CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART. (Hansard, 30 November 1888)

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he had now to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He did so as a protest against the action of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). He asserted that when the Standing Order which gave the right hon. Gentleman the right to move that a debate on a particular evening should be continued after 12 o'clock was under discussion there was a distinct pledge given by the First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that a Motion would never be made except on the occasion of a great debate taking place in the House—except when a debate had lasted several days—and the opinion was that it was desirable that it should be allowed to continue a short time longer, in order either that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure, or the Leader of the opposition to the measure, should be able to finish his remarks on that night. He could not quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, because they were used in debate on the 26th of February last. He was sure that if any hon. Gentleman read the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury he would confirm what he (Mr. Labouchere) stated. In fact, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not now present, for he believed that he also would say that what he was stating was the pledge given. The Rule was agreed to upon the distinct understanding he had mentioned. Now, the First Lord of the Treasury had moved day after day, when 712 there had been no great or lengthy debate, that the proceedings should continue after 12 o'clock. They commenced their proceedings at 3 o'clock. That was part of the Rule. That was the quid pro quo that was given. Twelve o'clock was to be the ending of the House so far as a debate was concerned, only unopposed Motions being allowed to be taken subsequently. He was glad that now the First Lord of the Treasury had returned to his place, and he put it to the right hon. Gentleman himself, whether there was not a distinct pledge that on certain occasions, and only on certain occasions, which had not occurred during the present period of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman would move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule? He and his hon. Friends asserted that it was not fair for the right hon. Gentleman, having got powers to make this Motion when there was a great debate to be brought to a conclusion, to make the Motion this evening when they were in Committee of Supply, and when there was no great debate.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, that unfortunately he did not hear the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman referred to the Question he put to him (Mr. W. H. Smith) earlier in the evening. He understood the hon. Gentleman objected as a matter of honour to his (Mr. W. H. Smith's) action.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
No; misunderstanding.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he understood the hon. Gentleman objected to him moving the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule day after day in reference to Supply. Now, he thought in taking that course he was really discharging the obligation that fell upon him to endeavour to forward the Business of the House under certain circumstances which were perfectly exceptional and extraordinary. It was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentlemen the Leaders of the Opposition, to whom it was usual to communicate on matters of this kind, were not now in their places. But he must recall the recollection of the House 713 to the fact that he stated on Wednesday night, in reference to the suspension of the Rule for the rest of the Session, that it was his earnest desire to arrive at an understanding which would be agreeable to all Parties in the House with a view to facilitate Public Business. A Motion for the suspension of the Rule he put on the Paper for Thursday, but it was objected to by the hon. Member; and, as it appeared probable that a debate would have occurred in which it was not very likely they would have arrived at the unanimous decision he desired to arrive at in the interests of the House itself, he thought it better to postpone the Motion, and to endeavour, by the methods which were open to hon. Members, to arrive at an understanding to facilitate the Business of the House. He was still in the hope of arriving at that understanding with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had taken the steps necessary in order to do so, but it did appear to him that the circumstances in which they were placed as regarded Supply were so peculiar and so exceptional, and that if there was a desire to get away from the discharge of their duties before Christmas some effort must be made on the part of the House to sit for a longer time and on Saturdays. That was his view and his recommendation to the House. He should be extremely sorry if any authority he possessed in the House were exercised in a manner which would be offensive or disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen; he was most unwilling to exercise his authority or influence in any unfair way. His belief was that it was necessary in the interests of the country, in the interests of the House itself, and for the discharge of the duties which fell upon them, that they should make some effort, and an unusual effort, at this very late period of the Session, to dispose of the work which now remained to be disposed of.

§ MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)
said, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not to divide on his Motion. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: But I shall.] Of course, it was quite open for the hon. Gentleman to do so, but he reminded the hon. Member that all the Members upon the Front Opposition Bench divided at the opening of the Sitting to-day against the proposal of the right hon. 714 Gentleman to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule, in the belief that the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in which they found themselves, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, were really due to the action of the Government. The Government had unquestionably placed the House in its present exceptional position, for they had introduced legislation which had delayed the proceedings of the House. At the same time, having made their protest against this breach of the Rules, they felt they ought not further to oppose the desire of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury referred to the absence of right hon. Gentlemen with whom he usually made his arrangements. He (Mr. Mundella) heard all that was said to-night. His right hon. Colleagues deprecated this constant practice of suspending the Standing Orders; they expressed the opinion to him that it was really the fault of the Government that the House was placed in its present position. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) must not complain, because there were few Members in the House who were more ready to stop the progress of Business than the hon. Gentleman himself.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
asked if it was in Order to throw a charge across the Table of the House against him for which there was not a shadow of evidence?

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he should be sorry to say anything which was offensive to the hon. Gentleman, but he had in mind the course the hon. Gentleman took the other evening on a Bill which he believed—

THE CHAIRMAN
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to address himself to the Question before the Committee.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would be content with this protest, and that they would not go to a Division, because it would only waste a quarter of an hour of the time of the House. He thought they might be allowed to finish this and the next Vote, when he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) would agree to report Progress, and begin with the new class of Votes to-morrow.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he really could not accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella), who had just come down to the House after passing the evening in gay and festive society. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He spoke for his Colleagues. Where were his Colleagues? His Colleagues went off to bed, and the right hon. Gentleman came down as their spokesman and asked them to go on and work all night. His (Mr. Labouchere's) contention was that they had started work early in the day, and that they could not now give fair and proper attention to the Votes. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, however, had not met the chief point he (Mr. Labouchere) had raised, which was that there was a specific pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman that the Rule should only be suspended when there was a big debate to finish. The right hon. Gentleman should not now, after having wasted and squandered the time of the House, call upon them to sit after 12 o'clock. It was his own fault, and owing to the right hon. Gentleman's own mismanagement of the Business of the House, that the House found itself in its present position. The right hon. Gentleman was not justified in moving the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule, except under conditions such as specified in his speech on the 26th of February.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
asked permission to differ from the hon. Gentleman, who, he was sure, did not wish to misrepresent him. The engagement into which he had entered had reference to a particular class of debates. It had no reference to any condition of affairs like the present, which no Minister responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House could have dreamed of. It was not for the purpose of forwarding the Business of the Government, not for the convenience of the Government, but for the convenience of the House, and of the public, and of the country, that he had moved the suspension of the Standing Order.

MR. BYRON REED
said, he understood the question before the Committee was the Motion of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to report Progress. He did not intend to support that Motion, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not take a Division. 716 His reason for doing that was that they came down earlier in the afternoon, and gave special facilities to the Government under what the Government justly regarded as extraordinary circumstances. He held that their conduct in coming down and giving those facilities might justly be very seriously called in question if they were now, half an hour after midnight, to give up the work they had undertaken to do. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) in his contention that after the next Vote, which ought to raise no discussion, they should close the Business of the Committee for the night. The only justification for the special facilities they were asked to give was that they should sit there to whatever hour it might be necessary for them to sit to transact the Business of the public. He hoped the Government would assist their supporters in this matter.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
desired to make a suggestion. It seemed to him a very great pity that the House should become debauched by the habit of late hours, after getting into decent honest habits of going to bed in reasonable time. Everyone must have noticed the change that had come over the character of the House; there was an unwillingness to sit after midnight, as they used to sit before they reformed their habits and became decent and honest. For the impasse in which they found themselves the Government were to blame. If there was a necessity that the Estimates should be passed before Christmas, let the hours of work be lengthened, but let the House meet earlier, not sit later. Let the House meet at 10 o'clock in the morning, as Legislative Assemblies did in all other decent civilized countries. For his own part, he would be perfectly ready to come down to the House at that hour.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
said, personally he was not ready to come down to the House at 10 in the morning. One observation he had to make in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed). That hon. Member said he was ready to sit to any hour to do the Business of the country, but why should he not be ready from patriotic motives to do the same thing on any 717 day? Why not on Christmas Day even? Why not sit on irregular days as well as sit into irregular hours? The interest he took in the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton arose from his regarding it as a precedent for a similar Motion that would doubtless be made when Votes in which he was more particularly interested came on for consideration next week. It would be well to have from the First Lord a general statement as to the hours the Committee should be asked to sit. If they reverted to the old Constitutional hour of 4 o'clock, which suited everybody—

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. and learned Member that the Question before the Committee was to report Progress.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said, he would not dwell upon that; he merely mentioned it as being a reason against sitting later that the House met an hour earlier than was the old custom. It would be far better for the health of every Member to sit a few days longer than to sit extra hours every night when the Business of the House became intensified, far better than to prolong every Sitting with the result that work was scamped and hon. Gentlemen were apt to become excited as they were to-night. The circumstances led the Committee to expect some general statement from which they might learn the views of the Government as to a constant suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he had already intimated that he was endeavouring to arrive at an understanding with right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were responsible for the conduct of the Business of the Opposition—[Mr. LABOUCHERE: Oh, no; not at all.]—to arrive at an arrangement which would be for the advantage of the House generally, and he hoped on Monday to be in a position to make a statement which would satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy). And now he had to ask the Committee to consider what course should be taken, and he hoped there would be no occasion for any serious division of opinion. There remained in Class IV. five Votes which were usually taken without an expression of any great difference of opinion. ["No, no!"] He might be allowed to state a fact without interruption. Those Votes were for the National 718 Portrait Gallery, the grants to Learned Societies, the Vote to the London University, the Grants in Aid to Universities and Colleges, and the Vote for the Deep Sea Exploration Expedition. If the Committee would be so good as to pass these Votes—Votesusually taken without any opposition at all—taken almost as a matter of course in discharge of obligations entered into by previous Parliaments and Governments, then he would propose to report Progress.

§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)
said, without detaining the Committee at length, he desired to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what were the Government's intentions with regard to the National Portrait Gallery? Some five months had elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the Trustees and a Memorial setting forth the desirability of providing a permanent home for the portrait pictures now on loan at Bethnal Green Museum. To this deputation the right hon. Gentleman replied that the Government would give the subject earnest and serious consideration. In the five months which had elapsed, perhaps the Government had had time to give that earnest and serious consideration. Any Member who had been to see the important and valuable collection of pictures lately would have no hesitation in saying it was housed in a very discreditable way. Bethnal Green Museum was quite an unsuitable place; the pictures were badly hung and could hardly be seen, and the result was that when he visited the Museum recently, on a Saturday afternoon, when it might have been anticipated there would have been many visitors from the working classes, there was scarcely a human being about the Gallery. Members would see by reference to the Report of the Trustees that when the pictures were first exhibited the number of visitors was very large. Since 1885 all additions to the collection by gift or purchase had been sent to a temporary home in a house at Westminster. Last year there were 25—he did not know how many there were altogether. He would like to 719 know whether this temporary home was in a fire-proof house? Anybody who knew anything about pictures would know that oil pictures kept away from the light lowered in tone, lost their colour, and it took a long time of exposure to sunlight to restore them to proper condition, if they ever recovered. He would like some information, for the time had arrived when a permanent home should be found for a collection of great historical interest, and containing many fine examples of the English school.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)
said, perhaps the hon. Member would allow him to answer his inquiry as to the National Portrait Gallery. He might say at once that he quite agreed with the hon. Member in thinking it was desirable that as soon as possible a permanent home should be found for this valuable collection. He could not quite agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the unsuitableness of Bethnal Green Museum as a temporary place of exhibition, nor did his experience of a visit there coincide with what they had heard. The Gallery seemed well fitted for the display, and many persons of the artizan class seemed to be enjoying the pictures very much. But he did not say this as in the least denying the proposition that it was desirable to find a permanent place of exhibition for the collection, of easy access generally, and he could assure his hon. Friend that since the First Lord gave his answer to the deputation his right hon. Friend had been in communication with himself and others in reference to this business, and he was at present in communication with Mr. Scharf, the very able custodian of the collection, on the subject. Several proposals had been discussed, and he hoped before long to arrive at a conclusion that would satisfy the hon. Member.

§ DR. FARQUHARSON
said, he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for an answer that was very satisfactory.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
said, he wished again to call the attention of the Committee to some of the items in this Vote. It was very doubtful whether any money voted by the House for the benefit of science had ever done very much good to science. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock) could tell the Committee of some discovery or some practical result from the money voted year after year to Learned Societies? A sum of £4,000 was granted to the Royal Society, as to the distribution of which there was a great deal of jealousy, and even dissensions, as he understood, in the Royal Society itself. But what he felt strongly was that the Meteorological Vote was utterly indefensible. To the Meteorological Council £15,000 was granted, and the way they spent the money was very amusing. First they spent £1,000 on themselves. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Stokes), since he became a Member of the House, had resigned his seat on the Council. Last year he produced a valuable paper, but, with all due deference to the hon. Gentleman, it could scarcely be said to be worth £15,000. Having spent £1,000 among the Fellows who formed the Meteorological Council, they then gave £800 to a Fellow who acted as Secretary. Looking at their Report, which was not yet out, though he happened to have a copy, he found there was an increase of expenditure under the head of pensions. The expenditure for administration was £3,837 14s. 3d.; next there were items of £1,299 and £1,844 for ocean observations and discovery; but looking at the Report it would be seen that very little indeed was obtained for the £15,000. There were three papers, one by the Secretary in return for the £800, but it would be seen the money was not used as it ought to be used for carrying out scientific work, but was used among the Fellows, and they had even begun to form a Reserve Fund which, growing year by year, had reached £3,000. Having this Reserve, they surely ought not to ask for more than £12,000. Some information he would be glad to have from Fellows of the Royal Society who might be present; 721 perhaps the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who, until last year, was a member of the Council, could say what return there was for £15,000.

§ COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)
said, he had intended to make some remarks upon this Vote, but he would forbear in deference to a general desire among hon. Members to spend their Christmas at home. He would, however, like to have an assurance that on a future occasion opportunity would be given to criticize the distribution of the money voted under this head. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) that the amount was excessive; but, if time permitted, it would be possible to show that the distribution of the money might be improved. The amount of £800 to the Secretary of the Meteorological Council was but a small remuneration for the onerous duties he performed. The Secretary had charge of those weather reports daily published in the papers, and these involved a large amount of labour and scientific knowledge.

§ DR. CLARK
said, that as no information was forthcoming from the Government or from the Representatives of the Society in the House, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)
said, he was not one of the Meteorological Committee, and the Report of that Committee had not yet been issued, so that he was not competent to give any information; but as the hon. Member had referred to him, if he remained silent it might be supposed by the Committee that he thought there was a case for the reduction of the Vote. Although he was afraid he was not in a position, under the circumstances, to give the information asked for, still he felt bound to say that he believed the general opinion of scientific men was that the Committee was a very strong one, and money was well spent. The hon. Member spoke as if the scientific members voted the money to themselves, but the real truth was that membership of the Royal Society was a very much coveted honour among scientific men in England, Scotland, and 722 Ireland, so that almost every man of science was glad to belong to the Society, and the most distinguished men in the Kingdom were members. The men most competent to serve on such a Committee were almost sure to be Fellows of the Royal Society. The hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe) would, he felt sure, confirm him in that. He did not believe there was any difference of opinion among scientific men as to the distribution of these sums, and he should be sorry to see any reduction.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, he did not rise, because the hon. Member for Caithness had referred personally to his hon. Friend the Member for Cam-bridge University, from whom he thought it possible the Committee would learn more as to the points raised.

§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)
said, he would just observe that the Vote included three items for Irish Societies, and to that extent should be included in the arrangement for Irish Votes.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not take exception to that, or raise any objection to the Vote being taken now. This was always taken as a non-contentious Vote, and he did not think that anywhere there was a wish to strike out the Irish contribution. He was not aware that any question arose in connection with the Irish portion of the Vote, or that there was any dissatisfaction in regard to it.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
said, there was very considerable dissatisfaction as to the expenditure of the money allotted to the Royal Irish Academy. For his own part, he had no idea that the Vote was going to be proceeded with. He understood that none of the Votes that contained matter appertaining to Scotland and Ireland would be taken to-night, and it was extremely strange, not to say suspicious, that the Vote should be included after the pledge given by the Leader of the House, and after Irish Members had left, supposing that the Votes to be taken had relation to purely English affairs. Upon these items a good deal might be 723 said in reference to important interests involved. He sincerely hoped the Vote would not now be taken, and that supporters of the Government would have regard to the plighted word of the First Lord of the Treasury.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he had something more than a technical reason for referring to the Vote. The foundation of the Royal Irish Academy lately came under the cognizance of the Endowments Commission, and a new scheme had been framed having relation to the control of a large bequest given partly to the Academy and partly to the Dublin Corporation. That scheme was now before the Lord Lieutenant waiting approval; and he desired to know whether approval was to be given, and how the money would be expended by the Royal Irish Academy? Also he wished to know what had been done towards the spread of musical knowledge among the working classes by the Academy? In the absence of information it was undesirable the Vote should be taken.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he would be sorry that the opportunity should be lost for raising any question in relation to the Vote, and he suggested that the opportunity would be afforded if they agreed that the Report stage of the Vote should not be taken until next week. In the meantime he would be glad to obtain any desired information.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he would be satisfied to take that course if the hon. Gentleman would kindly undertake to say on Report whether the Lord Lieutenant had, or had not, approved of the scheme; and whether the assent had been accompanied with any suggestion to provide better facilities for the dissemination of musical culture among the working classes?

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said, he should like the same principle to apply to the first Vote in Class VI. taken that evening. ["Order, order!"]

§ DR. TANNER
said, that the Government were not fulfilling their pledge. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh at the Leader of the House of Commons, who had given a distinct pledge that Irish and Scotch Business should not be taken. The cachinnations of hon. Members below the Gangway notwithstanding, the Leader of the House had broken his pledge, and he 724 called the serious attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the fact. To defer discussion to Report would be to allow the Government to appoint any hour of the night for the purpose. He had no faith in the magnanimity of the Government, and protested against such an arrangement. The Loader of the House came down to the House, coercion in one hand, and breach of his word in the other. It was an insult to Members, the Leader of the House was not as good as his word.

§ MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)
said, before this Vote passed he desired to address a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was nearly two years since a large and important deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman in reference to Grants in Aid of English Colleges, and many of these Colleges were still in a state of great anxiety and uncertainty, because no effect had yet been given to the promise then made; indeed, in some cases he understood they were on the point of dismissing some of their Professors, and others were in a state of impecunious anxiety, from which he hoped a word from the Chancellor of the Exchequer would release them. With respect to Wales itself, although the Welsh Colleges had benefited more than the most sanguine would have expected from the grants which had been made, the neglect of the intermediate grant promised by the Government for the last three years was a source of the greatest anxiety and dissatisfaction.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said, he ventured to press the same question. When £14,000 was voted to Wales, £32,000 to Scotland, and £11,000 to Ireland, then there was a good claim on behalf of English Colleges doing precisely the same work. He would not go into the question at length.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)
said, he desired to add his endorsement to the request, and in particular to urge the claims of Yorkshire College to a share in the distribution under this Vote. The College based its claim on the width of its curriculum, covering a wide field of 725 ancient and modern learning, and the number of its pupils, 1,000 day scholars and 1,200 in the evening—no small number, having regard to the character of the instruction given. Further, they based their claim on their own efforts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he received the deputation referred to, said that each district must make an exertion in the first instance. The contributions to the Yorkshire College amounted to £120,000, and, adding the contribution from the Cloth workers' Company, the amount for the year was £150,000. It must be remembered that the College did a special work, as all the culture and knowledge promoted by it had been brought into the midst of the great manufacturing districts of the North.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said, he did not think it was two years ago that he received the deputation; it was during last year. As right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be aware, it was impossible to make grants of this kind without developing some scheme under which to determine what Colleges ought to be encouraged and what Colleges should not. It was an exceedingly troublesome matter to devise safeguards which would prevent benefit being conferred on Colleges having no fair claim to public support. The claims of some were clear, but as to others extremely doubtful. He was sure the Committee would appreciate the great difficulty there was with the requirements of an Autumn Session in dealing with all the subjects which had been pressed upon the attention of the Government. During the last few weeks he had been making every effort to bring this matter to a conclusion. A scheme was now before him, but it required verification in some particulars, and he would have to ask the assistance of Members of the House and others to bring this scheme to perfection, so that no College worthy of assistance should be excluded, while avoiding abuses in the other direction. His hon. Friends might rest assured he would do his utmost to bring the matter to a speedy determination, and he was quite aware of the anxiety felt on the subject.

§ SIR HENRY ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)
asked, in view of the great importance 726 of the matter, and the interest and anxiety expressed in all parts with regard to English Colleges, whether the right hon. Gentleman would name the sum proposed to be set apart for the purpose? He was quite aware of the difficulty of distribution among the Colleges; but that might be settled afterwards.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he was not prepared to name the sum to be definitely decided upon. He had a sum in his mind, and should not object to have it confidentially known; but he was not prepared to state the sum to the Committee until he could explain the matter thoroughly. He must leave the matter where it stood with his first observations.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
asked, as the scheme was near completion, if a sum for the purpose would be placed on the Estimates for next year?

§ MR. GOSCHEN
Yes; he thought he might say that the Estimates for next year would include Grants in Aid to certain Colleges, according to the scheme in preparation.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
said, he hoped that before the scheme was finally adopted the right hon. Gentleman would allow it to be discussed by a Select Committee. The present grants were allotted on a very irregular basis, one College receiving £62 per head for every student, and another £78 per head. There should be a uniform basis for England, Scotland, and Ireland. Scotland at present did not get a fair sum; Scotland, so far as science was concerned, did not get a penny. Before anything further was done, the whole question should be gone into, in order that the claims of each portion of the Kingdom might be settled.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said, it was so far satisfactory that a certain sum would be voted next year; but these Colleges were led to hope that a Vote would be taken this year, and there would be much disappointment if this were not done. Once more, therefore, he would ask, was it not possible to include the sum in a Supplementary Estimate this year?

§ MR. GOSCHEN
made a gesture in the negative.

§ DR. TANNER
claimed that Questions should have an explicit answer.

§ DR. CLARK
asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication of 727 the basis upon which the sum was intended to be distributed. Would it be per head of students, or according to Professors; would it be allocated for Scholarships or Bursaries?

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the hon. Member would certainly be entitled to ask these questions before the money was voted; but he indicated those precise difficulties upon the solution of which he was engaged. As to the suggestion of a Select Committee, he was afraid the Colleges themselves would regard this as deferring the settlement still further. So far as the Government were concerned, they would not be sorry to get rid of a very difficult task by the convenient method of handing it over to a Select Committee; but, except under pressure from those most interested in the decision, he could not come to the conclusion that a Select Committee was desirable. In reply to the hon. Baronet, he was sorry to say he could not propose an Estimate this year.

§ DR. CLARK
said, in relation to this question, it would have to be considered how Parliament had discharged the burden transferred to it by the Act of Union of maintaining the Scotch Universities.

§ DR. CLARK
asked, how long this expenditure would last, and were they near the end of it? It was 12 years since the Challenger came back; how long would the services of the Directors and other officials be required?

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he hoped the end was very near at hand.

§ DR. TANNER
said, it was satisfactory to learn that, for the expenditure had been very great. The results as set forth in the Reports were doubtless valuable to various scientific Societies; but for pecuniary reasons the great mass was beyond the reach of the general public. One question was pertinent to this subject, and had relation also to the earlier discussion upon pensions. This Deep Sea Exploration business had been going on for a long time; when the work concluded—if it ever did—would any pensions accrue to the gentlemen engaged upon it?

§ MR. JACKSON
said, there was no power to confer pensions in this case.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, before the Chairman left the Chair he had to protest against the manner in which the closure had been applied to the discussion of the Vote of £68,000 for Superannuations and Retiring Allowances; in the first place, because it was in contravention of the arrangement by which it was understood that Irish Votes would not be taken until next week, and this Vote contained many Irish items, and because, also, no opportunity was allowed for the discussion of these items before the application of the closure. Irish Members had waited until English Members had concluded discussion of items in which they were interested, and then the closure was applied, stopping discussion of many items that called for critical examination. He had to ask now that the opportunity should be allowed on Report stage which Irish Members had been denied in Committee. He had also to ask if the Irish Votes would be taken next week in their order of succession?

§ MR. CONYBEARE
desired to add his protest. He was about to ask—["Order, order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
It is quite irregular to proceed in this way on a Motion to report Progress. There is no relevancy in these observations.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he deferred in obedience to the Chairman's ruling. He merely wished to ask a question, but if this was not the time to do so he would put it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he was unable at the moment to say in what order the Irish Estimates would be taken, but he would give the information to-morrow. If he were in Order in doing so he would say in answer to the hon. Member's reference to the Superannuation Vote that there certainly never was any understanding that this was an Irish Vote in the sense in which Irish and Scotch Votes had been postponed. It must be clear to everybody who looked at the 729 Notice on the Paper that this was not within the term Irish and Scotch Votes to be excluded. Of course, if some of the items in a Vote being Irish brought the whole Vote within the category of Irish Votes, very many other Votes would have been brought within the arrangement; but this was never contemplated. Certainly the Government had no desire to evade discussion.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he accepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman and would not press the matter further; still he did not quite see why a sum of a few hundreds should be excluded on the ground of its being an Irish Vote, and thousands should be included in another as an English Vote.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he would only point out that whether the Vote of a particular item came under the Rule or not they were not allowed a single opportunity of raising the question.

THE CHAIRMAN
This cannot be discussed on a Motion to report Progress.