that out of the three seats to be allotted only one should be Catholic. Take the case of the county of Tyrone, entitled under the scheme to four Members. One parish, containing 21 Protestant townlands, has been taken out of one barony and added to another, so as to secure that the Protestants of Tyrone should have representation; although in the case of the County Antrim, where there were 50,000 Catholics, the Commissioners, with equal care and solicitude, contrived that for them there should be no representation whatever. Take the case of the county of Londonderry, entitled to two Members. Well, there has been gross unfairness. The Solicitor General for Ireland, at the preliminary inquiry which was held after the publication of the scheme, objected by counsel to the divisions; and it has been contrived in such a way that, although there are 47 per cent of Catholics in Londonderry, they shall not have the slightest chance of gaining one of the seats; indeed, the divisions, as shown on the map issued by the Boundaries Commission, are a curiosity in themselves for those who are anxious to study geography. By the original scheme the Catholics were massed in one of the divisions; but in order to secure that both seats in the county of Londonderry shall go to the
  302
  English Parties, the Catholics have been taken away from the Catholic division, and Protestants taken away from the Protestant division of Coleraine barony and added to the Catholic division, so as to make matters sufficiently sure. In the original scheme of the Commissioners, for the county of Londonderry there were 37,000 Catholics in the Catholic division, the total population of which consisted of 70,000. It was manifest that if the division were left so that 37,000 Catholics would outnumber the 33,000 Protestants, it would carry one of the divisions for the Irish National Party. Therefore 3,000 Catholics were taken away and transferred to the Protestant division; and a certain number of Protestants were taken from the Protestant division and transferred to the Catholic division, so as to make things absolutely and entirely safe. Fancy the Whigs and Tories dividing the county between them as the result of a combination which we have heard of recently! The case of Donegal is the exact converse of what occurred in Antrim. Donegal is almost exclusively Catholic, and the same tactics have been adopted as in the other counties I have mentioned. There are 85 per cent of Catholics in the county of Donegal. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: Seventy-five per cent.] I am willing to accept the noble Lord's figures. The correction of the noble Lord leaves the case of Donegal practically untouched as regards the relative proportions of the two Parties. The fact remains that whereas in the case of Antrim, where a fourth of the population are Catholics, the Commissioners managed that they should have no representation, in the case of Donegal, where a quarter of the population are Protestants, of all sects, the Commissioners have contrived so to jerrymander the boundaries that they shall have a Conservative Representative. In doing so, they have forgotten the principle which the President of the Local Government Board insisted upon as his defence in reference to the County Down, when he said it would not have been right for the Commissioners to cross a lake a mile wide. In the case of Donegal, in order to jerrymander, they have crossed Lough Swilly, which is 20 miles wide. With regard to the county of Dublin, any one who looks at a map will see that they have run in and out and roundabout in a most extraordinary

  303
  way, so as to give the Protestant or the English Party a good chance of securing one of the seats to which they are not entitled. In regard to the City of Dublin they have acted still more unfairly. In the Bill the boundaries of the City of Belfast are extended so as to increase the population very materially, and to give to Belfast four Members, the present number being only two. The boundaries are extended in the case of Belfast, in accordance with the Report of the Hexham Royal Commission, which recommends that the boundaries shall be exteded for municipal purposes. That Hexham Commission also investigated the case of Dublin, where a similar extension of boundaries was sought for municipal purposes. The extension of the boundaries for Parliamentary purposes, following the example of Belfast, was pressed upon the Government and upon the Commissioners; but it was refused. If the Parliamentary boundaries had been extended in the case of Dublin, the city would have been given six Members instead of four. On the basis of the Report of the Commission referred to, Dublin is entitled to an extension of boundaries similar to that which has been given to Belfast, I fail to see any satisfactory reason why Dublin should be denied the proper extension which has been conceded in the case of Belfast. The Commissioners have not been content to deny to Dublin the extension given to Belfast, but they have materially departed from the original scheme; they have broken up the wards; they have crossed the river; and they have committed the most extraordinary freaks, so as to secure that parts of the city where there is a very slight majority of the Nationalist Party shall be leavened by an infusion of electors belonging to the English Party. They have also taken away from some parts of the city a portion of the Nationalist strength, and thrown it over to quarters where there is a considerable proportion of electors belonging to the English Party. The cases of Ulster and of the City and the County of Dublin are the only instances in which it was possible for the Boundary Commissioners to treat the Catholics and the Nationalist Party unfairly, and they have done their best to prove once more that it is impossible for an English Government in Ireland to act with fair play to the majority of the people. Some better treatment is due from the
  304
  Government to the Catholics of Ulster. Those people are the descendants of a sorely oppressed race. They are the survivors of a deliberate attempt to exterminate, by the plantation of Ulster, the Catholics of the North; and if they have increased and mutiplied there again it is a striking tribute to the vitality of the Celtic race. Notwithstanding all the efforts made to diminish their numbers, the Catholics of Ulster are now almost equal with the Protestant population of the district. They have survived persecution and triumphed over unjust laws. That which has been done by the Boundary Commissioners will be remembered by the Catholics of Ulster in the near future, when they join hands with the rest of their countrymen throughout Ireland in the impending struggle for the Constitutional vindication of their rights, a struggle which I hope will be the last. This population is entitled, in all the circumstances of the case, to better treatment than they have received. It is all very well to talk about the necessities of representing English Parties; the so-called loyal minority in Ireland will have been abundantly represented. And it does not deserve exceptional treatment at the hands of Parliament. The loyal minority, as they call themselves, have done more to perpetuate disaffection and embarrass and endanger the Empire than every Fenian agitator from New York to San Francisco. England placed them in Ireland in days gone by as the English garrison, and well have they served their patrons. The garrison so persecuted and so exterminated the people that England was compelled to manacle and hinder them by special legislation, and was compelled to send over and maintain in Ireland vast garrisons of armed men for their protection. At the present moment they had 33,000 valuable soldiers in Ireland for the sake of its so-called "loyal minority;" and would the loyal minority go to Egypt for England and fight the battles there? Would it go to India and protect England from Russian encroachments on the Afghan Frontier? Oh, no; that did not enter into the calculations of these men. No doubt there have been, and there are still, brave men amongst them; but, on the whole, they have shown themselves to be a selfish and an inconsiderate race, mindful only of

  305
  their own ends, and little regarding the interests of the Empire. The Catholics of Ulster have been practically deprived of representation in Parliament. Until my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was returned there was no Catholic Member for the real Ulster Province. It is not fair that the Catholics of Ireland should be treated as they are. I trust that the able way in which our case has been presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Monaghan and Sligo (Mr. Healy and Mr. Sexton) will have an effect upon the conscience and mind of the House, and that it will be able to remedy the injustice that has been done us when the Bill gets into Committee.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had used strong language; but he was not in the House on Wednesday afternoon, when his case was stated by the hon. Members for Monaghan and Sligo (Mr. Healy and Mr. Sexton), and he did not hear the reply of the President of the Local Government Board to those two hon. Members. He had now spoken with great force; but he had not added a single fact to those brought before the House on Wednesday, nor was it possible to add much to the reply which had been already given. What was the charge they had made against the Boundary Commissioners of Ireland? They alleged, in the first place, that Earl Spencer gave hints to the Commissioners contrary to the instructions given to them publicly; and that, in pursuance of those hints, the Commissioners had dealt with the question unfairly, and had jerrymandered the districts in Ulster for the benefit of the Loyal Party, and against the interests of the Nationalist Party. Anyone who knew Earl Spencer—and, indeed, any right-minded man—would say at once that it was impossible that he could have acted the part which was attributed to him. It was totally impossible that Earl Spencer could have given to the Commissioners privately hints different from those he gave to them in his commission. It was unnecessary to ask Earl Spencer a question on the subject; but he had received a letter from Mr. Piers White, one of the Commissioners, in which he said—
  "The Commissioners never had the slightest communication, directly or indirectly, from Earl Spencer or anyone else in the Irish Go-
  306
  vernment as to the mode in which our duties were to be discharged beyond the public instructions."
  He had received similar communications from two other members of the Commission. Everyone who knew the members of the Commission would admit at once that it was totally impossible that they could have acted otherwise than in strict accordance with the public instructions which had been issued, and he hoped they would hear no more on that point. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board stated, on Wednesday, that the official schemes of the Commissioners were merely tentative; that they were prepared without any local knowledge of the districts to which they applied; and that they were submitted merely with a view to inquiry.
  MR. HEALY: How was it that they suited the three Southern Provinces?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board explained that in the Southern Provinces the Nationalists were so completely in command of the constituencies that it did not matter which boundary was adopted. That accounted for the fact that the changes were not so numerous in those Provinces as in the Province of Ulster. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had stated that the Commissioners in Ulster had given but one decision in favour of the Nationalist Party. He thought the hon. Member was wrong, and that Down was not the only case. In the case of Armagh objection was taken to the Commissioners' scheme by all parties—[Mr. HEALY: Nothing of the kind.]—and the decision arrived at by the Commissioners was more in favour of the scheme of the Nationalists than that of any other Party. He had gone carefully into these various schemes with the President of the Local Government Board; and he would undertake to say that every one of them might be defended on their merits. When these schemes came to be discussed in Committee, the Government would undertake to prove that in every instance the Commissioners had acted rightly according to the instructions given to them, and they could not be accused of having decided unfairly against the Nationalist Party. He denied that any jerrymandering had taken place in the interests

  307
  of the Protestant Party of Ulster. With regard to Donegal all Parties, including the Nationalists, objected to the Commissioners' scheme, and the main objection was, that the two southern baronies had been separated. The Commissioners decided to re-unite the baronies in question in one division, and any independent person who looked at the map could see that the other divisions must follow as a matter of course. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was not correct in stating that Lough Swilly was 20 miles broad; it was not more than four miles across at any part. Looking at the division of Donegal, he contended that it was a legitimate one, and one which thoroughly carried out the instructions of the Commissioners—namely, that the divisions should be compact, and that the pursuits of the people should be considered. The people living on either side of Lough Swilly were fishermen, and most-of them spoke the Irish language. Much had been said with regard to the decisions of the Commissioners in the case of Dublin County, which had been divided into two divisions. The Commissioners had in this case followed exactly the same plan as was adopted in England and Scotland, especially in the neighbourhood of London. The hon. Member for the City of Cork complained of the conduct of the Commissioners in not extending the boundary of Dublin while they extended the boundary of Belfast. In the case of Belfast the Bill itself proposed to extend the boundary, adding to the borough those parts which the Municipal Boundaries Commissioners of 1881 recommended should be added, and the Commissioners had somewhat extended those limits. With regard to Dublin it was impossible to extend the boundary without adding places which would practically entitle the city to another Member. It was not within the powers of the Commissioners to extend a boundary so as to entitle a place to an additional Member. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, he believed, complained that the Dublin decisions of the Commissioners would have the effect of giving a seat to the Loyalist Party. That was a conclusion very different to that which had been arrived at from a Loyalist point of view; for ho believed it was generally considered by the Conservative Party in Dublin that
  308
  their hopes of returning a Member had been extinguished. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, however, went on to say that he considered that no process of proportional representation would possibly have given the Loyalist Party so large a representation as they would have under the Commissioners' decision, and that in Ulster alone they would, obtain 23 seats, besides two from the University and two from Dublin County, or 27 in all. The Protestants formed one-fourth of the whole population of Ireland; and as they hoped that a not inconsiderable portion of the Catholics might remain, as they probably would remain, among the Loyalists, he thought they might assume that the Party was entitled to one-fourth of the number of Members returned by the country, which would be 26 or 27. Ho hoped the Loyalist Party would be as well off under the Bill as the hon. Member supposed. While the hon. Member for the City of Cork had, probably, taken an exaggerated view of the case, he did not himself take so gloomy a view as some hon. Members opposite above the Gangway. Taking Ireland throughout, and considering that it would be divided into one-Member districts, the Loyalists would secure a fair, though, perhaps, not the full, representation as they were entitled to. There were three counties in Ulster—Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan—in which the Catholics formed no less than 74 per cent of the population; and if these three counties were taken away, the Protestants formed a considerable majority in the remaining six counties of Ulster. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan did not take exactly the same view of the number of Members the Loyalists would be able to return. The hon. and learned Member put the number at 23, including the two University Members. Again, he said that was short of the number to which the Protestant Party were entitled by their numbers. [Mr. HEALY: I never said the Protestant Party."] Well, the Loyalist Party. The hon. Member for the City of Cork argued as if the Protestant and Loyalist Party were alike. [Mr. PAUNELL: The English Party.] The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan stated the other day that, in hi3 view, the proposal of the Government with regard to the number of Members

  309
  given to Ireland was just and fair. It did not appear that the hon. and learned Member and his Friends were acting in the same spirit of fairness towards the Loyalist and English Party in Ireland, for their claim was that the 23 Members of the Loyalist Party should be reduced to something like 16 or 17. He did not think that the House would alter the scheme in the direction in which the hon. Member for the City of Cork pointed. There was no change which could be made in that way which would not be open to the charge made against the Commissioners of jerrymandering in the interests of a Party.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had thought that that evening the House would have proceeded calmly with the consideration of the Bill in Committee; but the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had chosen, for purposes of his own, to make a most violent and unprovoked attack on what he truly called the Loyalist minority in Ireland. This debate had been prolonged in order that the hon. Member for Cork might make that speech—a speech the obvious purpose of which was to prejudice and intercept the discussion of those matters of detail which must turn up by-and-by in Committee, and to produce, by anticipation, upon the House the impression that he and his Friends had been treated with the greatest harshness and oppression in the matter of the Franchise and Redistribution Bills. The hon. Member seemed to think that his Party were entitled to the deepest consideration and gratitude of the Members representing England, Scotland, and Wales, and that the Loyalists were entitled to nothing but the severest treatment that could be heaped upon them by way of revenge. It would be impossible to discuss the former question in detail on this occasion; he would only say in general that he could confirm, as far as his information went, the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He was assured by his friends, who were well acquainted with Ulster, that, so far from getting any advantage, they were placed at the greatest possible disadvantage by the course taken during the last few weeks; and with regard to the County and City of Dublin, with which he was intimately acquainted, he could speak from his own knowledge. But as to the
  310
  latter part of his speech he must say that the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork exceeded, in perfect sang froid and audacity, anything he had ever heard even from that hon. Gentleman before. The Party which the hon. Member called the English Party was as decidedly an Irish Party as that of the hon. Member himself; but they happened to be the loyal Irish Party. It was not possible to draw the line of the loyal faction and the Separatist Party conterminous with the lines of Protestant and Catholic Ireland; for whilst there could not be found in all Ireland, he believed, 100 or 200 Protestants who were in favour of separation, there were multitudes of men of the Roman Catholic religion who were as loyal as any others. Outside of Ulster there were 300,000 and odd Protestants; and, according to the views of the hon. Member, they had no right even to one seat for Dublin. Why, they were entitled to five or six seats instead of one. And that was the great grievance that the hon. Member brought forward, and the great complaint he made against the action of the Commissioners. He (Mr. Plunket) did not desire to dwell further on this point; but they knew that, while the Protestants were one-fourth of the population of Ireland, and the whole Loyalist population was certainly one-third, if they took the well-to-do Catholics, who were Loyalists almost to a man, they were not going to get anything like a proportion of Members to which they were entitled, even according to their numbers, under this redistribution scheme. What, however, he wished more particularly to call attention to was another part of the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which was as gratuitous and unjust a reproach as was ever directed against the Loyalist minority in Ireland. Would it be believed that the hon. Member appealed to the Members for England, Wales, and Scotland, for more favourable treatment of the Nationalists, on the ground that they were entitled to the gratitude of the Members in question and their fellow-countrymen, while the Loyal or English Party in Ireland were not entitled to any gratitude at all? The hon. Member asked—" What have the Loyalists, what have the Protestants ever done for you? What has Ulster done? Think of

  311
  all the troops that are sent to protect Protestantism in Ireland. Have any of them ever gone to fight your battles? Have any of them spilled their blood for you?" In face of the facts, such language wa3 presuming on the supposed ignorance of the audience to whom it was addressed. What were the facts? He did not believe that there were now more than two regiments in all Ulster; and the Army in Ireland was not there to protect the men of Ulster, who were well able to take care of themselves, but to protect loyal people who were scattered throughout the rest of the country. And as to volunteering, he was glad to know, as a fact, that one Militia regiment in the North of Ireland had already volunteered to go out and take part in the war in Egypt. Who were those whose lives had been sacrificed in the Soudan? What were the names connected with their struggles and difficulties there?
  MR. HEALY: Officers or privates?
  MR. PLUNKET: Privates as well as officers. Of the 11 officers who fell at Abu Klea, five or seven, he did not know which, were Irishmen. Stewart and Wolseley—were not these Irish names? Gough, Darley, and the others—did they not know them well? And did not the hon. Member know that it was an Irish regiment which was foremost when a prize was offered for the first which arrived at the place of danger? What right had the hon. Member for the City of Cork to claim gratitude for his friends in Ireland at the expense of those whom he called the English faction? Was not Power, the companion of Stewart, a Celt, if there was one? Yet at this time, when his fellow-countrymen, Catholic and Celtic, as well as Protestant, were exposed every day to deadly peril, when Irishmen were daily adding new lustre to the Irish name, the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends, at every meeting of their followers, were calling out for cheers for the Mahdi.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he did not know where the occasion came from for all this indignation on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket), except upon the assumption that he had been touched by the spear of truth, and smarted under it. It was the fact, and there was no use denying it, that the gentlemen who called themselves the loyal minority in Ireland had
  312
  taken the main part in making the country ungovernable by England. The loyal minority had been petted, pampered, and indulged by successive Governments, to the detriment of the majority. How long would they be loyal if they received the treatment which was dealt out to the majority of the Irish people? How long would they be loyal if they had to submit to confiscation and religious persecution? Their loyalty was conditional upon their remaining lords and masters in Ireland, under the protection of the strong arm of England. Which was it better for England, that there should be a loyal minority or a loyal majority in Ireland? He could tell the House that there would never be a loyal majority in Ireland until those who were known as the loyal minority were brought to their senses. Arguments were urged there about the necessity of fully representing the loyal minority; but he would say what about the 2,000,000 Roman Catholics in England—what representation were they to get? The game of the so-called loyal minority had been played by the Boundary Commissioners, who had tricked the Nationalist majority. Their first schemes were impartial, because they were drawn up in London without local knowledge; but when they went to the North of Ireland, and learnt the views of the Tories, the Commissioners at once accepted the suggestions of the Emergency men and the Orange Party.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to a matter brought before the House on Wednesday by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire and the hon. Member for Edinburgh. What was said in the debate on Wednesday by the Chancellor of the Duchy had created great uneasiness amongst the Scotch Members. It seemed to indicate on the part of the Government their intention to give no effect to the proposals which the Lord Advocate submitted to the Scotch Members. These Members felt very grateful to the Lord Advocate for the pains which he had taken in preparing the scheme for there-grouping of the Scottish burghs. They had devoted two whole days to the discussion of the scheme; and although there were some points on which difference of opinion arose, yet the scheme, as a whole, was very generally ap-

  313
  proved of. In those circumstances the Scotch Members thought it very strange indeed that the Government should de sire to depart wholly from the proposed arrangements. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: No, no!] Well, he was very glad to know it was not the intention of the Government to do so; but that was certainly the impression produced on Wednesday. The Chancellor of the Duchy said the proposals were so connected together as to form a kind of puzzle, and if one piece fell out the whole scheme dropped to pieces. The right hon. Gentleman surely could not have read the proposals of the Lord Advocate——
  MR. TEEVELYANexplained that what he did say was that some of the proposals would involve the fate of others; and he endeavoured to justify that by pointing out that it would be extremely difficult to take one part of the plan and leave the other parts.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEthought that was exactly what he had said.
  MR. TEEVELYANsaid, he was referring to some of the proposals.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he was happy to have had the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and to be assured that the impression produced on his mind and the minds of many Scotch Members was an erroneous one, and that the Government really saw their way to carry out some of the proposals. There were several of those proposals as to which the opinion of the Scotch Members was all but unanimous, and there could be no difficulty in carrying these out. There were others which involved debatable questions, and he could understand there would be some difficulty in giving effect to these; but that was no reason for setting aside others that were simple. He trusted, after what was said, that the Government would see their way to put some of the proposals on the Paper shortly. Scotch Members had been expecting to see them on the Paper; and he knew the intention of many of these Members was, that if the Government did not put them down they would themselves do so on their own account, in order that they might be discussed by the Committee. He trusted, however, to see them down on the Paper to-morrow.
  MR. BERESFORDsaid, that as some reference had been made to Armagh
  314
  County, he should like to remark that he was present on the occasion of the visit of the Commissioners. They had their map, and it was found that they had not allowed a sufficient number of inhabitants to No. 2 division of Armagh. They were, in fact, 6,000 short of this, and the discrepancy was so great that, of course, it had to be rectified. There was also a Petition from the inhabitants of Ballymore praying to be included in the Mid-Armagh district, which was duly considered. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had talked of the plantation of Ulster. Well, it was probably owing to that plantation that the hon. Gentleman himself came to be an Irishman. If not, how could he account for the estates of Mr. J. Parnell in County Armagh—which, by the way, was reported to be the most rack-rented property in Ulster.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member in Order in going into the ancestry and landed possessions of the hon. Member's (Mr. Parnell's) family?
  MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member were becoming irrelevant.
  MR. BERESFORDsaid, of course he bowed to the Speaker's ruling; but, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork had talked about the plantation of Ulster, he (Mr. Beresford) was showing that the hon. Member must originally have come into Ireland in that way. He did not believe there was a drop of Celtic blood in the hon. Member. The hon. Member had also thrown a doubt on the bravery of the men of the North of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had sufficiently made answer on that point; and he would only add one name that had been omitted—a name that was a household word in the North of Ireland, and a name which was heard with pride all over the United Kingdom—that of Charlie Beresford. The loyal minority had to complain that instead of being unduly represented they would not be as sufficiently represented as they ought to be in future Parliaments.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Dick-Peddie), said there was every desire on the part of the Government to place before the House those portions of the proposals to which he had referred,

  315
  and which were found to have had prevalent or very general assent. There were certain parts as to which it was found that that condition did not exist; and, consequently, there were some of the proposals which would not be submitted to the House by the Government, and, as the Chancellor of the Duchy had said, that would also involve, so far, the fate of certain others by a certain measure of re-arrangement. But those portions as to which there had been, and still was, as the Government believed, a general assent would be put on the Paper, and possibly certain modifications made in some of those which were involved more or less in some of those portions which would have to be dropped. That was all that the Government would do. Of course, it would be quite open to any hon. Member to put on the Paper such further additions in the same direction, or in a different direction, as they might think fit, and they would be duly considered.
  MR. RAMSAYthanked the hon. Member (Mr. Dick-Peddie) for bringing forward this matter as to the grouping of the burghs in Scotland, and the re-arrangement which was brought before the conference of Scottish Members. He thought it would have been a very strange thing if the views of the Scottish Members regarding the arrangements for Scotland had failed to be carried out by the Government; because the Scotch Members met for the purpose of considering the schemes that were laid before them, and in the majority of cases they approved of them. What met with general approbation should surely be carried out. For example, in the case of the five burghs that he had the honour to represent, each of them had agreed to the proposition that had been made to dissolve the group, or rather to take the returning burgh (Falkirk) from the group, and to connect another burgh in Lanarkshire with three other burghs which he at present represented in the county, and to form these four Lanarkshire burghs into a group. He had presented Petitions from the members of the Liberal Association in these burghs in favour of this proposal, and they had the assent also of various Town Councils. Therefore, he was glad that the misapprehension amongst Scotch Members as to what was stated by the Chancellor
  316
  of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) should have been removed in this casual way.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDcalled the attention of the House to the County of Wicklow, which was divided by the Boundaries Commission into East and West Wicklow, whereas it would be more fairly divided into North and South Wicklow. A great deal had been said about the representation of the "loyal minority" in Ireland. There wore 2,000,000 of Catholic Irishmen in England, and they would not be able to return more than one Member to represent them. Except in one division of Liverpool the Catholic Irish minority in England would be unrepresented.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he was most unwilling to delay even for a few minutes the Speaker leaving the Chair; but there was a point of principle in regard to redistribution of seats in Scotland which could only properly be discussed, he thought, at the present stage. Generally, he thought, Scotland would not trespass much on the time of the House in Committee, because Scotch arrangements were mostly recent, and did not require much re-adjustment. But one part of their electoral system was of an ancient and archaic character—namely, the groups of burghs, which were wholly unsuited for the present time. The question he wished to raise was, in dealing with these groups of burghs, which they had not to deal with in England or Ireland, how far were they placed under restrictions of principle by the understanding that had been come to by the two Front Benches? These burghs were arranged in the most singular manner. He might illustrate it best by referring to the case of his own own county. The burgh of Kilmarnock, in Ayrshire, having a population of about 26,000, was conjoined with the capital of Renfrewshire, the capital of Dumbartonshire, and one of the largest towns in Lanarkshire. Again, in the same county, the burgh of Ayr was combined with the capital of Argyllshire and with one town in the extreme North and another in the extreme South of Argyllshire. It was generally agreed that such a combination should be broken up; but when they came to rearrangement, then arose this difficulty of principle. It seemed to be argued on behalf of the Government that in the re-arrangement they were not to include

  317
  in a group any burgh which had not at present Parliamentary representation, nor might they add a surrounding district from the county. Then, what remained? A satisfactory arrangement became extremely difficult under such narrow restrictions; and it seemed to him that, the case of Scotland being different from that of England and Ireland, abstract principles which had been arrived at in regard to these two countries should not be applied so rigorously to Scotland. In Ayrshire they had a population which made four quotas, entitling to four Members. They had at present a Member for North Ayrshire, one for South Ayrshire, one for the Kilmarnock, and one for the Ayr Burghs. Surely it seemed a most reasonable arrangement that, in place of distant outlying burghs, they should either give Kilmarnock two or three neighbouring burghs in the county within a few minutes of it by rail, making up a quota, or that they should carve out from the county a district of which Kilmarnock should be the centre. They should deal with the burgh of Ayr in the same way, and in that case they would give to Ayrshire the four Members to which its four quotas entitled it. But if they proceeded otherwise they would have this difficulty. They had a town like Kilmarnock, with a population of 26,000, far above the number that retained representation in England and Ireland, which was a returning burgh, and the Lord Advocate proposed to combine it with Ayr, also a returning burgh, with a population of more than 20,000. If these burghs were of the same character something might be said for this proposal; but Kilmarnock being essentially a manufacturing town, and Ayr being a county town, with agricultural interests connected with it, both the towns objected to that combination, and if an abstract principle were laid down against adding any population not already included in a group, they would be driven to remain under the old-fashioned arrangement. This was a point of principle; and he begged to protest against its being considered that the point of principle had been settled on the second reading, or in the course of the present debate. It should be open to them, on the individual cases as they arose, to propose that one or other of these towns, such as Kilmar-
  318
  nock or Ayr, might be conjoined with neighbouring burghs, or with the neighbouring district in its own county.
  MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished to make one remark with reference to observations that fell from the hon. Member for Roxburghsire (Mr. A. Elliot), who the other day referred to a meeting of Scotch Members, convened by the Lord Advocate, in the Committee Room upstairs, respecting the question of redistribution in Scotland. The hon. Member on that occasion expressed an opinion that the majority of Scotch Members, or, as he went on to say, of Scotch Liberal Members, were in favour of the Lord Advocate's scheme. He regretted that the hon. Member should have made any allusion to Scotch Liberal Members, or that he should have mentioned Liberals at all; because he always considered that a meeting to which the Lord Advocate summoned Scotch Liberal and Conservative Members alike was entirely a non-political meeting. If it was not a non-political meeting, then he thought it would never do to have these meetings at all for the consideration of great Imperial questions. They sat for two days, he might say, in camerâ, and none of the proceedings were allowed to transpire; and he therefore regretted that any Member who was present should state what were the views of either the Liberals or Conservatives on the occasion. Another point he wished to refer to was that just alluded to by the hon. Member who had just sat down—namely, the way in which this redistribution scheme would affect the county of Ayr, one division of which he had the honour to represent. He might tell the Prime Minister, whom he saw in his place, that the scheme was not popular even with the Liberals of the county of Ayr; because the leading Liberal organ of the county had, week after week, made strong statements against this redistribution scheme, and it went on to suggest that if the House of Commons would not listen to reason an appeal should be made to the calm judgment of the House of Lords, as they called it. The reason why the Liberals objected to the scheme for the county of Ayr was, because it restricted the representation of Ayrshire, which was considered as too much restricted already. Ayrshire, after Lanarkshire, was the most populous county in Scotland, hav-

  319
  ing, at the last Census, a population of 217,000, hut now increased to 220,000. Whereas it had now two county Members, and a preponderating influence in returning two burgh Members, it was actually proposed to restrict its representation to two county Members and one burgh Member. It claimed the right to four Members, having a population, as he had said, of 220,000. If they contrasted the treatment which the county of Ayr received with that accorded to the county of Fife, they would see the vast difference between the two, and the justice of what both the Liberals and Conservatives of Ayrshire were saying; because, whereas the county of Fife had a population of only 171,000 at the last Census, it was to have a representation of four Members. That seemed almost inexplicable. But if they went a step further, and took the St. Andrew's group of burghs, which had a population of 19,000 or 20,000, that small and comparatively insignificant group was to retain a Member; while the large burgh of Kilmarnock, which had been from time immemorial a returning burgh, was to be merged for the future in the burghs included in the Ayr group. That had caused great discontent in the burgh of Kilmarnock, and he hoped, at least, that part of the scheme would not be carried out. Then the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) said everything did not depend on numbers. Now, he thought it was precisely on that point they were claiming additional Members for Scotland. If they considered the population of Scotland, it was properly entitled to some 12 or 15 additional Members entirely on the ground of population, and he did not understand that these Members were to be given irrespective of population. He would respectfully point out to the Prime Minister and the Government that it was not sufficient to give these additional Members for Scotland; but that it was also the duty of the Government to see that these Members were properly apportioned and distributed.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, when they came to consider the Bill in Committee he would call attention to the divisions of Dublin City and County. Leaving to one side the political aspect of the case, the divisions made by the Commissioners would be a great inconvenience.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  SIR JOHN HAY,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 6, after the word "the," to insert "increase and," said, that if the Amendment were adopted, the Act would be cited as "The Increase and Redistribution of Seats Act." He would point out that all former Bills for the redistribution of seats had been brought forward with the object of redistributing seats which already existed. Some of the 658 seats, that were appropriated for the representation of the people had been, on various occasions, removed from decayed or small constituencies and added to larger ones; but the Bill now before the Committee, if it was to be carried out according to the promises and intentions of the Government, would not only redistribute seats, but would add to their number. He spoke as a Scotch Member, and unless, by some means or other, they were assured that the 12 additional Members it was the intention of the Government to give were provided in the Bill, Scotland would certainly not be satisfied. He had suggested an arrangement by which the equalization of the number of Members for different parts of the Kingdom might have been obtained. It had been decided by the House, however, that the number of the Irish and Welsh Representatives should not be diminished in proportion to the numerical representation which obtained in England and Scotland. If the proportion of 45,300, which obtained in Wales, were applied to the other parts of the United Kingdom, England would have 560 Representatives; Scotland, 85; Wales, 30; and Ireland, 105—making a total of 780 Representatives for the House, instead of 670, as proposed by the Government. It was quite evident that the general; sense of the House was against any increase in the number of Members, and the Bill itself recited that it was a Bill for the redistribution of seats at Parliamentary Elections. Therefore, in order to make the provisions of the Bill run in conformity with the title of it, it

  321
  was necessary, seeing that an increase of 12 Scotch Members was to take place, that the Bill should be cited, not only as a Bill for redistributing seats, but also for increasing the number of seats. He would have preferred infinitely that the equalization should take place in the way he had before suggested; but the House had already decided against the proposal, and he was afraid that when the Committee came to discuss the clause which increased the Scotch representation, the Scotch Members would have very little chance of obtaining what they desired, unless they amended the title of the Bill so as to carry with it the determination that there should be an increase. A little further on the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had an Amendment on the Paper which provided that the additional Members for Scotland should be obtained by disfranchising existing boroughs. As an old English Member, for he (Sir John Hay) had enjoyed the honour of sitting in the Imperial Parliament for an English constituency, he could not concur with the hon. Member in any proposal to diminish the number of English Members below the number now returned. As he had already pointed out, if the number of Members for Ireland and Wales were continued as at present arranged, the number of English Members ought to be increased to 560. That, however, was a reductio ad absurdum, and it was not to be supposed that such a proposition would for one moment be accepted by the House. At the same time, it showed how over-represented Ireland and Wales were as compared with England and Scotland; because, if England had 560 Members and Scotland 85, there would only be 13 left for the rest of the Kingdom. He would not detain the Committee by enlarging further upon the Amendment; but he confessed that he should not believe Her Majesty's Government were in earnest in proposing any addition to the numbers of the House, in order to satisfy the just claims of Scotland, unless the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) accepted the Amendment he had now the honour to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, after the word "the," insert the
  322
  words "increase and."—(Sir John Hay).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) appeared to refuse to believe that the Government were in earnest about the increased representation of Scotland unless they inserted his Amendment in the clause. He could assure his right hon. Friend, however, that Scotland would receive the additional Members promised, and that the Bill was not likely to pass unless that part of the programme was complied with. He wished, however, to point out that the Amendment was not necessary in order to secure that object, because the increase of one Member instead of 12 would satisfy it, and it did not in the slightest degree carry out the pledge that 12 additional seats would be given to Scotland. As a matter of fact, it would not necessarily increase the Scotch representation, although it would put the Government in fetters and shackles. The Amendment was quite unnecessary. The number of Members in the House was not fixed by any Constitutional rule, and after the strong declarations which had been made by the Government regarding this subject, he hoped it would be found unnecessary to pursue it further. He might point out that, as a matter of fact, the House at the present moment did not consist of 658 Members, but only of 652, which was really the present number by law, and had been so for some years. It was only a matter of superstition, therefore, to attach so much reverence to the number of 658. Furthermore, the Act of 1868 took away seven seats from England and gave them to Scotland; but there was no allusion to that fact in the recitals of the Act, and he thought they ought to adopt the general rule in Bills of this kind. Even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself admitted the necessity of increasing the number of seats for Scotland in some form or other; but the Government, having already made declarations so complete and strong, would only weaken their position by going further.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

PART I.

  REDISTRIBUTION.
  Boroughs.
  Clause 2 (Boroughs named in First Schedule to become parts of counties or boroughs).
  MR. BRYCE,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 12, after the word "boroughs," to insert the words "and Universities," with the object of securing that, from and after the end of the present Parliament, the Parliamentary boroughs "and Universities" named in the Schedule should cease as boroughs and Universities respectively to return any Member, said, that the duty of asking for the disfranchisement of the Universities was a delicate one, especially when the person undertaking it was himself connected with them. He trusted, however, that the Committee would believe him when he said that he was acting in what he believed to be, rightly or wrongly, the interests of the Universities themselves; and there was no hon. Member in that House who was more filled with sentiments of loyalty, affection, and gratitude towards his University than he was towards those to which he owed his education—the Universities of Glasgow and Oxford. He altogether disclaimed being animated by any other feeling than that of wishing to promote the well-being of the Universities themselves; nor did he wish to rest his case upon the ground that the Parliamentary representation of a University was an anomaly. He saw no harm in anomalies if they were practically useful. If this representation rendered any service either to the University or to the country, let it by all means stand, however great an anomaly it might be. He also disclaimed the idea that any Party motive actuated him in bringing the subject forward. Any slight alteration which the disfranchisement of the nine University seats would make in the existing difference between the two political Parties was of too small a kind to merit much consideration. At the present moment, seven of them were held by Members sitting on the other side of the House, and two by Members sitting on that side. The reason why he moved this Amendment was because he believed it to be for the distinct benefit of the Universities themselves. He would now endeavour to
  324
  justify that statement. In the first place, the existing system was bad for these seats of learning, because the possession of Parliamentary representation brought Party polities not only into the Universities themselves, but into the academical Governing Bodies of the Universities—the Senate of Cambridge and the Convocation of Oxford. That was a serious evil, because it tended to make parties in a University form themselves upon political lines. Thus it prevented persons from forming as fair and impartial a judgment on educational questions as they would otherwise do, by making them associate themselves with political sections which had nothing to do with education. Not content with introducing political issues, in some cases the evil was carried so far as to run candidates for academical appointments on Party political grounds. This not only produced bad appointments, but affected peace and good feeling within the academic body, and was felt to be so serious a matter at Oxford, that nearly all appointments had now been taken away from Convocation. It was found that the wire-pullers who managed the Parliamentary elections turned to account their knowledge of the registers, and brought up men to vote in case of appointments who were their own political adherents. The result was that appointments had been made with little reference to the merits of the candidates themselves, but solely from political considerations, or to reward political services. In fact, the disfranchisement of the Universities would leave them stronger, more tranquil, more united, and better fitted for their real educational work. But the evil of Parliamentary representation went further, for it positively falsified and misrepresented the wishes of the University itself. The Members who sat in that House as Members for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—and it was to these Universities that he chiefly wished to direct attention—were not really Members for the University at all. They knew nothing about the University. He hoped they would pardon him for saying so, but they were the Members for a large number of persons scattered over the country, and not for the true Universities as Teaching Bodies. What was a University? The real University was a number of

  325
  teachers, residing in the towns of Cambridge and Oxford, Dublin, and so forth—Heads of Colleges, Professors, Fellows, Tutors, and Lecturers. In the cases of Oxford and Cambridge the number reached about 250. Bodies of men of that kind, though small, were real bodies, possessing a corporate life and existence, each constituting a centre of culture and a distinct social entity, and perhaps worthy of Parliamentary representation. Small as it was, such a constituency would be, at any rate, exceptionally intelligent, and would be different in kind from the other constituencies of the country. But who were the voters of the technical and legal constituency? In the case of Oxford it consisted of 5,382 persons, and in that of Cambridge of 6,458. The persons who actually voted as the technical constituents were gentlemen who, at one time of their lives, between the ages of 17 or 18 and 21, had spent three years at Oxford or Cambridge, who might have devoted little or no attention to their studies while there, and who, after leaving the University, had not kept up, in most cases, their connection with it, seldom or never visiting it, and knowing little or nothing of what was going on there. Few of them took any interest in it, and if they had any tie, it was a tie with their College and not with the University. Nor was it even the fact that all of those who had taken their degree of M.A. had a vote, for the right of voting was confined to those who paid a certain sum per annum to keep their names on the College and University books. Thus the University voters were, to a great extent, men belonging to the wealthier class; and, instead of forming a large body of highly educated men, they mainly consisted of persons not substantially superior to the rest of the upper and middle classes, and by no means those who had most profited by the University or its studies. It was, in fact, a comparatively small section of the graduates who, because they kept their names on the books for the sake of this privilege, enjoyed the right of choosing Members who purported to be Members for the Universities, and, as he had pointed out, it was the richer and not the more cultivated section. How did the privilege come into existence? It was in the year 1603 that James I., by Letters Patent—whose legality was disputed at the time-—gave to the Uni-
  326
  versities of Oxford and Cambridge the right of returning Members. What were the constituencies at that time? They were nominally the same as now, including Doctors and Masters whose names were on the books, but in reality altogether different. In those days the elections were, practically, in the hands of those who were engaged in the active work of the Universities; because the difficulties of communication were so great that it was impossible for graduates to come up from a distance in order to record their votes in Convocation, where the Members were chosen. The constituencies created by King James I. were therefore practically constituencies of persons resident within and actively connected with the University. They were constituencies which had a genuine life and individuality of their own, which, in a certain sense, entitled them to representation. In process of time, when communication became more easy, and especially in the present century, when swift coaches begun to run, and were in their turn superseded by railways, it was rendered quite possible for voters living at long distances, and in different parts of the Kingdom, to come up to Convocation and record their votes. As a consequence, the nature of University representation entirely changed; the power of returning Members fell into the hands of persons who resided away from the University, and who knew little or nothing of its working; and there sprang up conditions wholly different from those under which the representation was originally granted. That state of circumstances continued to go on until the expense of bringing the voters to the poll became so serious that people began to think it would be better to do away with the trouble of bringing them up at all; and about 21 years ago an Act, introduced by the present Lord Monk Bretton, was passed, which substituted a system of voting papers, transmitted by post, for personal voting. Now, under the present system of voting papers, a man might go and live in Cardiganshire, or Northumberland, and never revisit his University for 40 years, and, nevertheless, retain his vote as much as if he were Dean of Christchurch. He hoped this digression would not be useless, if it pointed out to the Committee how entirely altered were the circumstances which originally led to the

  327
  establishment of these constituencies. He would now point out the result of the change. The University constituencies had come to be composed of a large number of persons who had little or no practical connection with the Universities at all. The majority of the Oxford and Cambridge University voters were, as was well known, country clergymen. In point of fact, the Members for Oxford and Cambridge of late years had been entirely elected and governed by the clerical interest. He did not make that a ground of accusation, for the country clergy were as well entitled to have second votes as squires or barristers; but he mentioned it as explaining the regrettable fact that the Members for Oxford and Cambridge Universities had, on more than one occasion, been altogether misrepresentative of the opinions of the University residents and the University Teaching Body. Hon. Members would recollect that down to the year 1871 a long struggle was maintained at Oxford and Cambridge for the abolition of the detestable system of religious tests which then existed. The strongest opponents they met in their endeavour to destroy that abominable system, which tormented and degraded the consciences of young men, and excluded Nonconformists from the national seats of learning, wore the Representatives of Oxford and Cambridge, because, they maintained, tests represented the clergy. The consequence was that for many years University tests were continued, which nearly all the best men connected with the Universities—all the most energetic and useful teachers—were anxious to see swept away; but which the University Members, at the bidding of the clergy, who formed the bulk of their constituents, were most zealous in supporting. That would show the misuse of their electoral privileges by persons who had no real connection with the Universities. Whenever an election occurred, it was found that the wishes of the residents were opposed and overborne by the majority of the non-residents. There was a case in point, when the present junior Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was returned. One of the candidates then brought forward was one of the most eminent scientific men in this country, or, indeed, in Europe. He was a moderate politician—so moderate that some Liberals did not approve of
  328
  him—but although he had a considerable majority among the residents, and a large majority among those who were engaged in the work of education, out of a constituency of more than 5,000 he did not get 1,000 votes altogether. Hon. Members would recollect that something similar happened not long ago in the case of the University of Cambridge. The junior Member (Mr. Raikes) was returned by a large majority, although his opponent had a majority—not a very considerable one—among the resident voters, and a decided majority among the resident teachers.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he might perhaps state that he was not aware what the majority of his opponent was among the resident teachers; but among the residents he had a majority of nine.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: They were, as nearly as possible, half and half.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that although it was annoying to the residents to find that their official Parliamentary Representatives were always opposed to the educational objects they had in view, he wished to put the case upon the more serious ground that it was an injury to the University herself that the wishes and plans of the Teaching Body—those who were concerned in and responsible for the proper work of the University, educational, scientific, and literary—should be counter-worked by the Parliamentary Representatives of the University, those persons having no knowledge of the concerns of the Teaching University, no special interest in her educational functions, no familiarity even with the arrangements of the Colleges and management of College property, simply because such Members had come more recently from Oxford or Cambridge, and maintained a closer personal connection with members of the Teaching Body. It might be said that they could get all—by inquiry in Oxford or Cambridge—the information that was necessary; but anyone could collect information, and, in fact, many other Members of the House were better informed on subjects relating to the Universities and the work of education carried on by them. Perhaps, in speaking of the interests of the Universities in having special Representatives, he might be allowed to support his arguments by a quotation from Anthony Wood, who said, in his annals

  329
  of the history of Oxford, under the year 1603—
  "When the King, by his Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England, granted to either of the Universities that they might elect two Burgesses to serve in Parliament, it was then commanded that two grave and learned men professing the Civil Law should he by writ chosen to serve for them as Members of the House of Commons: which grant, though for the present it was accounted a great favour to the Universities as to the prosecuting their affairs in Parliaments, yet since not, as it hath been observed by many. For whereas before most of those Members that had been students in the Universities would stand up as occasion offered on behalf of their respective mothers, now none would do that office, because it is incumbent on two, who commonly are found negligent by following their own affairs or else not able as to their parts or understanding to undergo what their places require."
  This judgment of old Anthony Wood was not far from the actual truth now, and it would be far better if the interests of the Universities were left to those who knew of their present condition and practical needs, and not intrusted to the legal guardianship of nominal Representatives. He did not, however, propose that the electoral franchise should be confined to residents, for although this would create real living University constituencies, those constituencies would be open to the objection he had already stated of suffering in their educational work from political Party spirit, and would, moreover, be much too small. In these days of disfranchisement, it was hardly to be expected that the House would call into existence two constituencies, neither of which would exceed 400 electors. Hence, the only course was to disfranchise the Universities altogether; and it must be remembered that the graduates who now had University votes would not suffer entire disfranchisement by losing their University representation, because arrangements had already been made which gave the clergy the right of voting for the boroughs or counties in which they resided, and as regarded others who were not the fortunate possessors of livings, they would be entitled to a vote as lodgers. Every non-resident who now possessed a University vote, was practically certain to have another vote already, and therefore could not be deemed to be damnified by losing his second vote, while as to University residents, it would be easy to give them the right of voting for the boroughs in
  330
  which the Universities stood. He was quite aware that, as far as he had already gone, he had only endeavoured to show that this apparent privilege was of no benefit, but rather an injury, to the Universities themselves. But he might be told that it was maintained not for the sake of the Universities, but for the sake of the country at large, whose interest it was to have independent constituencies, educated constituencies, constituencies which, at any rate, differed from the ordinary borough and county divisions. He knew perfectly well that that was the feeling which animated many hon. Members who had asked him privately why, being himself connected with a University and not a fanatical democrat, he should desire to bring everything down to the dead level of a dreary democracy. "Why," they said, "do away with variety? We now have a means of getting superior men representing Literature, Art, Science, and Education. The Universities are picturesque, historical, independent. Why not leave us this romantic element to relieve that monotony of equal electoral districts which we are rapidly approaching?" He might be much moved by such an argument if there was anything in the past history of the representation of these Universities to justify the merits claimed for them. But what foundation was there for the claim. As a matter of fact, no constituencies were less independent than the University constituencies. And why was that? It was because they had no local life. These bodies of 6,000 or 6,000 electors were distributed all over the country, under such circumstances that the electors of each party could never possibly meet together for consultation or discussion, and they were, therefore, at the mercy of the agents and wire-pullers of the political Party to which they belonged. Talk of Caucus dictation! There was no constituency in the United Kingdom more absolutely at the mercy of an irresponsible and unrepresentative Caucus than the University of Oxford, none upon which the Carlton Club could more easily impose a Member. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, that that was so; the experience of the last 20 years proved it. If hon. Members looked at the matter, they would see that it must be so, because the means which existed in the case of other constituences for the electors to

  331
  vindicate their freedom of choice, did not exist here. They could only communicate with one another by letter, and when the small knot of wire-pullers, in Oxford or Pall Mall, brought out their candidate and went to work, it was found impossible for independent voters to resist them successfully, as might be the case in a constituency of the ordinary kind. Anybody who knew the history of Oxford and Cambridge Elections for some years, would agree that this was so, and would add that they had been comparatively well treated by the Carlton Club; for, whereas the managers of that Club might have returned whomsoever they liked as Members for the Universities, they had given the Universities Representatives of whose personal characters none would complain. He made no attack on them, but must insist that the four Members who sat for the English Universities did not represent either Education or Literature or Science or Art. They were very estimable and, in their way, very eminent men, no doubt; but while everybody respected the great knowledge of the Forms and Usages of the House which two of the Members for the English Universities possessed, and the acquaintance with Ecclesiastical Art and History, as well as with the sentiments of the clergy, possessed by the two others, and while everybody felt that the House would suffer a loss if any one of the four were withdrawn from it, it could not be denied that not one of them did in any special manner represent Literature, Learning, Education or Science; and if any candidate was ever brought forward for the University who did represent Learning, Education or Science, he met with an ignominious defeat. For instance, Professor Henry Smith did not poll 1,000 votes at Oxford in 1878; and in the case of the Cambridge Election two years ago, Mr. Stuart, now happily a Member of the House, only obtained 1,200 or 1,300 votes. Whenever an attempt was made to put forward as a candidate for the University of Oxford or Cambridge, on non-political grounds, a man of conspicuous culture, distinguished in Literature or Science, or a great lawyer who had maintained a specially close connection with the life of the University, it was certain to be unsuccessful, because political considerations only were taken
  332
  into account. Sixteen years ago, when a vacancy occurred at Oxford, an attempt was made to bring forward one of the most eminent sons of the University, distinguished first as a scholar, then as a jurist, fervently attached to the Church of England, and very moderate in his political views. What happened? The constituency was canvassed by letter for a few days, and it was found that the support which Sir Roundell Palmer was likely to receive was so insignificant in point of quantity, however respectable in quality, that his supporters at once withdrew him, and abandoned the idea of bringing forward a candidate. He might, therefore, fairly say that it was not the interests of the Teaching Universities, or of Literature, Education or Science that were considered, but that a University contest was conducted purely upon political motives; and if the aim of giving seats to the Universities was to provide for the representation of Literature, Education, Science and Art, that aim had utterly and hopelessly failed of attainment. Let it also be remembered that the House gained no new element from these seats, because the Members returned for the Universities were not Members who were new to the House. He must say that there had been one important exception in regard to the Scotch Universities, that of the Member for the Universities of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, who did contribute most valuable special knowledge and experience to their debates; but if they looked at the English Universities, they would find that for a long time back, the Members who had sat for them were Members of the ordinary type, and had already been Members of the House before they were returned for the Universities. Mr. Walpole long represented the University of Cambridge, and was regarded with universal respect and, he might say, affection while he was a Member of the House; but he had been Member for Midhurst before he was returned for the University. The present senior Representative for the University of Cambridge had sat for Stoke; the present junior Member had been Member for Preston. With regard to Oxford, Sir William Heathcote, who represented the University for some years, was, in the first instance, Member for South Hants; Mr. Gathorne Hardy, now Lord Cranbrook, had been Member for Leo-

  333
  minster; the present senior Member had represented Durham, and the junior Member one of the divisions of Kent. It would be found that no English University seat had, for a long time past, been the means of introducing a new Member to the House, and, therefore, the special object for which University seats were now alleged to have been given had not been attained. He had spoken so far of the English Universities only, not merely because they were those which hon. Members generally knew most about, but because it was on their model that seats had been given to the other Universities. If no seats had existed in connection with the English Universities, it was quite certain that none would have been given to the other Universities in other parts of the Kingdom. So far as the University of London was concerned, it was an artificial creation, if ever there was one, for it was not even a Teaching Body, and ought not to be called, in the ancient and proper sense of the word, a University at all. [Mr. E. N. FOWLER: It used to be.] That was quite true. It was once a Teaching Body, and he hoped to see it made once more a Teaching Body and a true University. But at present it was not; it was merely an Examining Body. He would pass on to the Scotch Universities. There, again, the seats had been conferred on the example and model of the English Universities. In the Scotch Universities the number of residents was extremely small, and one might say that the whole constituency consisted of persons unconnected with the teaching, and very faintly connected with the government, of the University. The number of voters for Glasgow and Aberdeen was 6,438, and for Edinburgh and St. Andrews 6,583. But these non-residents had no tie to bind them together; they were mostly medical men, scattered all over the country, who had not even the College feeling which existed among Oxford and Cambridge graduates, and they never took the slightest interest in their University, except when they received a circular asking them to vote for a particular candidate. They might as well give a man a vote for Brighton for the rest of his life, because he once happened to spend a year of his life there, as to give one to an English or Irish graduate of a Scotch University, who
  334
  had lived in Glasgow or Edinburgh during the period that was occupied in taking his degree. Let them have, if they liked, a representation of professions as such—of physicians, of lawyers, of architects, of authors, of bankers, and so on; but do not give to the Members elected by clergymen in England and physicians in Scotland the artificial and unreal name of University Representatives. He felt more difficulty with regard to the two seats for the University of Dublin than he did with regard to the others, because, although they were practically mere ex officio seats for the Law Officers or ex-Law Officers of a present or late Conservative Government, as to the present Members, they were all glad to see them on the Front Opposition Bench, and they felt that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen in question might experience considerable difficulty in securing other seats in their own country. But still they gave an access to the House to men of distinction who might not so easily find their way in through other Irish constituencies. But, no doubt, there would remain a number of seats available for the so-called "Loyal" minority in Ireland; and the Irish Conservatives would be only too glad to put in the forefront such redoubtable champions as the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen. Therefore, he did not think that, so far as the University of Dublin was concerned, the cause of the Loyal minority would suffer if these seats were taken away. With respect to the number of new residents and teachers in the constituency, the University of Dublin was in a very similar position to the Scotch Universities—that was to say, the constituency consisted almost wholly of persons whose practical connection with the University had long since ceased; and it would be hard, upon any principle, to justify the allowance to it of two Representatives, because Dublin, with 4,000 voters, had two Members, while each group of Scottish Universities, with more than 6,000, had only one Member. He trusted that he had said nothing which could give personal offence to the University Members; and he hoped he had convinced the Committee that, whether he was right or wrong in his proposal, he had some substantial grounds for his belief that its adoption would be for the benefit of the Uni-

  335
  versities themselves. At present, the Universities lost something, and the country gained nothing, by the existing system of University representation. Not wishing to put his case too high, he did not maintain that any harm was suffered by the country, nor that the question was one of capital importance to it, but there was certainly no gain; and he contended, therefore, that a system of representation founded upon no solid sufficient ground, producing no practical benefit, giving second votes to persons who had no substantial claim to them, ought not to be continued. At that moment, they were going to increase the number of Members of the House when they ought rather largely to reduce that number, and there was, therefore, a special and grave reason for taking away these University seats. He could not but hope that this undesirability of enlarging the House would form a ground for inducing the Committee to give serious consideration to his proposition. Both the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition must see that the feature of their compact which excited most disapproval in the country was this particular proposal to increase the already overgrown number of Members. If they abolished University representation, they would obtain nine out of the 12 seats they required for increasing the Scotch representation, and the other three could be got from the three smallest boroughs. It was more than probable that his Amendment had very little chance of being accepted, because, although nearly all Liberals in their hearts approved of it, the Ministry might feel bound by their compact with the Opposition to resist the true interests of the Universities. Nevertheless, in those interests he felt bound to take the opinion of the Committee upon the matter. He submitted that while University representation might have been a fair experiment to try, and while there might have been valid reasons for instituting it three centuries ago, and for continuing to give it a chance for some years after 1832, it was an experiment which had been tried long enough, which had altogether failed to bring about any substantial or beneficial result, either to the country or to the Universities themselves. The time had now arrived when it became desirable to dismiss this device of the
  336
  Stuart Kings to the limbo to which so many other of their devices had been relegated. He believed that when that happened, and no University any longer returned a Member to Parliament, no persons would be more pleased than the now misrepresented resident teachers of the Universities themselves.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "boroughs," to insert the words "and Universities."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Perhaps it would be convenient I should say a few words on behalf of the Government, before the University Members take the opportunity of addressing the Committee. Sir, my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bryce) began his very able speech in a Committee which was much smaller than it is at the present time; indeed, it was almost entirely a Committee of University Members. The state of the Committee was, I should think, unique in the history of Parliament, for all of the nine University Members were present. My hon. and learned Friend has spoken of University representation with considerable ability; but it is my duty to state why it is undesirable, at the present time, to disturb that representation. Speaking on a Bill which is the result of an arrangement, or of general consent, between the different Parties in the House, I must state, at once, as I have stated on a former occasion, that it is impossible for the Government to agree to the Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman has moved. At the same time, although in this respect I do not speak the opinion of my Colleagues, I must say that, in my opinion, my hon. and learned Friend makes out an unanswerable case against University representation in the abstract. I believe it is perfectly unlikely that that representation will survive the next Conservative Reform Bill. My hon. and learned Friend has given many reasons for objecting to the University vote; but there is one reason which weighs with me more than any other. It applies equally to the freehold vote. I believe it is unwise and undesirable to give double representation in the House, because of any special qualifications;

  337
  and in connection with the point, I observed that one of the University Members opposite contradicted my hon. and learned Friend when he said most of the persons who possess University votes, also possess other qualifications. ["Not all!"] Well, substantially all. The fact that, in the past, a considerable number of the clergy did not possess the franchise was always one of the reasons which weighed with me in the extension of the franchise. Formerly, many curates were excluded from the franchise; but, now, under the extended franchise, almost the whole of the clergy will possess the franchise. ["No!"] I believe it is perfectly true, as stated by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bryce), that almost all of these gentlemen will now have votes. Now, the position of the Government to this matter is simply one of objecting to the Amendment which is placed before the Committee, and which, under the circumstances, I hope the Committee will reject by a large majority. Of course, we are free to express our individual opinions, and we should feel ourselves free to vote as we please if the subject came before the House in a separate form, and I should exercise that privilege in the manner I have shown the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend has shown, conclusively, that it is not necessary to have special University representation in order to represent learning in this House. A very singular illustration of this occurred the other day. A most distinguished man (Professor Stuart), immediately after an election in which a very small minority of the residents of the Cambridge University voted in his favour, came up to London and in one of the most democratic parts of the Metropolis was elected to this House by an overwhelming majority. That shows very clearly that the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) could, if he liked, be returned for any Conservative constituency. It is perfectly clear that special University representation is not needed in these days for the purpose of returning to this House men of education and intelligence. The days of special representation of that kind have passed. But my hon. and learned Friend has shown, I think, in his speech that, while he desires to see the opi-
  338
  nions he holds on the subject make way in the country, as I am convinced they will, he does not expect to carry his Amendment on this occasion. I feel quite sure that he is well aware that his Amendment will be rejected by the Committee, for the Bill is one which has the general concurrence of all sections of the House. In many matters it is a compromise between various opinions; and, as we intend to stand by its provisions, I call upon the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYbelieved he expressed the views of all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who represented Universities, when he thanked the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), for the conclusion at which he had arrived. While they would be very happy to go into the Lobby with the right hon. Baronet, they certainty could not accompany that act with an expression of thanks for his speech. Having regard to the fact that this was a Bill brought in by the Government after consultation with the Leaders of the Conservative Party, he was extremely surprised that the Member of the Cabinet in charge of the Bill should come forward to express his own individual opinions, and say that while he hoped the Committee would reject an Amendment, the arguments by which that Amendment were supported were unanswerable, and that if the subject were brought up in a separate form on another occasion, he would be prepared to vote for the change proposed. He (Sir John B. Mowbray) wished the right hon. Gentleman the Head of the Government (Mr. Gladstone) had been present to hear his Colleague's speech. It was well the Committee should know how far the President of the Local Government Board had represented the feelings of the united Cabinet. Hon. Members had a perfect right to complain of the course adopted by the right hon. Baronet, because the right hon. Baronet was one of the Members of the Cabinet who was specially concerned in arranging the compromise on the question of redistribution between the two great Parties of the House. If the right hon. Baronet thought that the argument in favour of the University seats was untenable, and quite indefensible, he (Sir John B. Mowbray)

  339
  would ask how the right hon. Baronet could consent, as a Member of the Committee of the Cabinet which met the Members of the Front Opposition Bench, to make so great a concession? He would not attempt to answer the speech of the right hon. Baronet, because he happened to know that they were going into the same Lobby; he would rather direct his attention to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). It really was very affecting to hear the language in which his hon. and learned Friend introduced this proposal to the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was a delicate duty he had to discharge. He (Sir John E. Mowbray) thought it must be a very delicate duty for a Regius Professor of Civil Law in the University of Oxford to propose such an Amendment as the Committee were now considering. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) protested he was full of affection and loyalty to the Universities; that he spoke in the interest of the Universities, and for the benefit of the Universities. But his hon. and learned Friend could not be said to represent the whole University Body; indeed, he was obliged to construct a limited University of his own, a University of teachers, of whom there were 370. It really was very affecting to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman describe the disturbances which might arise in the academical walks of Christ Church and Magdalen by the introduction of politics. Who was injured by the introduction of politics? He supposed that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself did not wish that undergraduates should not talk politics. Many men had qualified themselves to take part in the debates of Parliament by being members of the Oxford Union Debating Society. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was one of the most distinguished men the Oxford Union Debating Society had turned out. That Society had also turned out Archbishops of Canterbury, Lord Chancellors, including the one to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman himself alluded, and other Cabinet Ministers. Did the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets speak for Heads of Houses; did he think that the introduction of politics into Universities disturbed the serene
  340
  repose of Heads of Houses? No; he knew quite well that there was only one Head of a House who at all agreed with him in this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of wrangling which went on in the common rooms on political matters, and said that University Tutors and Professors had no time for the discussion of politics. It was really absurd to ask the Committee to believe that this desire for quiet and exclusion of politics was the absorbing feeling of the residents. The hon. and learned Gentleman claimed to speak in the interest of the Universities. What support had he obtained in the Universities for the proposal he now made? He (Sir John B. Mowbray) might not ordinarily represent the opinions of the residents, but he did so to-night; and he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, if he had not tried for some weeks and months past to get up some movement, some sort of organization, some sort of Petition within the University of Oxford, and if he had not found cold water thrown on all his actions? If these 370 highly-educated men wished to devote themselves to literature and education and science, and did not wish to be disturbed by Party wrangles, why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman get half-a-dozen of them, or 37, say, out of the 370, to come to that House and present a Petition, praying for release from the political life into which they were plunged? His hon. and learned Friend said also that Convocation did not represent the University, and that Members of Parliament did not represent it either. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that Convocation consisted, to a great extent, of men who had only been three years resident in the University—from the age of 18 to 21—that they then went away, and knew very little of what went on afterwards in the University. But were not those three of the most important years in a man's life; were they not years in which a man's character was developed and fixed; and, therefore, was it not very probable that a man having spent such years of his life in the University, retained throughout the rest of his life an affection for his College or University? The hon. and learned Gentleman really talked as if the Members for the Universities knew nothing about the Universities. He

  341
  (Sir John R. Mowbray) could tell his hon. and learned Friend that he had belonged to the University of Oxford close upon 62 years; and not one of those years had passed that he had not been within the walls of the University. He was intimately acquainted with every gentleman of any note in the University; he did know something of the University; indeed, he felt that, in opposing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, he represented the wishes, not merely of Convocation itself, but of the 370 teachers for whom his hon. Friend claimed to speak. The hon. and learned Gentleman made one most startling statement—namely, that the Members for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were the nominees of the Carlton Club. If one suggestion more ludicrious than another had been made, it was that the Carlton Club had anything whatever to do with the elections in the Universities. His hon. and learned Friend must know better; he must know that no man could be a candidate for the representation of a University who had not been tried in the House. Men who were elected for the Universities must be known in public life and in University life; and it was because they were known in University life that they were accepted by the Universities. Nominees of the Carlton Club! A more unwarranted statement was never made in this world. His hon. and learned Friend went back to the origin of the representation; he said the representation was given to people resident within the University, and argued that now it was no longer necessary as it was in the days when the right was first conferred. He (Sir John R. Mowbray) might inform the Committee that, in the archives of the University of Oxford, there was a very interesting letter which was read in 1604, at the first election of Members for the University, and which set out the ground of the granting to the Universities of the privilege of returning Members to Parliament. The letter was written by Sir Edward Coke, who was then Attorney General, and it was read publicly in Convocation at the election in 1604. It was dated the 16th of March, 1603, and was as follows:—
  "Having found by experience in former Parliaments, and especially when I was Speaker,
  342
  how necessary it was for your University to have burgesses, and finding especially now of later times that many Bills are preferred in Parliament, and some have passed, which concern your University."
  And then it was stated that the Government had granted to the University the privilege of returning Members. Well, everyone knew that many Bills had been preferred in Parliament concerning the Universities, as Sir Edward Coke, as Speaker for many years, had observed. It was therefore very important that the Universities should have representation in Parliament. Within the last 30 years, within his own experience, several Bills concerning the Universities had been brought into the House of Commons; and, during that time, it was as important as ever that there should be Representatives of the Universities in Parliament when those Bills were being discussed. There had been the Oxford Reform Bill of 1854, the Cambridge Bill of 1856, the Tests Act in 1871, and the Universities Act of 1877. Besides these Bills, there had constantly been Motions made with reference to ordinances and statutes; and, indeed, no Session had passed without some University question turning up. In fact, that which was now proposed was altogether a retrograde step. It was only 30 years ago he heard Lord John Russell, the then Leader of the House, when introducing his Reform Bill, propose, with universal assent, to give the privilege of returning a Member to the, University of London; and when Mr. Disraeli, in 1867, carried out that which was the original proposal of Lord John Russell, there was one universal acclamation that a Member should be given to the University of London. And he (Sir John R. Mowbray) believed the whole House would agree with him that they had great reason to be proud that representation was conferred upon the University of London, when they recollected that that University had been successively represented by such eminent men as Lord Sherbrooke and the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) who now so worthily represented the constituency. He thought that even the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets would admit that the hon. Baronet represented literature, education and science, although, perhaps,

  343
  he did not represent teaching. The House went further in 1868. Having, in 1867, given a Member to the University of London, in the following year they gave two Members to the Universities of Scotland. Did anybody regret that that was done? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) who represented the Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, had filled a high post in the Government of the country; he had been Chairman of Ways and Means in the House; and it could not for a moment be doubted that he eminently represented literature, education and science. Was not the hon. Gentleman who now sat for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) a Gentleman whom they were all proud to have in the House? Well, now, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets appeared dissatisfied with the class of men who had been returned by the Universities. It was true that Professor Smith was a very scientific man, and that he was rejected; the hon. Gentleman who now sat for Hackney (Professor Stuart) had been rejected; and the present Lord Chancellor was rejected. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that whatever qualifications a man possessed he would not be returned for Oxford or Cambridge, unless he held Conservative opinions. That might be so, because the Member of Parliament was to represent the political views of Convocation, and they were Conservative. It was a mistake to suppose that it was intended that Professors and residents should be burgesses. That was not the ground upon which the franchise was originally given to the Universities. To show what were the instructions sent down to the University of Oxford, with respect to the men who were to be returned, he might make another quotation from the letter of Sir Edward Coke. Sir Edward Coke particularly enjoined Convocation as follows:—
  "That now at this first election you make choice of some that are not of the Convocation House, for I have known the like to have bred a question, and it is good that the beginning and first season be clear and without scruple."
  He (Sir John R. Mowbray) should be sorry to cast reflections on any one of the distinguished Members of the constituency he was proud to represent; he was on the best terms with everybody in
  344
  his constituency; but he did not doubt that in the present day, as in the days of the Stuarts, there were in the Convocation House men who, though very good men, were more likely to breed questions in debate than to be practical politicians. The provisions of the Letters Patent, by which the privilege was conferred on the University, were in the most general terms. There was nothing about all that was now imported—about literature, education and science. The members of Convocation were enjoined to send to the Council of State two of the more discreet and sufficient men—"E discretioribus et magis sufficientibus vivis." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets made another point. He said that nowadays the University representation was a representation of the country clergy; that the hon. Gentlemen who were returned to Parliament by the Universities were under clerical influences; that they were put under all sorts of compulsion; that they did not express their own opinions; that they were, in fact, the nominees of the country clergy. Now, what was the fact with respect to this great delusion? He had been at some pains to look into the matter. In 1845, the constituency of the University of Oxford numbered 3,000, and of this number no less than 2,195 were clergymen, the lay members were only 803. In 1869, when he had the honour of being returned for the University, the number of electors had risen from 3,000 to upwards of 4,000. The clerical members numbered 3,060, and the lay members 1,340. In 1888, the number of electors had risen to 5,300; the clerical members of the constituency had decreased from 3,060 to 3,008; while the lay members had increased from 1,340 to 2,292. Now, if they took some of the greater Colleges at Universities—Christ Church, Balliol, University and Trinity, for instance—they would find that the lay members were already in a majority. Surely, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets had the courage of his own opinions, as he ought to have, he would see what was clearly the fact—that the clerical constituency was diminishing in itself, and diminishing still more in comparison with the increase of the lay element. Could it be supposed that the 370 teachers, who were so active

  345
  in forming the minds of the rising generation, had not instructed the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if he would look forward to a period 20 years hence, there would be a great preponderance of laymen in the Universities? He (Sir John R. Mowbray) contended that really this was a very extraordinary moment to make such a proposition as this. Parliament had just, by the Franchise Act, added 2,000,000 of capable citizens to the electoral roll. He cordially agreed with the extension of the franchise; he had never objected to it, provided there was a fair redistribution of seats; but no one could deny—the hon. and learned Gentleman could not deny—that the 2,000,000 of new voters included amongst them some who were not educated and who were not at all conversant with political questions. He (Sir John R. Mowbray), therefore, asked, was it reasonable that, at the present moment, they should try the experiment proposed; was it reasonable that, while adding to the electoral roll 2,000,000 of persons, a large proportion of whom were not educated and not intelligent in political matters, they should disfranchise somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 men of the highest education and the highest intelligence—entirely independent men, men who had studied politics in their earliest days, and who were eminently capable citizens? The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that he would not disfranchise such men, because he would let them have votes for the City of Oxford. Were the graduates of Oxford University to be transferred from the high academical constituency of which they were now members to that most corrupt constituency, the City of Oxford? The corruption of that city was so well known that a Writ was not issued when a vacancy occurred a year or two ago; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets would bring the men of his own University, for whom he had such tender and kindly feelings, such affection, loyalty and regard, into the corrupt mass of the civil constituency of the City of Oxford. He (Sir John R. Mowbray) was sure the true sons of Oxford University would no more thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that suggestion than they thanked him for his present Amiend-
  346
  ment. Now, did the hon. and learned Gentleman really mean to say that the Universities had not, for 300 years past, well discharged their duty to the country and to the Crown by the men they had returned to the House of Commons? The hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not wish to introduce personal topics, and he was very good to speak in a kindly way of the Members for the Universities; but each of the Universities was brought up in a more or less disparaging manner. Let them see what sort of men had been returned by the Universities. Had not Oxford reason to be proud of such Representatives as Selden, Sir Matthew Hale, and Sir "William Scott? Were they not among the greatest jurists who ever adorned any country? Had not Oxford reason to be proud of Sir Robert Peel, and of the present Prime Minister? Ironical cheers.] Yes; he expected that interruption, and he was not surprised at it. Oxford returned those distinguished men, and when they changed their opinions in consequence of which Oxford returned them, Oxford rejected them. But what did that rejection imply? It implied a very high spirit on the part of the University. The men Oxford rejected on each occasion were the foremost men of powerful Ministries; they were Leaders of the House of Commons; and one was associated with the Duke of Wellington and the other with Lord Palmerston. That they rejected those two great men was, to his mind, a proof of the disinterested character of the constituency. He maintained that, whether the Universities had or had not returned men whose political opinions coincided with those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had returned men of whom the nation had reason to be proud. The elections in the Universities had always been conducted conscientiously. The electors had always been guided by intelligence, and there never had been a suspicion of corruption. He repudiated the suggestion that the Members for the Universities were the nominees of any political Party, and felt satisfied that the feeling both in and out of the House was favourable to the retention of the. University constituencies. There was nothing to justify the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and therefore

  347
  he hoped the Committee would reject it by a large majority.
  MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he heard, with some surprise, the speech of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Baronet declared it was his bounden duty to vote against the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), because of the compact entered into by the occupants of the two Front Benches; but he accompanied that declaration by a speech which was nothing less than a command to hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House to vote in favour of the Amendment. What was the fundamental reason brought forward by the right hon. Baronet in support of his view that the Universities ought to be disfranchised? That it was undesirable to give a double representation to certain persons because of particular qualications. Well, he (Mr. Albert Grey) entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend that it would be very undesirable to give a double vote to any person in the Kingdom, if the Redistribution Bill about to be passed gave a security that the vote of every single elector should, as nearly as electoral arrangements would permit, count for as much as that of any other elector. If they were to have a system of fair and honest representation, which would insure to equal number of persons equal representation, then he would admit there would be a great argument in favour of the disfranchisement of the Universities. But when they were about to adopt a plan which, so far from giving true representation, would give an altogether sham representation of the people, a plan which would make the votes of one set of electors worth three or four times as much as that of another set, there was not only a very strong, but an absolutely overwhelming case in favour of the preservation of the University constituencies; the retention of the Universities was necessary to repair in some degree the inequality created by the present Bill. It was the experience of other countries—of France and of America—that, under the single-district plan, the more educated and cultivated portions of the community were swamped altogether—unable to find any representation, either in their National Assembly or in their Congress; and it had
  348
  been held both in America and in France, that, if by the substitution of proportional representation the more intelligent minorities could secure the return of their own candidates, intellect would be able to return its own Representatives to the Representative Assembly, and those Representatives would wield in the Chamber an influence out of all proportion to their numerical strength. It was because he believed that the effect of the single-district plan would be to reduce the influence of the intelligent minority, that he was in favour of the retention of the University constituencies. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board pointed to the hon. Member for Hackney (Professor Stuart) as a proof of the fact that intellect could find representation in the most popular constituencies; but they ought not to forget the saying of Lord Palmerston—that the extension of the franchise might not result in sending a different class of Members to the House, but the difference would be this, that the same men would play to the gallery, instead of to the boxes. Depend upon it, that the men of culture who were returned by men of culture would be a very different class of Members to the men of culture who were returned by men wanting in culture. What was the object of Reform? Was it not to obtain a good House of Commons? If so, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that variety in the representation was absolutely essential. They must have security for an adequate variety of representation in order to get a good House of Commons. All former Reform Bills had been framed with the object of securing this variety. In order to get a compound House of Commons, Parliament hitherto had been careful to preserve inequality of franchise and great difference in the size of constituencies; but by the Bill which was now brought forward by the two Front Benches they were about to remove these securities for variety. They were to have a uniform franchise; and they were about to make their constituencies almost identical in size; and that meant that, with the levelling agency of the Press and the railways, nearly every constituency in the Kingdom would tend to become more and more similar. They were thus about to abandon that old security

  349
  for a variety of representation and for a compound House of Commons which they had when they had an unequal franchise and different sized constituencies. He was not making these remarks as an argument in favour of the system that was being left behind. He believed there was another way of securing a compound House, a way based on absolute justice, being founded on the principle one man one vote, and every vote an equal value. That was a way, however, which at present was more popular in the country than, he was sorry to say, it was in the House. As, however, the House had determined not to adopt the only other alternative for insuring adequate variety in the representation, and was resolved upon establishing a system which would deprive the country of all security for a compound House of Commons, he maintained that, so far from wishing to abolish University representation, which introduced the only element of variety into their otherwise uniform plan, they ought to preserve it most carefully. While upon this point, he would like to quote two authorities, whom he was sure would be accepted as good authorities by those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. The late Mr. Stuart Mill, who strongly favoured University representation, advocated the bestowing of additional votes upon those who satisfied a certain standard of education and intelligence, relying upon direct representation of intellect and the adoption of some form of proportional representation as the chief safeguards against the danger of democracy. Mr. Bagehot, who regretted that direct representation of intelligence was impossible, maintained, nevertheless, that it was of vital importance that whatever could be done in this direction should be done. He said—
  "All that can be done in this direction must be effected by a gradual extension of the principle which has given Members to our Universities. No one can obtain admission to these bodies without a prolonged course of study, or without passing a strict examination in several subjects. This is a kind of franchise not to be manufactured; it is only obtained as a collateral advantage by persons who are in pursuit of quite different objects. Such bodies, however, are obviously few, and such kinds of franchise are necessarily limited. But they should be extended as far as possible."
  The arguments of his hon. Friend the
  350
  Member for the Tower Hamlets struck him (Mr. Albert Grey) as being very surprising and very inconsistent. The hon. Member objected to University representation, because men living outside the Universities swamped, the votes of those who resided in the vicinity of the University itself. That he offered as a reason for abolishing University representation altogether. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The Secretary of State for the Home Department cheered that remark. He (Mr. Albert Grey) did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of University representation or against it. Perhaps he had not made the point clear. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was that the electors living outside the University swamped the votes of the men living in the University; therefore, University interests were insufficiently represented in the House of Commons, and therefore the Universities should not have any representation at all. His hon. and learned Friend went on to say that in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, against which his speech was chiefly directed, matters were mainly controlled and governed by clerical influence. He (Mr. Albert Grey) admitted that readily; but that was no argument for the abolition of University representation; it was rather an argument for the extension of the University franchise than for its extinction. It was in the power of the House to secure that the electorate of the old Universities should be framed upon the model of the electorate existing in the Universities in Scotland. If that were the case, the whole body of graduates would have a vote for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and once that came to pass, it would soon be found that clerical influence, so far from controlling the representation, would only be a minor fraction in the constituent body. Of course, the clerical influence at Oxford and Cambridge controlled, at present, the representation of those constituencies, and why? Simply because, up to 1871, every elector for Oxford and Cambridge had to subscribe his adherence to the formularies of the Church of England; they had to do that before they could exercise the privilege of voting at a University election. At Oxford, the

  351
  degree of M.A. could not be obtained without a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. At Cambridge, no religious test was required for an M.A.; but only those who declared themselves as members of the Church of England were qualified for the Senate, with whom the election of Members of Parliament rested. Therefore, up to 1871, no one but those who subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England had the privilege of voting at a University election. The great majority of electors on the register for Oxford and Cambridge were thus not unnaturally in favour of strong Church of England candidates; but that was not a reason for abolishing University representation, although it was a very strong reason for hurrying on any process which might infuse into the electorate a larger number of men who had not been obliged, as a necessary condition of their electorship, to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. This widening process had been at work ever since 1871? Why not hurry it? Why should they not give to the whole body of the graduates in Oxford and Cambridge the right to vote? The system worked very well in Scotland. ["No, no!"] The hon. Gentleman who cried "No, no!" would have to go a very long way before he found a more capable Member, or one who was a greater adornment to the House, than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Play fair). Do not let them abolish University representation, simply because the clerical element at Oxford was, at the present moment, in the ascendant. Let them bring in a Bill to extend the electorate of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities; let them give the vote to the whole of the graduates. Personally, he would like to go further. He would like to give the vote for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to every University extension student who held nine first-class certificates. The University extension movement had made great progress in the country; it had met with an extraordinary and marvellous de-development in his own county of Northumberland. There were Northumbrian miners who, up to a few years ago, execrated the names of the old Universities, but who were now enthusiastic well-wishers of those institutions, in conse-
  352
  quence of the University extension scheme which had been set on foot through the instrumentality of his hon. Fiend the Member for Hackney (Professor Stuart). It would not be possible to invent any method or plan which would give so great a stimulus and incentive to the cause of higher education than to allow every workman who could show nine first-class certificates under the University extension scheme a right to vote at a University election. So, he said, rather than abolish University representation, let them extend it. That was his alternative proposal, and it was one which he believed would be of great advantage to the community. Before he sat down he would like to make one or two further remarks as to the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. The hon. and learned Gentleman advocated the abolition of University constituencies, because the men they sent to the House of Commons did not represent literature, education and science; and yet, while he did so, sitting behind him was the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), and sitting within two yards of him was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Play air). He asked any hon. Gentleman to point out two hon. Gentlemen equal in scientific attainments to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for the Universities of Edinburgh and London. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Oxford and Cambridge.] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) interrupted him, and said the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets referred to Oxford and Cambridge; but the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had made the deficiencies of Oxford and Cambridge the chief reason for sweeping away the Universities of Edinburgh and London. His answer was, make the electorate of Oxford and Cambridge like that of Edinburgh and London, and more men like the Members for the Universities of Edinburgh and London would be sent to Parliament. Obtain that end by improving the electorate. Well, then, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) told them that University representation brought old Members into the House; it never gave birth to a new Parliamentary

  353
  genius. Take the case of the University of Dublin. What was the Parliamentary history of the right hon. and I learned Gentleman the Member for that University (Mr. Plunket)? He was defeated for the City of Dublin, and the University gave him a refuge; and he (Mr. Albert Grey) did not think there was a single person in the House who would wish to see the right hon. and learned Gentlemen excluded from Parliament. He had now endeavoured to bring before the Committee some answers against the arguments adduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and some reasons why it was desirable not to get rid of University representation until a system of fair representation was adopted. If there was proportional representation, which would give every vote an equal value, then University representation might go; but until we got that, he should cling like a leech to every University seat. As he had mentioned the words proportional representation, let him make one suggestion to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) who spoke from the Front Bench. The right hon. Baronet told them he was against University constituencies, but that he was obliged to vote for them on this occasion. If he was against University constituencies, he could not care very much what method of representation was put in force in those constituencies. They were exceptional constituencies; therefore they were the very constituencies on which an experiment might be made. Why not amalgamate the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and elect their Members by the system of proportional representation? [A laugh.] He made the suggestion to his right hon. Friend in earnest. It was not yet too late. On Report, let them make the Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had received a warning; and, if they wished to retain the University constituencies, they ought to adopt some system which would make them palatable to Members on that side of the House. Let him say what he thought would be the best thing to do. Let them take away a Member from Oxford and Cambridge and give it to the Scotch Universities. Let them make Oxford and Cambridge one constituency, and the Scotch Universities one constituency; and then let the Members, each
  354
  constituency having three Representatives, be elected upon the single transferable vote system. Such a suggestion could very easily be adopted on Report. As the University Members were to be retained, the method of election could not be a vital matter. He hoped that, by accepting the suggestion, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board would show he had something more than an academical sentiment in favour of proportional representation. He (Mr. Albert Grey) trusted the House might see fit, on the Report stage, to make an experiment on the very constituencies which ought, from their exceptional nature, to be made the subject of a most important and interesting experiment.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) referred to an argument which was used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in expressing his approval of a great deal of what had been said in favour of the Amendment. It was argued that University representation gave double representation, and the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to that. He (Mr. J. A. Campbell) did not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland in his answer to the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought there was another answer which could be made to the President of the Local Government Board, and that was that the argument against double representation could scarcely be fairly brought forward in favour of the Amendment, inasmuch as double representation was not against the principle of the Bill they were now discussing. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), in his speech in introducing the Amendment, gave a description of a University which he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) was rather surprised to hear from one who knew the Universities of Scotland so well as the hon. and learned Gentleman did. There seemed to be an idea in his mind that a University consisted of a body of teachers only, rather than of University graduates. That was not at all the idea in Scotland. The Scottish Universities were certainly teaching Universities; they had a large staff of teachers; but it never occurred to the people of Scotland that the teachers

  355
  constituted the University. His hon. and learned Friend threw rather a slight upon the Universities of Scotland as constituencies by saying that the graduates never heard of their Universities, except in connection with Parliamentary elections. That was a mistake. The graduates of the Scottish Universities were associated together for other purposes than for electing Parliamentary Representatives. They were reminded twice a year of their duties as members of the General Council; and they had to take part in elections which had nothing whatever to do with politics. It had been asked whether the Universities gained by having Parliamentary representation. Now, he should say that that was not the object for which Parliamentary representation was given to the Universities; certainly, it was not the object in view when the franchise was conferred upon the Universities of Scotland and of London. He could not speak so confidently of the franchise given in olden times to the ancient Universities of England, and he was not aware of what the case was in Ireland. But although the franchise was not granted with the object of benefiting the Universities, he could say that the possession of the franchise had been a gain to the Universities of Scotland. It came after some important measures of reform which gave the graduates a much greater interest in those institutions; it was the crowning work of that reform; and since that time—he did not say altogether in consequence of the franchise being given them—there had been a new start made by the Universities. The real question for consideration, however, was, whether the country gained by the arrangement—for representation was conferred on the Universities not for the sake of the Universities, but for the sake of the country. It appeared to him that the franchise was given to the Universities in order that there should be some Members of the House of Commons whose special duty "was to attend to a certain class of interests; to attend to education and all connected with it, including the interests of the learned Professions. Other interests were represented in the House. The borough Members took the special responsibility of attending to questions
  356
  of trade and commerce; and county Members were supposed to have a special responsibility with regard to agricultural matters. Well, why should not the interests of education and cognate subjects also have their special Representatives in the House? It did not follow, by any means, that there might not be borough and county Members more influential in regard to educational subjects than the University Members. He had many Members in his eye, who were much more qualified to speak for education, literature, and science than at least one of the University Members, and he did not know that there was any one better qualified to speak on such subjects than the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought forward the Amendment. At the same time, that qualification on the part of borough or county Members was an accident; they had not been elected to Parliament on account of it, but had been returned to watch over other subjects, and upon other considerations altogether. This question must be dealt with in an impersonal manner. He would say that, although the University Members might, as individuals, have failed to come up to the standard of qualification and of service expected of them, yet it still remained true that the interests of education and of cognate subjects were of sufficient national importance to justify the election to the House of certain Members, who should be looked upon as having a special responsibility in regard to those subjects, so as to secure for them full attention from Parliament. It was in that view that he ventured, humbly, to say that University representation was valuable, and that he trusted the Committee would, by a large majority, reject the Amendment.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had, he thought, put the matter thorough on the right ground. They were not concerned at all with what might have been the original motive which prompted the King or Parliament to give Members to the Universities; they were not concerned with the question whether or not the franchise so conceded had been of advantage to the

  357
  Universities as corporations. The question they had to put to themselves was this—Was it to the advantage of the country, and an advantage to the Parliamentary representation, that there should be special Representatives in the House of the special interests or corporations which existed in the Universities? The presumption, he thought, was against those who wished to constitute special Representatives of groups of persons taken out of the general mass of citizenship. They had these University Members, and, therefore, many acquiesced in the idea of retaining them; but he did not suppose that anyone would suggest an extension of this kind of representation. They remembered that when Mr. Disraeli brought in his first draft of one of his Reform Bills in 1867, there were what were called, "fancy franchises" in it. They were not to be grouped together into separate constituencies, if he (Mr. Stanley) recollected rightly; but, at any rate, the idea of giving a man a vote because he was a doctor, or a lawyer, or had taken a University degree, or anything of that sort, was not viewed with favour in Parliament. The general feeling was, he thought, that the basis of Parliamentary representation was common citizenship, and that the natural centre round which a constituency should be aggregated was a local centre—a centre of local community of interest. Well, was there any reason why these exceptional constituencies should be favoured, or should be allowed to continue to exist? Did they confer any benefits on the nation through the Representatives they were likely to send to Parliament? He did not wish to say anything discourteous—it would be improper, and not in accordance with the facts, if they were to say anything derogatory to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now represented the Universities in Parliament. It was not from that point of view that he would wish to approach the question at all; but they were told—the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Glasgow had just told them—that the justification of these constituencies was that they sent Members to Parliament specially charged with the duty of watching over the interests of education. That, he (Mr. Stanley) thought, was a fair representation of the justification that
  358
  the hon. Member put forward. Well, he could bear cordial testimony to the fact that, at any rate, so long as he had been in Parliament, the Members for the Scotch Universities had taken a great and progressive interest in the cause of education; and he thought it was one of the most refreshing things they experienced in their contact with Scotch Members that, irrespective of political Party, they all alike desired to promote the cause of education. It was a most remarkable thing—if he might be allowed to use it as an illustration—last Session, when a Bill was passing through Parliament with reference to the reform of Scotch educational endowments, to see hon. Members on the opposite Benches, especially the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow and the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple), so active in pressing on the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) a more progressive, and a more liberal policy in the matter of education than the Government were inclined, in the first instance, to take up. Therefore, they could not help recognizing the fact that the cause of education had been generally supported by the Scotch University Members irrespective of their politics. But could hon. Members believe, for one moment, that it was because these hon. Gentlemen represented Scotch Universities that they supported the cause of education? Was it not rather because of the healthy foundation of the Scotch political character? Was it not rather to be accounted for by the love of education which, for generations, had been instilled into the Scotch character? He thought, however, that the more highly they appraised the character of the English University Members, the more they must recognize the fact that—-probably owing to some inherent defect in the constituencies they represented—the attitude of those hon. Gentlemen towards education in England had been found rather antagonistic to, than in favour of, the promotion of the cause of education. The right hon. Gentleman the Representative of the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) had told the Committee how, for many years in the House, he had had to watch over Bills affecting University education. He (Mr. Stanley) would like to ask the right hon. Member whether

  359
  it was not the fact that the vigilant watchfulness which he had exercised over all the University Bills had rather the effect of postponing their passing into law, or introducing into them restrictive Amendments which the country did not approve of; and he could not help remembering the speeches delivered year by year, on the Education Estimates, by the other hon. Member for the University of Oxford, in which there was no plea for the extension of education, but rather of keeping it back in accordance with the limited means of the denominational system. He regretted to find that the influence these constituencies brought to bear on their Representatives was not an influence which made them the champions of education, a title which their own cultivation would, doubtless, have resulted in their winning, if they had had the good fortune to plunge into some democratic constituency. He felt quite sure that, if either of the two Members for the University of Oxford were representing the Conservative side in Manchester or Sheffield, the House would find them very much more in favour of an advanced and liberal elementary education, such as the school boards of those great towns had so successfully promoted, than they were now, representing the ancient Universities. As a matter of fact, it was quite idle to say that the Representatives of the English Universities represented learning or culture in any sense whatever. In the first place, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey), the constituencies of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were not the graduates. The constituencies were plutocracies. The Universities, he was sorry to say, did not give their degrees in relation to merit, or in relation to advancement. The degree of Master of Arts, which entitled a man to vote, was sold for a money consideration; and yet that degree represented not one atom of educational progress beyond the degree of Bachelor of Arts. ["Oh, oh!"] Those who cried "Oh, oh!" probably had not had the advantage of a University education The Universities not only "sold" the degrees—and that was the plainest word for a plain fact—but they also charged a yearly tariff for the privilege of exercising the University franchise.
  360
  It was not only necessary to have taken the Master of Arts degree to have the franchise, but to pay annual fees, or commute them by the payment of a lump sum. He would not say a word against any Member now in the House; but he might, perhaps, be allowed to refer to an analysis of the votes taken on the great occasion when the Prime Minister was turned out of the representation of the University of Oxford. That analysis was very remarkable—he was not speaking of a comparison between the resident and non-resident voters, but of an analysis of the University voters that had been taken. The analysis showed a perfect curve—he did not know what formula could be found to express it mathematically; but the curve descended from University prizemen, First Class men, and men who had Fellowships, through the Second and Third Classes, until they got to the Fourth Class, and then the upward curve, in favour of the Prime Minister's opponent, who was elected, reached the level of the descending curve, or those who had voted for the Prime Minister. When they got to the pass men, that curve mounted up with great rapidity, and placed Lord Cranbrook—then Mr. Gathorne Hardy—in a vast majority; and he (Mr. Stanley) could not help thinking that if the person who had prepared the table had ascertained who those who had obtained their position on the roll through two or three successive plucks, they might be found to mount up even more rapidly. The electoral roll of the University represented, to a large extent, the willingness of people to go on to the Master's degree, and to pay the necessary foes. They were anxious to keep their names on the books for election purposes. In many cases, however, gentlemen were less animated by political considerations than what he might call a desire for millinery—a strong desire to wear the crimson hood, which had a better appearance in church than that which was presented by the less ornamental ermine tippet of the Bachelor of Arts. That would explain how it was that so many more clergymen than laymen were members of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. The hon. Gentleman who had spoken below him (Mr. Albert Grey) had sketched out a possible constituency of the Universities

  361
  of Oxford and Cambridge—an amalgamation of the two, and a new method of voting to render the representation acceptable. But he (Mr. Stanley) was sure it would be much better to abolish the four seats of the Universities altogether than to jerrymander them in that way; to subject them to arithmetical calculations, shifting votes, and arrangements, which would only lead to hopeless confusion. These constituencies were much too old to alter their ways, and to be made the subject of an experiment in proportional voting.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it had no doubt been satisfactorily proved to him that he was an unfortunate creature, who knew nothing nor cared anything about literature, or culture, or science; and that he represented a body of people who were in the same unfortunate position; yet, with or without success, literature was a subject which had occupied a good deal of his time and thoughts during his life; indeed, if he had attended less to literature and more to politics, his success might have been greater. He would admit his want of culture; but, at all events, he would not, like the honourable and very superior Gentleman who had just spoken, treat this subject by a series of bad jokes about ermine and red hoods. It would, at all events, receive serious treatment from him. The only attempt at an argument used by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) was a sort of inchoate argument, a little timid creeping thing, like a rabbit in a warren, which murmured about representation being based upon a local centre. But was not a University a local centre? The Universities were concentrated centres of learning and teaching, and, as some had said, of high thinking and low living. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) felt that; but he went wrong from not feeling something more. The Universities were not only a joint stock company for the promotion of research, entitled it might be to the representation of that research as exclusively embodied in the limited number of persons engaged in such research, but they were also the machinery by which a large class of the people, belonging generally to what was called the governing class, were able to attain that culture which was necessary to enable them to discharge
  362
  their duties in life with reason, with success, and with a broad view of the proportion of things. The non-resident was not the old-fashioned country bumpkin depicted in some comedy of the last century. The non-residents were rather the mind of the country. ["Oh, oh!"] He would trouble the ton. Gentleman who called "Oh!" to deny that the lawyers and the doctors and other educated Professions were the mind of the country, and yet the lawyers and doctors and so forth formed a large proportion of the non-resident graduates. Anyone cognizant of University politics must know very well how large a share the Temple and Lincoln's Inn had had in settling the representation of the Universities. Even, if among the non-residents might be found country squires, whose degree was a poll or a pass one, and whose talk was of bullocks and such things, was it not something to be able to talk of bullocks with that reasonable education which any degree indicated, and which gave that average of culture which every man who was more or less a leader of his countrymen ought to possess? As for the cry of clerical preponderance, that was amply and fully disposed of by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey). Of course, as long as there were tests, the representation was of necessity Church of England representation; but when the tests were abolished the Universities were at once thrown open to all beliefs. The old constituency had been an excellent one; but it was limited. Now it was not done away with, only enlarged. As to the contention raised about the formal process by which the degree of Master of Arts was attained, it was conveniently forgotten that the degree of Batchelor came necessarily first, and that the examinations came at that stage. After all, what was this outcry against University representation? The numerical principle as governing the distribution of seats was now to be made stronger, more consistent, and more universal than by any previous Reform Bill, and yet they were afraid of nine men out of 670. It seemed to be thought that those nine men would be more than a match for the remaining 661. The weak point of the new distribution was the risk of giving an undue preponderance to mere local feeling; and this was, to a certain

  363
  extent, counterbalanced by such widespread constituencies as those of the Universities with an intellectual qualification. He had but one more consideration to urge. He would ask what sort of men had of old been returned for the Universities? He owned to some pride when he thought of such Representatives as Palmerston, or the present honoured Chancellor of Cambridge, the Duke of Devonshire. But he had greater names than these to advance. He was the successor of Bacon, Newton, and Pitt. He could not, let him say, name these without confessing how deeply he felt the responsibility of such an inheritance. Such men might be again returned for a University, would they certainly be so for the division of a county or the ward of a borough? He must resist the proposal as hopelessly reactionary and deplorably Philistine.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) is such a friend to higher education, and is such an excellent type of academic training, that the Universities may well be surprised that the blow against their representation has come from him. If we were now engaged in founding a new representative system, some of his arguments would be strong. A double vote to one man, it may be in the same town, is certainly an anomaly; but our existing representative system is full of anomalies, even in regard to double voting. This special anomaly of which he complains has existed in regard to the older Universities since 1603 for England and 1613 for Ireland. University representation was then granted by Charter, perhaps by a stretch of Royal Prerogative. But it was accepted by the House of Commons, and was ratified by the Court of King's Bench. The Universities exercised so well their privileges that Parliament extended them by statute to the Scottish Universities, and to the London University. In the long exordium of the original Charters, James I. explains that the interests of learning and of religion deserve to be represented in the House, as well as the material interests of the Kingdom. We now know more clearly than that Monarch did how much the material interests of a nation depend upon the diffusion of learning and science. This recognition
  364
  of their mutual dependence is, to my mind, the only justification for the representation of Universities at the present day. Undoubtedly, University Representatives must be politicians; for, if they are not, they should not sit in Parliament. But they must be more than mere Party politicians. They are returned, or they ought to be returned, to Parliament because they are fitted to represent the higher interests of learning and science. There are numerous subjects affecting the common weal which are above the region of Party conflicts. They may, or may not, have direct reference to Universities; but they relate to their work. For instance, the primary education of the people, the secondary education of the middle classes, the relations of science to the progress of manufacturing industry, the health of large communities, are subjects depending upon learning and science, and these then become important factors in the deliberations of the House. When University Members put their Party politics in the background, and discuss such questions as these with a single desire to promote the common good, the House always bestows confidence on them, and, frequently, is guided by their advice. Is it not wise that we should have among us a few Members to whom such questions are of more interest than the struggles of Party warfare? Personally, I can state with pride and satisfaction that I have always found the House on both sides willing to allow me to share in such deliberations without accusing me of pedantry. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), who sits on this side, as well as my University Colleagues on the other side, can state, with equal satisfaction, that they have received similar indulgence from the House when they have had occasion to address it on academic or scientific subjects. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the difference between the position of England and foreign nations as to higher education, so as to explain why it is important for this country to continue University representation. Unless this difference is understood it is, undoubtedly, a strong argument that, while our Continental neighbours promote science and learning more than we do, they have not found it necessary to represent Universities in

  365
  their Legislative Assemblies. In those nations all education—primary, secondary, and University—is the special object of State supervision and control. Each nation has a separate Minister of Education, with large funds at his disposal; and that Minister is the responsible Representative in Parliament for their progress and efficiency. In our country we had no national system, even of primary education, till 1870; our secondary education is even now entirely chaotic, and is independent of State supervision; while our Universities are autonomous, and are only responsible to themselves. Even the Scottish Universities, which are the only Universities to which we give Parliamentary grants, are independent of administrative control, and do not even make Reports for the information of Parliament. It is under these different circumstances that this nation has thought it wise to have Representatives of higher education in this House. Whether we should abandon our system of Representatives of education for the centralized system of Ministerial responsibility is a question too large for discussion at present; but you must have one or other, unless England is to abandon her position among nations. ["No, no!"] For my own part, I believe that representation of higher education, rather than administrative centralization, is more consonant with our ideas and institutions. I observed that there was some dissent when I said we must have one or other system inside Parliament, so I venture to give my reasons. I doubt whether even all the Members of this House are aware of the enormous efforts which have been made in recent years on the Continent to promote University education. These efforts are founded on the conviction, in which I profoundly share, that the competition of nations, both in war and in peace, has ceased to be a competition of brute force, or of local advantages, but has resolved itself into a competition of intellect. As Jules Simon has tersely put it—that nation which has the best educated people must become the greatest nation, if not to-day, certainly to-morrow. Let me state in a few words what France is now doing for her University education. Before the Great Revolution France had 22 autonomous Universities, which gave intellectual life to the Provinces. Napoleon, with the
  366
  powers of a despot, and the instincts of a drill sergeant, converted them into Faculties, and created a single University of France, which was centralized in Paris. Under this baneful centralization the Faculties dwindled away. By 1868, the subventions to the University had diminished to an insignificant sum. The war with Germany came, and France was beaten. Then the French Institute fully discussed the causes of the disaster; and came to the conclusion that the intellectual paralysis of France was due to the destruction of her higher education. France, though loaded with debt, and competing with us in iron-clads, has made surprising efforts to recover her intellectual position; for she feels that it is not by men alone, but by the intellectual and moral force of her people, that she can cope with Germany, either in war or in peace. Since 1868 no less a sum than £3,280,000 (82,000,000 francs) has been spent by France in rebuilding her provincial Colleges, and the annual subvention for their support in 1884 was, in round numbers, £500,000. Has Germany been indifferent to this remarkable development in the higher education of France? Has she merely strengthened the fortifications of Strasburg which passed over to her in the war? Germany has rebuilt the University at great cost, having equipped it with eight laboratories, the smallest of which, that for physiology, cost £14,000, and the largest, for chemistry, £35,000. It also gives to it an annual subvention of £46,000. Germany has now 21 Universities, with 24,000 students and 1,800 Professors. The annual Votes are close on £400,000, besides the extraordinary expenditure for buildings, amounting to half as much more. I have only time for one other illustration, and I take the case of the Netherlands, because its population only slightly exceeds that of Scotland, and its total revenue is only £9,000,000. Yet, it has four Universities, and votes for their support £136,000 yearly; while Scotland, with the same number supported by the State, receives from Parliament £30,000 annually. You will now understand why I have drawn attention to this remarkable progress of higher education among our Continental competitors. Either foreign nations are extravagantly absurd in the attention which they give to higher education, or

  367
  we are surprisingly weak in doing so little. If, however, it is possible that Continental nations may be right in believing that the competition of the world has become a competition of intellect, it is unwise at this time that you should be asked to do anything that will depress the position of our Universities in the public estimation. In the eyes of the world the suppression of University representation is not an act that would commend higher education to the people, or promote the development of institutions absolutely essential to our national progress. Unless you are prepared to imitate the system of foreign countries by substituting Ministerial responsibility for their administration and welfare, I trust that you will continue our present mode of recognizing the importance of our Universities by allowing their Representatives to share in the deliberations of the great Council of the nation. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) has spoken to us to-night in a manner different to that in which he spoke when the question of the reform of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was before the House. Then, wrapped in his University toga, he spoke as a Conservative. Now, he has cast it off, and has spoken as a Radical. My right hon. Friend has advanced far in his Radicalism with respect to education, and fails to see the danger there is to the community if we show how little regard we have for the higher interests of education when it is proposed to abolish its representation in this House. I hope the House will not agree to the Amendment, and will not consent to refuse admission to the great Council of the nation of those who especially represent the interests of learning.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he was obliged to say, though he said it with reluctance, that he felt constrained to vote for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). He was not likely to underrate the value of University education or the extension of University education and University influence in the country. There was, he supposed, no one who owed more to University education and University training than the humble individual who had the honour to address the Com-
  368
  mittee at that moment, and he quite agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir Lyon Playfair) had said on the subject as to the advantage to the House of having in it Representatives of the higher education and higher culture of the country. But, he would ask, what had that to do with the representation of the Universities? Could it be said that University representation was, in any sense, the representation of a living University? It was difficult to discuss the question without appearing to make personal allusions, and he therefore said at once that he was quite aware, and cordially agreed, that there were no Members in the House who were more respected and whose opinions were more looked up to than those who represented the Universities. But, admitting all that, he would ask, did the University constituencies at the present time represent real living Universities? Now, what was a University constituency? It was not a number of people who were engaged in teaching and were connected with the culture and education of the country at a University. It consisted of Masters of Arts, and Masters of Arts were gentlemen scattered all over the country—country clergymen, country squires, London lawyers, and people of that kind. What connection had they with that living University which was supposed to represent the learning and literature and science of the country—the body concentrated within the walls of the University itself. If the University representation were a real one—a representation of science and learning and literature—though he should look upon it as an anomaly, he should not be disposed to vote with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. But everyone knew that the constituencies of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who represented the Universities in the House were people whose connection with the Universities consisted, for the most part, in their having succeeded in struggling through a pass degree, some 20 or 30, or perhaps 40 years ago, with a view to admission into Holy Orders—people who had no real connection with the living University, which we supposed to represent science and literature and learning. He believed it was notorious that, if they took into consideration the votes of the resident mem-

  369
  bers of the Universities, it would be found that the majority of those gentlemen were not on the side which elected the present University Members to the House. It appeared to him that the conditions had entirely changed since representation in the House was accorded to the Universities. The greater facilities for communication which now existed, and the change of habits which had taken place had entirely altered the character of the University constituencies. In the days when University representation in Parliament was accorded to the Universities, the difficulties of communication and expense of travelling made it practically impossible for the nonresident Members of Convocation, who had severed their connection with the University, to exercise the franchise. The franchise in those days was practically confined to those men who were actually engaged in the teaching and learning of the Universities. They were the men whom it was intended to represent in the House. But of late years the conditions had entirely altered. Fellows of the Colleges no longer continued to reside at their University, as they used to do formerly, and the University constituencies now consisted of people scattered all over the country, who, perhaps, took no interest in, had no care for, and no connection with, the Universities, beyond the fact that they were periodically asked to fill up a voting paper for the election of a Member of Parliament. Now, he need not say that he should regret extremely the absence from the House of the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed them (Mr. Beresford Hope), and, if he might venture to say so, of the other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who represented the Universities in the House on either side of it; but he felt certain that those Members would speak with quite as much force, and probably with greater freedom, if they represented constituencies other than Universities. Why was this representation anomalous? Why, the constituents of hon. and right hon. Members who represented Universities in the House, in almost every instance, had a vote for some other qualification. If he (Mr. Davey) was a resident in London he had a vote for the metropolitan borough within which he resided; and if he was a country clergyman, he had a vote for the county in which his living was situ-
  370
  ated; so that the University franchise was merely a means of giving a second vote to a certain class of people. He asked by what justice, by what right, was it that any of the country clergymen, or, he might say, that he (Mr. Davey) himself, had a second vote for a University when he already possessed one as the occupier of a house in the borough in which he resided? In olden times, he could quite understand that it was right that the Universities should be represented, because the constituents, for the most part, consisted of resident members within the Universities. These gentlemen were excluded from the franchise in the city of Oxford and the borough of Cambridge, and it was but just and right that they should return their Members, otherwise there would have been no representation for them in Parliament. But now the constituents had facilities for voting, in the shape of voting papers, great facilities for travelling and communication, and were not resident members of the Universities. The resident members did, in a sense, represent science and literature, and learning; but that could not be pleaded in the case of the non-residents scattered all over the country, who were already represented by other qualifications. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had—with justifiable pride—referred to his distinguished Predecessors in the representation which he adorned; but it had occurred to him (Mr. Davey) that that was rather an unfortunate topic to touch upon. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned Lord Palmerston's name; but, if he (Mr. Davey) remembered rightly, when Lord Palmerston exhibited an independence of thought on the question of Catholic Emancipation he ceased to represent the University. Well, Oxford University was at one time represented by Sir Robert Peel. How was Sir Robert Peel dissevered from the University? Why, when he announced that he was convinced of the necessity of Catholic emancipation, and when he determined to vote for it, and showed some independence of thought on a subject in regard to which, no doubt, every Member of the House to-day would be in entire agreement with him, the University of Oxford at once dissevered itself from one of its most distinguished Re-

  371
  presentatives. They all knew what occurred when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) exhibited an independence of thought, which did not suit the constituency of the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman had not only adorned the representation of that University, but his connection both with literature and learning and the distinguished degree which he had taken as a student there, marked him out as the person who, of all others, mostly justified University representation. But what happened? The right hon. Gentleman was dismissed from the representation. And hon. Members would find that, invariably, when a University had had the good fortune to be represented by a man—he would not say of the distinction of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, but by any man who took an independent line of his own, it had rejected him. It seemed to him (Mr. Davey) that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets had been amply justified in bringing this question before the Committee. The hon. Member could not have taken action through any feeling of disrespect to the Universities, for not only was he a distinguished member of one of them, but he had an official connection with it. University representation, however, was in itself an anomaly, and was not justified by the circumstances of the case.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) had said he would have no objection to there being a representation of a University, if that representation were of, what he was pleased to call, the real living University. Those who knew Oxford at the present day would not have much difficulty in following the hon. and learned Gentleman in distinguishing between the teaching Body of the University and those who had gone forth from the University. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) and others of the University of Oxford, who possessed seats in the House, claimed to be as great apart of the real living Body of the University as was the teaching Body. Why should the teaching Body be represented, and not the thing taught; why should those whose object was to instruct persons before they went out into the world have their Representative, and
  372
  those who had been taught in the University not be considered such a portion of the University as to have also a share in the representation of the University in the House of Commons? The hon. and learned Gentleman, who brought forward this Amendment (Mr. Bryce), said that, although it might have been the right thing in old days that the Universities should have their Representatives, at the present time circumstances were so altered, and people were so entirely separated from the Universities, that it was not necessary that the Universities should have special representation. Allow him (Mr. Staveley Hill) to say that a close examination of those who still remained members of Convocation in Oxford, and of those who still remained members of the Senate in Cambridge, would show that there was a far closer connection between them and their University at the present time than there ever was in days gone by. The facility which persons living in the country had of obtaining information as to what went on in their University, and the great intimacy that was kept between those remaining in the University and those resident in the country made University men a far more close and united body than they ever were in times gone by. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets said it was a bad thing to bring politics into the Universities, because it caused a great amount of discord amongst the teachers. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) had been a Fellow of his College for a great many years; he had lived in Oxford, and seen a great deal of Oxford during those years; and, therefore, he was not a little surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member, whose opinions the House much respected, say that the introduction of political questions was a great element of discord. In the common room, no doubt, there were political differences; but those differences did not affect the teaching of the Universities. The members of the teaching Body of the University were not so weak as that; they could teach and make their teaching useful, whether they were of one side of politics or of the other. He would only venture to draw attention to a few of the words which were omitted by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Mr. J. A. Campbell), when he quoted the

  373
  original Charter to the Universities. He did that because it seemed to him that the words of James L, as quoted by Blackstone, were well worth considering, and formed in themselves an argument in favour of University representation. The University was ordered—
  "To send two of their own Body to serve for those students who, though useful members of the community, were neither concerned in the landed nor in the trading interests, and to pro-toot in the Legislature the rights of the Republic of Letters."
  Just as much now as in the old days, there were numbers of men who were not concerned in the landed, or the trading interests, but who had a deep interest in the community of Letters, men who were living at or away from Oxford, amongst hundreds and thousands of persons who were looking to them for an example. If there was to be class representation at all, he failed to find any class in the community who were more deserving of representation than the class of persons constituting the elective Bodies for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he did not suppose that any Member of the House would entertain any doubt as to the service the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had done to Letters generally, and a thousand other good objects. He had also not the smallest doubt that the House thoroughly acknowledged the extraordinary services rendered to science by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair); but that was not the question at present before the Committee. He failed to see, in the lengthy account his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) gave of the services that were done to Letters by foreign Governments, any relevance to the subject. He was aware that this was, in more senses than one, an academical discussion; and that the conclusion was a foregone one. It was, he supposed, necessary, in consequence of the underderstanding which had been entered into between the two Front Benches, that this most anomalous part of our representative system should be maintained. He should not, therefore, have got up to say anything on this subject—believing that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bryce) was
  374
  only a barren protest against what he (Mr. Rogers) believed was mischievous—if he had not something to say about his own experience. He had lived for 40 years in Oxford—since he took his degree he had lived there uninterruptedly. He had had an opportunity of watching the whole course of academical business, and he had taken no small part in the business of the University. He even took no small part in the business now, for he had the honour to be the largest holder of unpaid offices in the University. He was going down to-morrow to discharge the duties of two of his offices. What he complained of was the mischievous effect of political squabbles on the internal life of the University. For years past there had not been an election for a single academical office, into which the most mischievous and demoralizing wirepullers had not thrust their noses; and offices were not given to persons because of their competence to fill them, but because of their partizanship. All this had entirely come out of the mischievous representation of the University. The different posts of the University were looked upon as so many places for the majority of Convocation, and that was members of the Conservative Party. The enfranchisement of the Universities had been confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament; but it was most important to remember that, at the time the franchise was originally given, a great majority of the members of the University held what were called spiritual estates—namely, the estates of clergymen, though they might be laymen. They were, therefore, only represented in Convocation; and one of the motives in giving the franchise was that property in the University should be represented. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope) had mentioned some of the distinguished men who had been returned by the Cambridge University. There were not very many—10 fingers would be quite sufficient to count them; and, similarly, it would not be difficult to count the distinguished men who had represented the Oxford University. Certainly, one of the men who represented Oxford University was, perhaps, the most infamous person who ever sat in the House of Commons—he meant Speaker Finch. The less said of Selden the better; but these were antiquarian con-

  375
  siderations, which he admitted were of little moment now. The real question was, whether this representation of the Republic of Letters, as it was called, did any good for the Republic of Letters. He did not think it did any good. He thought it degraded, and demoralized, and opened these seats of learning to Party conflicts, and to a perpetual system of Party preparation. In the next place, he did not believe it was expedient that there should be anomalous or double franchises created by Parliament. He was aware that this franchise was to be maintained. He knew very well that the understanding between the two Front Benches was not likely to be disturbed, whatever might be the remonstrances or opinions of hon. Gentlemen on the subject. But it was not unlikely that Members of the House would remember and talk about the matter, and that they would not fail to tell the country to whom it was they owed the retention of this kind of franchise. He would not say it was certain'; but, perhaps, when a new Parliament was elected, this, with other mischievous retentions in this Redistribution Bill, would be swept into the limbo of past defects, and they would wonder that any person, except James I., was so foolish as to give such representation, and that any persons, except the Parliament of the year 1886, or thereabouts, were so unwise as to maintain it.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he need not address the Committee at any length; but as some things had been stated by the assailants of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which certainly did apply to the University of Dublin, he would like to take an immediate opportunity of setting his own constituency right. He must say that, during the whole of this debate, the arguments that had been brought forward for the great change proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had been utterly inadequate—he could hardly say they were serious arguments—when they came to consider what the change was that it was proposed in this offhand way to make. Now, for the first time since Universities obtained their right to send Members to Parliament, was that right impugned or challenged. For more than two and a-half centuries the old Universities of England and
  376
  the University of Dublin had continuously sent Members to the House of Commons. Not only was that the case; but, in more recent times, on every occasion when the representation of the country was reviewed and reformed, so far from any attack being made on the principle of the Parliamentary representation of the Universities, the principle of that representation was sanctioned and further developed. For instance, in the great Reform Bill of 1832, the University of Dublin, which, since the Act of Union, had been deprived of one of its Members, had that Member restored; and, when Parliament came again in 1867 to consider the representation of the country, so far from any attack being made upon the representation of the Universities, nine Members instead of six were given to the Universities, for it was so late as 1867 that the Member for the University of London and the Members for the Scotch Universities were added to the House of Commons. Therefore, he maintained that all precedent, all teaching of history, all the decisions of previous Parliaments were in favour of the representation of the Universities in the House of Commons, and, until to-night, as far as he had been able to find out, the principle of that representation had never been seriously challenged. Now, let them consider what were the arguments which had been brought forward for this great change. He submitted they were wholly inadequate; they were of a most hypothetical nature; they were of a most unsubstantial character. What was the first argument? Why, that the Parliamentary contests created a pernicious excitement within the Universities, an excitement which overthrew the ordinary tranquil course of University life. It was said that the Members for Universities were elected by a caucus vote. In the University of Dublin such a thing had never been dreamt of. He knew the University of Dublin perfectly well; and when hon. Members said that only a Professor or a Fellow of the University should represent the constituency, he took issue with them at once. He attended his University as much as any member of it. He was constantly going in and out of the University, and he knew every bit of the University of Dublin quite as well as the hon. and

  377
  learned Member for the Tower Hamlets knew the life of his own University. It was absurd to say that they who did not happen to be Professors were unable to represent the wants and wishes of the University. All the arguments he had heard advanced in support of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets appeared to him to divide themselves into two classes. One of those classes contained various criticisms upon the kind of Gentlemen who were returned by Universities to Parliament. It was very easy to make a general imputation that the sitting Members were not fit persons to represent Universities, and that, after all, they did not contribute much more then the Representatives of any other body to the advantage of the country. He (Mr. Plunket) was not going to speak of himself, especially after the far too flattering way in which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Albert Grey) referred to him personally. But who were the Members who, at present, represented Universities in the House of Commons? Almost every one of them was either an ex-Minister, or privy councillor, one who, by his character and antecedents, had a right to sit on one of the Front Benches of the House; and several of them had actually been selected by the House itself to occupy the Chair of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or to preside over the Private Business of the House, because the House had the greatest confidence in their ability to direct its proceedings. Really, until the debate that evening, the only argument he ever heard advanced against University representation came from hon. Gentlemen who said—"Yes, they may be very distinguished persons, and useful persons in the House of Commons, but they are not exactly the kind of people we want." It was said that Universities should be represented by Professors, and that the men returned did not smell of midnight oil, or the must of the old library. Hon. Members opposite gave different definitions of the kind of men University Members ought to be; but what he observed as curious was, that when a Professor described what the Representative should be like, the description was a faithful photograph of the Professor himself. The great complaint of certain hon. Gentlemen was, that some persons were not University
  378
  Members instead of those who were. He would put one question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. Suppose a majority of the electors of the University of Oxford were as the electors of one of the Scotch Universities and of the University of London were, sympathizers with the hon. and learned Gentleman's political views, and they had pitched upon him—and they could not have pitched upon a more distinguished scholar—would he have declined to accept the representation, and, if he had accepted it, would he have been found to-night proposing to extinguish University constituencies altogether? He (Mr. Plunket) would pass away from that and come to the real question. What were the serious arguments that were brought against University representation? The two arguments he had been dealing with could hardly have been seriously advanced, because there was nothing at all substantial in them. The serious argument was, that the seats could not be spared, as they were wanted so badly for other places. Did hon. Gentlemen grudge the Universities nine Members out of the 670? In the first place, it had been said that the Members returned did not represent the living Universities of the present day. He claimed that they did represent a living University. He, himself, claimed to represent the living University of Dublin as distinctly as any Professor or Fellow who could be chosen. There were men far more eminent and able than himself; but, so far as knowledge of the institution, and so far as sympathy with everything which went on in the University, his heart beat with every throb of University life. But the Members for the Universities did not only represent the living Universities. In the present state of affairs, when the great learned Professions had no separate representation in the House of Commons, it was of great advantage to the State that those classes should find representation through the Members for the Universities. He was not at all sure that in the University of Dublin the clergy were now the majority of the constituency, because he knew that, for some time, the voters who were not clergymen had been rapidly increasing in number; but he claimed to represent in Parliament not only the clergy of the Protestant Church, but the great

  379
  Professions of Law, of Medicine, and of Engineering. He did not mean to say that every lawyer, and doctor, and engineer in Ireland were his constituents; but he maintained that the vast majority were, and he asked, if they did not get direct representation through him, where were they to get it? If that was necessary in former times, when the constituencies were less democratic, and smaller than they were now, what would be the case in future? How were the members of the great Professions to find representation, when they were scattered about in constituencies of 50,000 people each? Why, the thing was quite absurd. It would only be by the merest accident that they would have any substantial weight. If they got the ear of their Member of Parliament, it would be by the goodwill of that Gentleman, and not from any special claim they would have upon him. Therefore, he said, University representation was requisite, in order that the views not only of the living Universities, but of those members of Universities who were now most learned in the different Professions should be put forward in the House. He did not stop there. He contended that what was referred to as the Republic of Letters was as nearly reached by the representation of the graduates as it was possible to reach it. He did not care a pin whether they drew the line at M.A. or B.A.; but he contended that the graduates of the Universities were as good a body of electors for the purpose of representing the great Republic of Letters as could be found. He was very unwilling to detain the Committee longer; but, perhaps, he might be allowed to say another word with regard to the constituency which he had the honour to represent. It had been charged against Universities that they sold their degrees in some way or other, and that the sale was in some way connected with the right to vote. He did not know what the case was at Oxford or Cambridge; but whatever the charge was, it did not apply to the University of Dublin, for every man who took the degree of M.A. was entitled to be placed on the Register without any fee or payment, annual or otherwise. A man was put on the Register without his even making a claim, so that the charge which had been made in no way concerned the University of Dublin. He
  380
  wished, further, to say that he had never heard any opinion expressed by any Party whatever that the representation of the University of Dublin should cease on other than political grounds. A statement was made in the House the other night to the effect that it was distasteful to the so-called National Party in Ireland that there should be Members in the House obstructing their cause. Now, he had no wish to reopen the somewhat heated controversy which took place in the early portion of the evening; but when they were asked to abolish the representation of the Dublin University, because the Members returned ran counter to what was called the Nationalist Party, he was entitled to say that outside of Ulster there were 304,227 Protestants.
  MR. SEXTON: They have increased 100,000 since the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke some little while ago.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he corrected himself at the time. There was no doubt of the matter; the number of Protestants in Ireland outside of Ulster was 304,227. Well, according to the mere numerical calculation, these people were entitled to six Members. They were, however, scattered amongst the multitudes of Catholics, and, therefore, their voices would be, practically, silent in the House. He just asked this question, and asked it frankly—under these circumstances, could anyone allege that the two Members allotted to Dublin University too many to represent in this House the wishes of the scattered Loyalists?
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he did not rise to discuss the general question; he simply wished to offer one or two observations with reference to some misleading remarks which had been made in the course of the debate in regard to the University which he had the honour to represent. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bryce), in bringing the subject before the Committee, had referred to the University of London as being a merely examining University; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Rogers) had expressed the same idea more tersely and more forcibly. He (Sir John Lubbock), however, would be able to show, in a very few words, that this statement was calculated to convey a wrong impression, and that he ought not to pass it altogether without

  381
  notice. In Oxford and Cambridge Universities instruction was mainly given not by the University, but by the Colleges. When the University of London was founded, University College, London, stood in the same position in regard to the University as University College, Oxford, stood in in regard to the University of Oxford. But there were persons who were anxious to receive degrees without the necessity of going through a course of College residence; they brought their case before the Government, and it was considered that it would be a great advantage to have some Body which should give degrees without requiring residence. The University of London undertook the duty, and had discharged it to the best of its ability; and those who were conversant with the facts would, he believed, agree that this had been of great advantage to the country. One other remark he had to make in reference to an observation which had fallen from an hon. Member as to Members not representing their own Universities, and not being interested in their Universities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Plunket) had commented on this statement as regards himself; and he (Sir John Lubbock), for his own part, would merely say that he had been a member of the Senate of the University of London for 20 years, and for eight years had been its Vice Chancellor. Though that University could, no doubt, have sent an abler Representative to the House than himself, it could not have sent one who took more interest in it, or in the work it was performing.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he did not wish to trouble the Committee with more than a single remark. As one of the class which had been spoken of in such contemptuous terms by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Davey), he wished to say he was prepared to leave this discussion entirely in the hands of those who were more intimately connected with the Universities than he was; but with regard to the extraordinary speech of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—a speech which he (Mr. Hicks) was sorry to say had been addressed to a very empty House, and had not been heard either by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's
  382
  Government, or by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote), but which, no doubt, by this time, had been fully communicated to them—he desired to ask whether the Prime Minister intended to offer any explanation of it? What did this extraordinary apparent want of agreement between the right hon. Baronet and the other Members of the Government mean? As an independent Member, he (Mr. Hicks) must protest against the attitude assumed by the right hon. Baronet. They had heard a great deal about a compromise and agreement between the two Front Benches, and about the Redistribution Bill having been brought in in consequence of that agreement. The measure had been passed through its earlier stages almost without a word of discussion; and now they were told that, when it was finally disposed, of there was an end to the compromise and agreement as to its provisions. ["No, no!"] He heard cries of "No!" but the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Local Government Board told them distinctly in his speech that, the moment the Bill was disposed of, he was open to consider any Resolution or proposal to alter it. It was to be regretted that there were so few Members in the House at the time; but he trusted that the right hon. Baronet's speech would be fully reported in the Press, that it would be read, and that when the Bill came again before the Committee, the House would be prepared to take it into its own hands, and to deal with it in a calm and impartial spirit, clause by clause. He trusted that the debate would not be brought to a close without Her Majesty's Government explaining how far they agreed with the views which had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet, and which had been endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt).
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, he should like, before this debate closed, to say a few words on the subject of Scottish University representation. He had been so long connected with one of the Universities that he could speak with some experience and knowledge of the working of all of them; and, from long observation of what occurred in them in regard to Parliamentary Elections, he thought he could reasonably give an opinion upon

  383
  that subject also. All his experience and observation had led him, very reluctantly, to the conclusion that the system of giving to the four Universities in Scotland l-30th of the whole representation of Scotland was utterly indefensible. He would remind the Committee that this system of academical franchise had no hold on the past history of Scotland. There were none of the associations, none of the recollections which had, no doubt, hallowed this system in the case of the English and Irish Universities. It had its rise only in 1868, when it was introduced, for the first time, into the system of Parliamentary Elections in Scotland on the express ground—he thought he quoted the exact words of Mr. Disraeli—
  "That it would insure the presence in this House of men eminent for their knowledge and qualifications in learning, literature, and science, and would enable them more properly to do justice to those subjects in this House."
  Then, on the same lines, his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), who did honour to that University, had given an exposition of his own views as to what a University Member ought to be. One of the conditions was, that there should be an absence of Party politics and Party feeling, and that the Member should be a man chosen as eminent in knowledge of higher education, and should devote himself in the House to the interests and promotion of education. Well, all this was very fine in theory; but how did the system operate in practice? He had risen to-night to state that he knew that it was utterly untrue. No such thing existed in the practice of Parliamentary Elections. With regard to the University of Aberdeen, of the Governing Body of which he had long been a member, he might fairly say that the election there had turned entirely upon Party politics; and, with regard to the University of Edinburgh, the right hon. Gentleman who represented it had, it was true, every qualification that could enable him to serve it, and do honour to it; but could it be said that he had been elected with a view to his possession of those qualities? The very reverse was the case. His election, in 1880, went upon purely Party lines. He was returned by the narrowest majority. His eminence then was all that it is now,
  384
  and his opponent was a man whose name at this moment he (Mr. Webster) did not suppose anybody in the House remembered, and yet that gentleman had polled only 74 votes less than the right hon. Member. It was the practice on the opposite side, as well as on this side of the House, to speak with pride of the right hon. Gentleman; but how were they (the Opposition) going to treat him at the next Election? Why, he was to be opposed as violently as on the last occasion. Was his opponent a man distinguished, whether in letters or in science? No. He was a lawyer of ability, no doubt, in his own Profession, but with no pretence to the possession of those qualities which the right hon. Gentleman had himself told them should, in theory, distinguish the Representatives of those Universities. The truth was, that these Universities, in place of being, as the right hon. Gentleman who represented the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had said, centres of culture and high thinking, were strongholds of narrow class and sectarian feeling. Let them take the strongest case possible. It was part of the duty of the Council of Graduates, who choose Parliamentary Representatives, also to elect representatives from their own Body to the government of the University. At a recent contest in the University of Aberdeen Dr. Bain, whom everybody knew to be the very man to be a member of the University Council, who had been a Professor in the University, and had great knowledge of both higher and secondary education, was rejected by a very large majority in the election of a representative in the Governing Body of the University. He cited that case as an illustration, and submitted that the elections in Scottish Universities, in place of being governed by a regard for those qualifications of Members, which ought to be the real consideration, were governed entirely by what, in their case, he must call wretched Party politics.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: After the very interesting and able speeches which we have heard from the Representatives of the different Universities who have seats in this House, I think it quite unnecessary for me to enter into the general discussion. I rise for the purpose of saying a few words upon a subject which has been already referred

  385
  to—namely, a speech which I understand was made by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). I had not the advantage of hearing that speech; but I am quite aware that the opinions of the right hon. Baronet—and the House is quite aware too—that his opinions upon many questions, and upon this amongst others, differ from those of the Party who sit on this side of the House, and, I am happy to think, from those of many who sit on his own side of the House. As I have said, I, unfortunately, did not hear his speech; but I understand that what he did was to say that it was impossible for him to support or accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), though, at the same time, he reserved to himself on any future occasion the right to take a different course. Whenever that time comes the right hon. Baronet will find, in the Conservative Party, his steadiest and firmest opponents; and we shall be quite prepared to argue the question on the lines fully before us, and to do our best to show that the right hon. Baronet is in the wrong. But what I understand at present to be the feeling of the right hon. Baronet is that disfranchising the Universities lies altogether outside the scope of the present Bill; and that it is on that account that he is ready to adhere to the understanding which exists on the subject of this Bill, and to resist the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. But I think that, irrespective of the merits of the case, it is an irrefutable argument against the proposal that the Bill was introduced under peculiar circumstances. I do not mean with reference to any understanding between the different Parties in the House; but I allude, if you like, to the character and circumstances of the Bill, and to the circumstances of its introduction, and to what it is intended to do, and that it is not within its scope to deal with the question of disfranchisement. Let me ask the Committee for a moment to consider what it is that this Bill proposes to do. The House has already passed an Act largely extending the franchise of these Kingdoms; and in order to accommodate that extension to the circumstances of the country, it is necessary that there should be an extensive redistribution of seats.
  386
  This Bill has, therefore, been brought in for the express purpose of so redistributing them, and to give fair and proper expression to the great extension of the franchise which was passed last year. There is, or there ought to be, nothing disfranchising about it. It has been pointed out several times that this Bill and the previous one, taking the two measures together, are intended to disfranchise no one; but if we were to take away representation from the Universities, we should disfranchise a number, perhaps a considerable number, of persons. There is no reason whatever why you should introduce into a measure intended for one purpose that which is totally at variance with it. Moreover, let me ask the Committee to consider whether this is the proper time when we ought to attempt to reduce the representation of learning in this House. Remember what you are doing. You are enormously increasing the power of the numerical majority; you are seriously increasing the representation of mere numbers. Ought you not to have some kind of reservation, if only a small one—some kind of counterbalance? Do you not see the importance of preserving some kind of counterbalancing force—however slight—against the power of mere numbers? Property, to a certain extent, under any system, will find a way of obtaining some amount of representation; but this is a question of the representation of learning—of doing, through the Universities, what, undoubtedly, is not done by any other portion of our representation—and providing that which otherwise would not be provided for. At the same time, without going into the great argument which has been so well illustrated by my hon. and right hon. Friends on both sides of the House who represent Universities, we have sufficient ground on which to stand, and I hope the Committee will refuse to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Though the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) has only detained the Committee for a very few moments, I shall be still shorter in my observations. I wish, without making any particular reference to the closing sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to express my concurrence with what I take to be his main argument. The right hon. Baronet,

  387
  without having heard the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), accepts the position taken up by my right hon. Friend, who endeavoured to urge upon the Committee, as I should myself be respectfully disposed to do, that this question is not one which can, consistently with the general figure of the work we have before us, be dealt with in the course of the present Bill. The two measures—namely, that for the franchise and that dealing with the areas—might, as the right hon. Baronet said, undoubtedly be considered from one point of view as one measure; but, at the same time, although they are two parts of one great subject, yet the Government has kept them rigidly and entirely separate and distinct. The one we are now dealing with relates entirely to the distribution into areas of the constituencies provided for the country; and the other determines who is a "capable citizen" to exercise the franchise—to use a phrase which has been used by others as well as myself. We determined what was a "capable citizen" in dealing with the franchise. We are not now concerned with the question of the "capable citizen," but with the question of the areas into which the constituency is to be divided; and, undoubtedly, it is true, as has been urged by the right hon. Gentleman, that if we were to accept the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bryce) we should introduce into this plan an element which it does not contain, except in the rarest instances, and accidentally, perhaps, we might discover it; but, in principle, the Bill may fairly be said to exclude everything in the nature of disfranchisement. On the general question I do not venture to give an opinion, as it is one which, when it is brought forward, will require very mature consideration. I do not venture to convey an intimation as to the course I should myself take. My position is a rather peculiar one. I represented a great University for a longer time than it is usual for it to be represented, and was so unfortunate as finally to lose its favour, though I must say not until I had greatly tried its patience, and not until I had received from it many striking marks of favour and indulgence. I do not, therefore, hold out any engagement of any kind with respect to my own course outside of this Bill; but I confidently put it to
  388
  the Committee, that the Government is making no undue compromise of its principles in holding that in this Bill, which has nothing to do with the question of franchise—indeed, I will go further and say, in this plan which does not embrace any element of disfranchisement—the occupants of this Bench will certainly, on this occasion, give their vote cordially, and go into the same Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and will decline to support any proposal for the destruction of the representation of the Universities in this measure, which I hope will shortly be passed into law.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had continually noticed that the method pursued by the Government in dealing with questions brought before the House was to argue "Not now, but some other time." They said—"We do not say that what you propose is not very admirable; but what we contend is that this is not the proper season, and if you will only bring the subject on some Sunday in next week, or next month, or next year, we will take your admirable plan into our most indulgent consideration." He (Mr. Healy) would tell hon. Gentlemen interested in this subject, however, that this was a case of "now or never." Either the Government or the House must deal with it now, or they would never get a grip of it again. They had now got these Universities in their power, and his advice was—"Cut their throats." Kill them now; for, if they had another chance, it would be giving them a fresh lease of life. Therefore, for right hon. Gentlemen to say that they confined themselves to nothing, that they made no pledge, and that some day, in some future generation, if they were spared—as he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would long be—they would come forward and lend this subject the magic influence of their name, amounted to nothing. The present Government might fall next week, or the week after, or any day, then they would have the opposite Party in power, and no chance of a question like this being dealt with. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be deluded by statements such as those of the Prime Minister. If they thought they had a chance of doing this University system a mischief, now was the time to hurt it. As to what had fallen from

  389
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), it was contended that there were in Ireland above 300,000 loyal Irish Protestants who would not be represented in the slightest degree if it were not for the Members for the Dublin University; what did that amount to? Why, it amounted to this—that, in the Irish Provinces, no one had any feeling other than that of a Nationalist—["Oh, oh!"]—he meant for Parliamentary purposes. The Loyalists in the three Southern Provinces of Ireland could not get a single man to represent them except the right hon. and learned Members for Dublin University; and, because that was so, therefore Parliament must invent a fancy franchise. If the Loyalists could not get a Representative in Ireland in the ordinary way, then, logically, let them do without it. There was no reason why a loyal minority should have a fancy franchise invented for it. There appeared to him to be every reason why these fancy franchises should be cut off altogether. The door should either be open or shut. If the loyal minority were entitled to representation in Ireland, let them have it; but if, by reason of their number, they were not, then let them be without it. There was no reason in the world why because a man, by a grinding process, went through a series of preliminary preparation to-day, which he would not be able to do perhaps next year, if he were tested, that, therefore, he should have a right in perpetuity to vote for Members of Parliament. If the most loyal Catholic—a Catholic who would grovel in the dust before the name of Royalty—were to offer himself for election at Dublin University, they would set the dogs at him. It was not loyalty that this constituency wanted, it was ascendency; but, of course, it was only natural for Englishmen to be gulled on this point. This House was entering upon a democratic course. It might be right or it might be wrong. He (Mr. Healy) would say—"Let us go on fairly and squarely. If you are going to trust the people, trust them all through, and do not fall back upon such a system as this." What did the University electors do when they had a chance of distinguishing themselves? Why, they put out the right hon. Gentleman, who was now First Lord of the Treasury, and who was the
  390
  most distinguished man who had appeared in Europe for, perhaps, a century. That right hon. Gentleman was Member for a University, and they turned him out. And for whom? He (Mr. Healy) did not intend to make any invidious comparisons; but was there any Gentleman in that House at the present time who could be compared with the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown? Yet that was the result of the University franchise. He would ask those who believed in the University constituencies to consider what those constituencies had done in the past—to remember that the most distinguished men who had been brought forward had got the kick out and the go-by, unless they were prepared to give way to the influence of these wretched little centres. He would ask the Committee whether they were prepared to trust these wretched University Dons; or whether they would not rather trust the broad masses of the people, who might be wrong sometimes, yet who, in the main, he would venture to say, were always in the right?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND,who spoke amidst considerable interruption, assured the Committee that if he could only believe that the groan which arose simultaneously with himself was a groan against the monstrosity of University representation, he should be very glad indeed that that groan had been heard. However, he did not intend to detain the Committee for any length of time; and, therefore, he hoped that Radical Members opposite would not give vent to their unpleasant habit of groaning, in which they indulged whenever an Irish Member rose to speak from an Irish point of view. There could be no doubt whatever that it was a very extreme injustice indeed that the Universities should have special Parliamentary representation. The University of Dublin was an institution which was opposed to every aspiration, national and religious, of the great majority of the people of Ireland; and he did not believe the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who represented the University of Dublin to-day (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket) would be able, if they were thrown out of that constituency, to find another constituency in any part of Ireland at all. In a few counties in the North, those right hon. and learned Gentlemen

  391
  might possibly get elected; but, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan(Mr. Healy) had pointed out, the great majority of the people in the other three Provinces of Ireland were extremely national, and the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen to whom he referred could not possibly get a seat in any of those Provinces. It was, then, a monstrous injustice that they should be allowed to have seats as Representatives of the University of Dublin. The first principle of Parliamentary representation was, that Members returned to represent a particular part of the country should be voted for by a large number of the people of that part or the country, and should represent the wishes of a great number of those people. But he would venture to say that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin did not represent the wishes of even one-fourth of the people of Ireland; and it was monstrously unjust that a handful of men belonging to that University should have the same political privileges as constituencies containing thousands and thousands of people. He was entirely opposed to the principle of University representation. If it was argued that the Universities should have Members of their own because they were learned Bodies—if the graduates were to have a right to the franchise simply because they possessed so much learning—then he did not see why a right to the franchise should not be given to other people simply because they possessed so much property. Neither property nor learning ought, in his opinion, to have any weight in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] He was very glad to hear Conservative Members cheering that sentiment. He did not think that because a few hundreds of specially learned men were brought together in a University, that was any reason why they should have the same privileges given to them as were only given to their fellow-countrymen when congregated in thousands; and he believed that the average electors of any constituency were quite as rightly and as well-qualified to vote as those gentlemen who returned the Members for the University of Dublin. ["Oh, oh!"] As the Committee appeared to be very anxious not to give him a hearing, and as he had been subjected to
  392
  continual interruption since he rose to give his opinion, he should conclude by moving that the Chairman be directed to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to appeal to the Prime Minister to allow this Motion to pass. He supposed it was not a very popular Motion to make at that time of night (10 minutes past 12 o'clock); but it must be perfectly evident, from the reception which had just been given to his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. William Redmond), that it was quite impossible for the Irish Members to present their aspect of the case involved in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) with any probability of getting any sort of a hearing. The question of the representation of Dublin University had been very slightly touched upon, although it had been very efficiently opened by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for that University. It was a matter of very considerable importance. The Irish Members, or many of them, certainly objected very strongly, however they might feel regarding the general question of the representation of such Universities—such real Universities—as those of Oxford and Cambridge, they objected very strongly indeed to the representation of the University which was supposed to be the University of Ireland, but which was really only the University of a very small section of the Irish people. Whatever claim might have been made out by the supporters of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Irish Members certainly did not consider that either the Government or the supporters of the University of Dublin had, so far as the debate had yet gone, made out any satisfactory claim for the representation of that University. The question of the representation of the University of Dublin had not been at all adequately dealt with so far, nor had any good claim been established by those gentlemen who might be supposed to be the supporters and upholders of the maintenance of the representation of the University of Dublin. He, therefore, re-

  393
  spectfully submitted that if this question were not to be raised later on—and it could not be conveniently raised later on, because then it could only be raised on the Sehedules—the Irish Members should be allowed an opportunity of placing their views upon it before the Committee, and of discussing the maintenance of the separate representation of the University of Dublin with the same freedom with which, during the whole of this evening, there had been discussed the merits of the maintenance of the separate representation of the English Universities. So far, the question of Irish University representation had hardly entered into the case, except under the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. Grave and weighty considerations of policy, justice, and expediency were underlying this question of the maintenance of the Dublin University; and he had yet to learn that the English House of Commons intended to refuse to the Irish Members the right of putting their views upon this all-important question before them. He did not know any matter that was of more importance in regard to the question of the educational interests of Ireland than this same question of the representation of the University of Dublin. Of course, he was not allowed, under the Rules which regulated the proceedings of the Committee, to enter at this moment into the merits of the question; but, certainly, he himself, and many of his Friends, would be desirous of laying their opinions before the Committee. All he could say, in conclusion, was that he did not desire to interfere with the convenience of the Committee in coming to a decision upon the particular question which had been occupying their attention, and which had been debated for many hours that evening—namely, the question of the English Universities. But he could not see, at the present moment, any way in which the Irish Members could reconcile their own duty in this matter with the convenience of the Committee—that was to say, he could not see how, if a division were taken on the Amendment which had been proposed from the Chair, his Friends and himself could raise the subject anew in any form which would be of the slightest practical use. As he had said a few moments ago,
  394
  they would have to wait until the Schedules of the Bill were reached; and then, of course, as they all knew, when that period came, it would be impossible to raise any discussion such as they desired to raise. They would be told that the matter had been finally closed in the discussion on the clauses, and they would be hustled out of the way. If the Government could show that there was any reasonable method by which the question could be raised again, he and his Friends would not desire to raise the Irish branch of the subject while the debate on the English branch was going on. They did not desire to obtrude themselves now; but they did desire to have an opportunity of thrashing this matter out. They were very willing to be the last served in these matters, as the history of the proceedings of the House of Commons had already proved; and if the Government could point out any way in which the Irish Members could yield to the convenience of the Committee now, and allow the immediate question before the Committee to go to a division, while, at the same time, they retained the right to raise again that part of the question in which they were specially interested, he could only say that he and his hon. Friends, on whose behalf he spoke, would be most happy to adopt it. They felt that the University of Dublin, however it might have succeeded as a higher educational establishment for a section of the Irish people, had undoubtedly failed as a national institution; and that the question was one of so much importance that they could not, with the slightest regard for their own position, and for their duty to their countrymen, avoid attracting to it that attention in that House which its importance demanded.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry I cannot meet the appeal of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member who made this Motion for reporting Progress (Mr. William Redmond) complained of the reception which he met with from the Committee. "Well, Sir, that hon. Member has not lived so many years in this world as I have; but, as he gathers experience, he will find that mankind are apt to become indifferent to favours, and appreciate them less in proportion as they are profusely bestowed upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] The favours of the hon. Gen-

  395
  tleman have been bestowed, even in the course of the present evening, with such liberality and bounty upon this House, that I admit that in some portion of the House there is not that high estimate formed of them which unquestionably ought to prevail. I am quite certain, however, that that does not indicate any indisposition on the part of the Committee to discuss this question. The hon. Member for the City of Cork has said that we have been spending the evening in discussing the case of the English Universities. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman has not heard the debate, or he would hardly have made that statement. It has been a very interesting debate, not on English Universities, but on the principle of University representation. The hon. Member says, however—and here I am wholly at one with him—that the case of the University of Dublin is, in some respects, unique. I am certain that if the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who rose to offer some remarks on a collateral issue, had thought fit to make them upon the University of Dublin, he would have been heard—I will not say with patience, for that would not do justice either to him or to the Committee—but with the utmost interest and attention, and were he to do so now, I am sure the same result would follow. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork himself (Mr. Parnell) is disposed at this hour to enter upon the question, I will answer for it that there is no doubt whatever that he, likewise, will be heard, I may say, to his heart's content; for the intelligence which he brings to bear upon such a subject, and the relevancy with which he always argues, put us in the most favourable state of mind to hear him. I hope that this Motion for reporting Progress will not be pressed, and that we maybe permitted to proceed with the debate upon the subject.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Committee had lately been treated to many novelties, and the most startling of these was the method which the Prime Minister had taken of conducting the debates. Instead of allowing a Member to rise of his own motion and at his own discretion, according to the ideas in his mind, the Prime Minister, not satisfied with the New Rules and with the operation of Urgency, took upon himself the posi-
  396
  tion of dictator of debate, and presumed that he had met the necessity of the case, and shown a due regard to the proper functions of the House, by calling upon one particular Member or another to address himself to the subject before the Committee. That was an arrangement which he (Mr. Sexton), for one, could not accept; for he thought the debate should be ordered and conducted according to the individual desire and intention of any hon. Member who took part in it. The Prime Minister, when he condescended to be jocose, which was not often, was as a rule intelligible; but perhaps it was owing to the dimness of his (Mr. Sexton's) understanding—[Laughter]—he confessed that he saw no great intellectual skill in taking advantage of an admission which a man was perfectly ready to make—but perhaps it was owing to the dimness of his understanding that the joke ventilated upon his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. William Redmond) by the right hon. Gentleman was unintelligible to his mind. It was no proof of its point that it should be applauded by the followers of the Prime Minister, who were equally ready with a due facility to worship the right hon. Gentleman's politics, or his wit. He (Mr. Sexton) was not aware that his hon. Friend had addressed to the Committee more than a few brief words that night; and he thought ungenial wit might well be spared from, if not the oldest, at least the most experienced Member of the House, to the youngest. As to the question before the Committee—this great question of the University representation of the three countries—it was only reached at the dinner hour, and had only occupied about three hours of the time of the Committee. Yet they were told that the subject had been adequately discussed. He was glad to say that when Sir Arthur Otway was in the Chair they never had the startling decisions upon adequacy of discussions which were sometimes given under other circumstances; but there had recently been decisions in that House on that point which left one in doubt as to what might be deemed, according to the ideas prevailing there of propriety and justice, the precise limits of adequate discussion. The Prime Minister had said that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) could not have heard the de-

  397
  bate, and that the debate had not been upon Irish, English, or Scotch University representation, but upon the principle of University representation as compared or contrasted with the ordinary Parliamentary representation of the general community. Now, he (Mr. Sexton) had sat in the House for some portion of the evening, and had heard the very eloquent speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) on the particular claims of that institution. He had also heard a speech on the difference between the qualifications of voters in the Scotch and English Universities; and he had heard a proposal made which had quickened the risibility of the Prime Minister, that the graduate qualification should be extended to the whole body in Oxford and Cambridge, as in Scotland. If these were not matters concerning the comparative merits of the University system of representation in Ireland, England, and Scotland, he did not know what they were. The representation of the Prime Minister was not an accurate representation of the debate. The representation of Trinity College, Dublin, was peculiar. The Dublin University held a peculiar position towards politics and the public life of the community. The Irish Members who sat near him (Mr. Sexton) represented that section and part of public opinion in Ireland which was most entitled to be heard on the question of the University representation of the country; and a few words from two Members of the Party, rising at midnight in a jaded and unwilling House, did not represent as fully as was necessary the views which ought to be laid before the Committee. Under these circumstances, he appealed to the Prime Minister to give an opportunity of concluding the debate another night, for he was certain that in that way the time of the Committee would be saved.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that as his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had pointed out, the Irish Members were in no sense whatever anxious to stand between the Committee and a division. All they desired to do was to save their right to debate the question of the Dublin University, either now or at some future time. Unfortunately, the enacting clause of the Bill with regard to this matter was the
  398
  second; and it set forth that from and after the end of this present Parliament the Parliamentary boroughs named in the first part of the 1st Schedule should cease to return any Member. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) proposed to insert the words "and Universities." If the Committee allowed this opportunity to pass, it would not be possible afterwards to raise the question of the University of Dublin. He (Mr. Healy) would like to know from the Chair whether that view was or was not correct? He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork that it was reasonable enough that the question of the Irish University should be separated from that of the English Universities. It was not wanted to raise them upon the same lines; and he would like to ask the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), or the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), whether, if a division were now taken on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, they would not be excluding all opportunity of raising the Dublin University question before the Report stage? Of course, he was aware that it could be raised on the Report stage; but what was wanted was to have the question discussed in Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I believe that on the Order Paper there is a proposal to deal with the question of the Universities generally by a new clause, to be proposed, I think, by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton.) I think that probably, Sir, you would rule that, if the question should include all Universities, it could not be raised again after a decision had been taken upon the point on which it is now proposed to divide the Committee; but I would suggest to the hon. Member who has just spoken, and also to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that that does not arise in the present case. If their Amendments are intended to be pointed solely to the University of Dublin—I am not to be understood as suggesting in any way that we should support or oppose such proposals; but for the information of hon. Members who may desire to raise the question, I would point out, and especially to the two hon. Members whom I have named,

  399
  that if they choose to propose a special clause affecting only the University of Dublin, they might do so, and their object would thus be gained. If that meets their views, they might allow the division to be taken on the general question, and reserve to themselves the opportunity of debating this particular point afterwards.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he preferred to have a ruling from the Chair on the point. He wished to know whether or no, after a division had been taken on the present Amendment, and that Amendment had been defeated, the Chairman would exclude any new clause which any hon. Member might desire to propose for disfranchising the University of Dublin.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished to say a word on the point of Order before this question was answered. The Amendment which he had proposed was followed, later on, by an Amendment to the Schedule. In that Amendment to the Schedule he had put down the names of all the Universities. Of course, if the present Amendment were defeated he should not move the following one; but that Amendment would be equally in Order if it named only the English and Scotch Universities, and not the University of Dublin. It would be equally an Amendment properly following up the present Amendment. He submitted that, as the present Amendment spoke only of Universities in general, and did not imply that Dublin was to be one of the Universities disfranchised, so it would be perfectly open to hon. Members opposite to move a special clause in reference to the University of Dublin.
  THE CHAIRMAN: So far as I am able to form an opinion at this moment, I should consider the matter determined by the division to be taken now. It is obvious that if any hon. Member could raise the question in regard to the University of Dublin hereafter, it would be competent for him, or any other hon. Member, to raise it in regard to any of the other Universities. In my opinion, the question would be determined now, and could not be raised again in Committee.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he understood that in the opinion of the Chairman, if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Mem-
  400
  ber for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) be now rejected, it would not be competent for the Irish Members to raise again in Committee the question of the representation of the University of Dublin. In face of that decision, which, of course, he would not challenge, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether he remained of the same mind? To the Irish Members the question was of the gravest importance; and, in their opinion, it had not been adequately discussed. In the early portion of the evening some of his hon. Friends were able to show, to his mind at all events, that the Party they represented had been most unfairly treated by the Boundary Commissioners; and their feeling on that subject intensified their objection to the monopoly of University representation by the Members for the University of Dublin. There was not only the question whether Dublin University should continue to retain its Members, but the extended question was involved—namely, whether the University should retain its Members alone, or in conjunction with another University? That was a question of the very gravest importance.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now going into the general question. The Question before the Committee is, "That I do report Progress."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORassured the Chairman he had no intention to discuss the general question. He was only endeavouring to bring home to the mind of the Prime Minister the large number of grave issues which were involved in the discussion which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to close. As a matter of fact, there had only been three hours' debate, and but short speeches had been delivered to an impatient and tired Assembly by the Members of the Party chiefly interested. A more monstrous proposition than that of the Prime Minister had never been submitted to the House of Commons; and it would be the duty of the Irish Members to resist it to the utmost of their power.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that when he spoke a few minutes ago he was fully under the impression that it would be competent for hon. Members to raise the question, as it affected Ireland and the University of Dublin, on the Com-

  401
  mittee stage. He must, however, be wrong, as the Chairman had ruled the point the other way. He was far from saying that the matter should be left as it was; and though he was extremely sorry they could not divide on the general question now, he would, under the circumstances, consent to the Motion to report Progress.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  ELECTIONS IN COUNTIES (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
  (Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Grey, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)

  [BILL 19.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he understood the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) intended to so amend the Bill that it would apply to the country at large. If that was the right hon. Gentleman's intention, it would be necessary to insert in Clause 1 some word which would include every constituency.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) would see from the Paper that Amendments were put down to Clause 1, and that it was also intended to amend the title. He now proposed, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Repeal of 41 and 42 Vic. c. 4, and 47 and 48 Vic. c. 34.)
  "Upon this Act coming into operation 'The Parliamentary Elections (Metropolis) Aet,1878,' and 'The Elections (Hours of Poll) Act, 1884,' shall he repealed, without prejudice to anything previously done in pursuance thereof."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, that since the Bill was last discussed, he had had the advantage of conferring with a large number of the electors of the city he had the honour to represent (Liverpool). The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) threw out the suggestion that if it was thought desirable to close the poll in the middle of the day for the
  402
  convenience of the gentlemen engaged in taking the votes about 3 o'clock in the afternoon would be a very reasonable hour. It was felt in Liverpool that if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman could be adopted it would prove a great relief to the Returning Officers and others associated with them on the election day.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was quite true he threw out the suggestion in reference to some remarks which had been made by an hon. Gentleman. He, however, expressed the opinion that it would be best to keep the poll open during the whole day. Surely it was possible for the polling officials to get refreshments while they were working. Of course, an election was a hard day's work; but then it was an exceptional occurrence.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. WARTONdesired to propose a new clause.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given Notice of the clause.
  MR. WARTON: I gave Notice of it to Sir Arthur Otway.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Notice was not sufficient to comply with the Rules of the House.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was his intention to propose that the Bill be re-committed for Thursday next. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) would then have an opportunity of moving his clause. Perhaps he would give Notice of it.
  Clause 1 (Hours of polling in counties).
  On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 5, after "every," insert "Parliamentary and every municipal."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, leave out from "election," to "within," in line 6.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if he might make a suggestion to the Government,

  403
  it would be to the effect that the better thing to do would be to leave out "within the meaning of the Act," then to leave the second Amendment, and insert instead of "every election," "the election for a University." They would then get rid of the Definition Clause, which seemed extremely awkward.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think it would be well to vary the words, inasmuch as they followed the precedent of all the Acts relating to Parliamentary and municipal elections.
  MR. HEALYasked, if the right hon. Baronet would consent to the Act extending to Town Commissioners?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was not possible for him to do so.
  Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Clause 2 (Definition).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 10, leave out from "Act," to end of Clause, and insert,—"The expression 'Parliamentary election' means an election for a county, city, borough, place, or combination of counties, cities, boroughs, and places (not being any university or universities), which returns any Knight of the Shire or Member to serve in Parliament, and where the same is divided for the purpose of such return includes an election for such division;
  "The expression 'municipal election' means an election of a councillor, Commissioner of Police, or auditor, or (in Ireland) an alderman in any municipal borough or in any ward thereof;
  "The expression 'municipal borough' means,—"As regards England, a borough subject to 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882;' and
  "As regards Scotland, a burgh or town which has a town council or Police Commissioner; and
  "As regards Ireland, a borough subject to the Act of the Session of the third and fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and eight, intituled 'An Act for the Regulation of Municipal Corporations in Ireland,' and the Acts amending the same."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SMALLsaid, that at present the Bill would not apply to small towns. It was very desirable that they should receive the benefit of this legislation, and it could easily be given to them by inserting the words "town commissioners" after the word "councillor."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not agree on this occasion to put in any words of the kind suggested, because he would be putting in words of which he did not fully understand the meaning. He had always steadily resisted any dealing with Local Board elections in England in Municipal Acts. It was impossible to deal with Local Board elections satisfactorily until Local Government generally was dealt with. He could not speak definitely upon the Irish part of the question; but if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Small) would raise the matter by Notice on the Paper for Thursday, he would endeavour to make himself acquainted with the facts.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that out of 80 towns in Ireland only 11 were incorporated under the Act of 1840. Some of the towns which were not incorporated were more important than some of those which were.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would let him have the facts in writing.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he should be very glad to do so; and he would advise the right hon. Baronet to read the very able essay on Local Government in Ireland written by Mr. Richard O'Shaughnessy, the late Member for Limerick.
  Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Title.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out in Title the words "elections in counties," and insert "and municipal elections."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question, "That the words 'elections in counties' stand part of the Title," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'and municipal elections' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed for Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

MOTION.

  SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Shannon Navigation Bill do consist of Nine Members:—The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. THOMAS LEA, Captain

  405
  O'SHEA, Mr. CORRY, Mr. DAWSON, Mr. EWART, Mr. O'SULLIVAN, Mr. KENNY, Mr. O'KELLY, and Mr. HIBBERT, with power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.