Commons Sitting of 27 June 1889

PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to move—
  "That the Order for Committee be read, and discharged; that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; that Three be the quorum."
  The Bill relates to the boroughs of Banbury and Cambridge, and is in itself an excellent Bill, making excellent arrangements. I in no way intend to oppose it. It has been brought in under Section 52 of the Local Government Act, which empowers the Local Government Board to make Provisional Orders for dealing with boroughs where certain members
  866
  of the Sanitary Authority are appointed by a University or the colleges therein. The circumstances of the case are these: The borough of Cambridge is divided into five wards—namely, those of East and West Barnwell and three other wards. The East and West Barnwell wards have a greater population and value than the other three wards put together, and they are growing rapidly. It is estimated that the population of East and West Barnwell was in 1889 28,187, and that the rateable value of the two was £88,189, whereas the estimated population of the other three wards was 11,151, or less than one-half, and the ratable value £62,369, or about three fourths. Yet the East and West Barnwell wards only return 12 members while the remaining three return 18. This inequality is admitted on all hands, and for some years it has been the subject of representations to the Local Government Board. It is not in any sense a Party question. Quite recently the Town Council passed a resolution declaring that the draft Provisional Order received from the Local Government Board was insufficient and unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it did not provide for the division of the town into wards upon a just and equitable basis, and the Guardians of the Cambridge Union at an extraordinary meeting have passed a resolution approving of the alterations proposed by the Town Council.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): What is the date of that resolution?
  MR. J. STUART: I am unable to say, but it was sent to the Local Government Board since the Provisional Order was issued. It has been urged that the Local Government Board have no power to meddle in the matter, but Clause 59 of the Act provides that any scheme or order made in pursuance of the Act may, as far as may be deemed necessary or proper, make provision for the abolition, restriction, or establishment or extension of the jurisdiction of any Local Authority in or over any part of the area affected by the scheme, and for the adjustment or alteration of the boundaries of such area. In addition, they have power to determine the status of any particular locality as a component part of the larger area. At the present

  867
  moment the town of Cambridge is very badly drained, and there have been before the town for a number of years various conflicting drainage schemes. There has, however, been a difficulty in the adjustment of the relations of the town generally, not only as between the University and the town, but as between the various parts of the town. It is feared that it will be very difficult to get a decision upon the merits of the relative schemes unless there is a proper representation of the town upon the Town Council, because the carrying out of the necessary works will probably entail upon the town a debt equal to its annual ratable value. One of the reasons I have heard alleged in favour of the preservation of the existing inequality, is that the University and College buildings, in regard to which the people had no representation, were, in fact, situated in the over - represented wards. That reason has now disappeared, and, by continuing the existing system, the inequality is being perpetuated. There has been some talk of applying for a mandamus to compel the authorities to drain the town properly, and, I believe, there are gentlemen in this House whose sons have been suffering from typhoid fever, and the inhabitants of the town generally have suffered. My own opinion is that it would be better for the Local Government Board to move in the matter themselves, and I shall be content if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board will give an assurance that he will send down a Commissioner again to inquire into the matter. If that cannot be done, then I think the best course will be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and I beg, therefore, to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order for Committee be read, and discharged; that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that Three be the quorum."—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no ground to complain of the hon. Member for the mode in which he has brought this matter before the House, but I wish to point out that, after having sent down a
  868
  Commissioner and received a Report from him, the Local Government Board arrived at a conclusion which was satisfactory to the parties concerned. I am glad to say that that has been the case in regard to all the Orders which have been issued under the Local Government Act. With reference to the particular proposal of the hon. Member, I am afraid that I must object to it, mainly for three reasons. The hon. Member says that since the Provisional Order was framed the Town Council of Cambridge has made certain representations in the direction of the Motion he has moved. A very full and careful inquiry was made by the Inspector of the Local Government Board into all the matters dealt with in the Provisional Order, and at that time, so far from the Town Council being in favour of the proposal now submitted, they were opposed to any alteration in the ward element. It is rather late in the day for them to come forward now, after waiting until the Provisional Order has been settled and agreed to, with representations in direct antagonism to the representations made by them to the Inspector of the Local Government Board. My first objection to the Motion of the hon. Member is that this is a Provisional Order which has been agreed to by all the parties concerned, and that it would not be right to pass a Motion of this kind when it is impossible for any one to be heard by Petition against it; secondly, that if an alteration in the boundaries of the wards is desirable a Committee of the House of Commons is not the proper body to deal with the matter; and, lastly, that if any alteration is to be made, it can only be done after full and careful inquiry on the spot by an Inspector, and that no action on the part of the House of Commons is necessary, seeing that it can be done by application to the Privy Council.
  Question put, and negatived.

QUESTIONS.

  WORKHOUSE PUNISHMENTS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is a fact, as reported in the Cornish and Devon Post of 18th May, that on

  869
  the motion of Mr. J. Hawkins, an inmate of the Launceston Workhouse, named Dawe, was sentenced to 24 hours' solitary confinement, on bread and water in a cell, on the ground of alleged and disrespectful conduct to a Committee of the Guardians; whether such disrespectful conduct consisted in his refusing to stand up when ordered by the clerk and master, or to take off his hat to an official; whether any other inmates of the Workhouse have been threatened with, or subjected to, solitary confinement, and, if so, how many since February, 1888; what other punishments have been inflicted since that time; what is the average number of inmates in the Workhouse; whether the officials have exceeded their authority in inflicting the punishments referred to, and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent any recurrence of such proceedings; and whether, under the circumstances of the case, he will consider the expediency of causing an independent inquiry to be held into the state of discipline and the general conduct of the Workhouse.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiry of the Guardians of the Launceston Union as to the punishment of Dawe, an inmate of the Workhouse, and I am informed that he was punished by 21 hours' solitary confinement on bread and water under the direction of a resolution unanimously passed by the Board of Guardians. The punishment was in consequence of Dawe 's refusing to obey the lawful orders of the master of the Workhouse. He was requested to stand up on being addressed by a Committee of the Guardians holding an inquiry at the Board Room, and answer questions. The request was repeated several times. Dawe became abusive, and refused to comply with the direction. His conduct, it is stated, was most insolent and abusive both to the Committee and the Master. I have been furnished with a list of the punishments in the Workhouse since February, 1888, and I find that five inmates in addition to Dawe have since that date been subjected to solitary confinement. It appears that on seven occasions other punishments, such as the substitution of bread and water for dinner, have been imposed. The average number of inmates of the Workhouse during the year ended Lady-day, 1889, was 58.
  870
  From the statement furnished to me I am unable to say that on none of the occasions referred to has the authority of the officers been exceeded. I am making further inquiry on the subject, and if it should appear to me to be necessary, I will direct an inquiry by an Inspector of the Board as to the punishments to which particular inmates have been subjected.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY: Is there any authority to justify the giving of a different diet from that prescribed by the Poor Law regulations?
  MR. RITCHIE: Assuming that the Guardians were justified in awarding the punishment, I think they would be justified in altering the diet.

  FISHERMEN'S BOTHIES.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Board of Supervision have caused the fishermen's bothies on the river Tay to be inspected with reference to their sanitary state; and, whether a Report thereon has been presented to the Board; and, if so, what action, if any, is to be taken by the Board?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am informed that the Board of Supervision have obtained a Report as to the state of these bothies, this Report which is very voluminous, is now under the consideration of the legal Members of the Board, for their opinion on the legal aspect of the matter.

  THE IRISH LACE INDUSTRY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the successful development of local efforts to improve the organization of the lace industry in those districts of Ireland which are mentioned in the recently-issued Report by Mr. Alan S. Cole on his visits to lace-making centres, sanction has now been communicated by the Treasury to the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, under which the renewal of Mr. Cole's lectures, repeatedly applied for by the centres referred to in the Report, can be granted, so that the applying convents and centres may not, as was the case in March last, be left in doubt up to the last moment as to whether the lectures will be delivered or not; and, in any

  871
  case, whether the delivery of lectures has been sanctioned for the forthcoming autumn and the spring of next year?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): No sanction has been given for the delivery of further lectures next autumn or in the spring of next year. Practically the whole amount sanctioned for expenses of lectures this year has been already expended, and I must await further information from the Science and Art Department and the Irish Government before the Treasury can decide whether further expenditure should be allowed, to provide for additional lectures.

  FORCES AT THE CAPE.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total strength, all ranks, of the regular forces of Staff Cavalry, Field Artillery, Garrison Artillery, Engineers, and Infantry respectively now serving in Cape Colony; what is the approximate total annual cost borne by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for such forces now quartered in Cape Colony; what portion of the total force is for garrison duty at coaling stations situated in Cape Colony, and what is the approximate estimate of its annual cost; and, whether the remainder of the Imperial Forces not required for garrison duty at such ports are retained in Cape Colony for purposes of internal order within the limits of Cape Colony, or for special general service when required beyond such limits?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The strength of the several arms in Cape Colony on the 1st of May (which is the latest return received) was, Staff, five; Cavalry, three; Artillery, 240; Engineers, 103; Infantry, 991; Departmental Corps, 66; total—1,408. The cost of this force, including home charges for depots, pensions, &c., is £142,000, towards which the Cape Colony makes no contribution. The troops are required for the defence of the Imperial coaling stations, but they would, of course, be available in case of internal disturbance. I may add that the military unit of command is not Cape Colony, but South Africa; and that a regiment of Cavalry, with perhaps some Mounted Infantry, will be
  872
  kept in South Africa for frontier purposes generally.
  DR. CLARK: Have applications been made to the Cape Government to pay a portion of the expenses?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I do not think in recent years any such application has been made to the Cape Government, but there have been repeated applications for other contributions towards Imperial Defence, which, I am sorry to say, have not generally been responded to.

  THE CORPORATION "DESTRUCTOR."
  MR. ADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the noisome smoke issuing from a chimney situated at Lett's Wharf, on the south side of the River Thames, is connected with what is known as a "destructor," which is used by the City Authorities for the consumption of condemned meat, fish, and all sorts of rubbish; whether he is aware that numerous complaints have from time to time been made by the poor people inhabiting the surrounding district, which includes the Borough and New Cut, as well as from those dwelling in its proximity on the north side of the river; and, whether he will take such steps, as may seem fit, to have the nuisance complained of abated, and to secure that smoke emanating from such a source in the heart of the Metropolis should be more perfectly consumed?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has not been previously called to the subject of this question, and no complaints have been received by the Local Government Board with respect to the alleged nuisance. I have communicated with the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London and am informed by them that the destructor in question has been in use for many years for the burning only of old baskets and the ordinary refuse of business premises, and that, so far as the Commissioners are aware, there has never been any authenticated case of complaint against it. There is no noisome smoke issuing from the chimney shaft, and the destructor is not used for the consumption of condemned meat or fish, which are conveyed away from the City by contractors in quite another direction. The destructor, it is

  873
  stated, is worked with more than ordinary care by the most intelligent men that can be found for that kind of work. It has been undergoing repairs since the 8th of this month, and any vapours that have passed up the chimney since that date have arisen from an open fire on the wharf. I have also communicated with the Vestry of the parish of Lambeth, in whose district the destructor is situate. The reply which I have received confirms the statements of the Commissioners of Sewers. The Vestry Clerk states:—
  "I have made inquiry of the sanitary inspectors, and am assured that neither condemned meat nor fish is burnt in the destructor, but that house and shop refuse is alone burnt. The wharf is visited by the medical officer and inspectors from time to time, but on no occasion has any meat or fish been found in the destructor or in the shed placed for burning. The wharf has been visited on several occasions by the Sanitary Committee, so that they might be satisfied that nothing was carried on likely to be prejudicial to the health of the neighbourhood. The Vestry have not received complaints from the inhabitants living in the immediate vicinity of the wharf, but about two years ago complaints were made by occupiers of property at some little distance, but on the wharf being then examined by the Vestry officers and the Sanitary Committee nothing was found which appeared to cause objection."

  WRECK OF THE ASTRACANA.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the officials of the Trinity Corporation towed a vessel of 1,400 tons on 3rd January, 1889, from the English Channel into Cowes Roads, and allowed her to sink there, and that a portion of the vessel with stone ballast in her, now remains in a position frequently occupied by trading vessels when anchored in the Roads; and, whether, taking into consideration the fact that mariners cannot anchor within 30 fathoms of the wreck, the extreme danger to vessels coming in at night, and the often crowded state of the Roads, he will at once give the necessary orders for its removal?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have communicated with the Trinity House, who sent me the following statement, dated the 25th of June:—
  "The duty of removing wrecks dangerous to navigation is laid on the Trinity House by
  874
  an Act passed in 1877. The wreck Astracana was reported floating bottom up in the English Channel, a most serious danger to life and property. Trinity House vessels were sent in search, found it on December 30th, and tried to sink it in deep water, but being laden with oil in casks, the vessel would not sink. Waterlogged and unmanageable, it was with great difficulty and after several days' work towed out of the way of navigation on the 3rd of January into Cowes Roads, that being the nearest place suitable for operations of breaking up and salvage. These were carried on with all possible diligence, although under great difficulties, and it is now (June 25th) ascertained that nothing remains of the wreck which could occasion damage to passing navigation, there being 17 ft. clear all over her at low water spring tides, and nothing above the level of the sand. To remove the buried remains would be a very costly proceeding, and although for a time the anchorage for a space of about 70 ft. by 30 ft. will be to some extent foul, only small vessels could anchor there, and a buoy is placed to warn them."
  I can only add that in cases where, as in this case, the proceeds of the sale of the cargo are sufficient to meet all expenses incurred by the Trinity House, the Board of Trade have no authority or control in the matter.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: Arising out of the question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it fair to the trading community that the Channel should be placed in this position in consequence of the action of the Trinity Corporation, and that the Corporation should be allowed to tow a vessel and sink it in the very spot at which trading vessels are constantly anchoring? Will the right hon. Gentleman cause further inquiry to be made?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have been on the spot myself very recently, and I do not think that trading vessels will be interfered with. A few yachts may be interfered with, but they pay no Light Dues. The vessel was not towed to the spot and allowed to sink, but became unmanageable at the spot and sank there.

  THE ELECTRIC TRAMWAY AT PORTRUSH.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Petition, influentially and numerously signed by the cesspayers, has been presented to the Grand Jury of County Antrim, praying that the Board of Trade would institute an inquiry int othe working of

  875
  the Electric Tramway from Portrush to Bushmills, and the inconvenience and danger to the public caused by it; whether such memorial was forwarded to the Board of Trade; and, if so, why no action was taken; and, whether it is a fact that the electric tram is running without either a Certificate from the Board of Trade or any published Table of Bye-laws?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A Petition from certain cesspayers to the Antrim Grand Jury was communicated to the Board of Trade by the Grand Jury in April last. In order to satisfy themselves whether an inquiry would be desirable, the Board of Trade addressed a question to the Secretary to the Grand Jury on May 3, to which no reply has yet been received. The use of mechanical power was allowed by Act of Parliament, which also required that, before being opened, the line should be inspected and certified to be fit for public traffic. The line has been so inspected and certified. But if by bye-laws the hon. Member means regulations as to the use of mechanical power, the Company's Acts of Parliament do not appear to provide for the issue of any such regulations.

  INDIA—PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION—AGE OF CANDIDATES FOR CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, whether he can now state what progress has been made in the consideration of the recent Report of the Indian Public Service Commission; and, in particular, when it is likely that the decision of Her Majesty's Government regarding the age at which candidates are to be admitted to compete for appointments in the Indian Civil Service will be announced?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The matters referred to in the question are still under the consideration, but the Secretary of State hopes to be able shortly to announce some definite decision on the age limit.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the decision be announced before the end of the Session?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, I think so.

  POST OFFICE AT KILAWALLA.
  Ma. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, on what conditions will he consent to give a Post Office to the people of Kilawalla, co. Mayo, in the vicinity of the chapel, the two schools, and the police barrack, the centre of a large population?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have made inquiries, but I should be glad if the hon. Member would postpone the question until Monday, when I shall be able to give him a more definite answer.

  BOMBAY MAMLUTDARS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, (1) whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Calcutta telegram of the Times, of the 10th instant, indicating, although nine of the Mamlutdars, who swore that they had corruptly purchased their offices by bribes, had been deprived of magisterial powers in criminal cases, "they were still maintained in office on full pay, and allowed to exercise jurisdiction in civil suits;" (2) whether it is true, as stated in the Calcutta telegram published in the Times of the 24th instant, that, although 33 native Magistrates have been transferred, on public grounds, no dismissal from office has yet been gazetted; (3) whether it is true, as stated in the same telegram, that the High Court of Judicature of Bombay has pronounced a judgment, affirming that the corrupt Mamlutdars and Magistrates are by Law disqualified from holding their offices; (4) whether the confessedly corrupt Mamlutdars referred to, continue to exercise any jurisdiction in civil suits or Revenue questions; and, (5) what is their exact position in the Bombay Civil Service?
  SIR J. GORST: (1) The Secretary of State has seen the statement referred to. (2) The Secretary of State has been informed that three officers have been dismissed from Government employment. (3) The Secretary of State has no knowledge respecting the judgment of the High Court of Bombay. (4) The Secretary of State has been informed by the Government of Bombay that the officers referred to in the question

  877
  "have been deprived of all judicial functions," and he understands this to mean that they exercise no jurisdiction in civil suits or Revenue questions. (5) The Secretary of State does not understand that any further change has been made in the status of these officers.
  DR. CAMERON: Will the lion. Gentleman ask for some further information on the subject?
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will indicate to me what further information he desires I will ask for it.

  TRINIDAD.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, is it the case that, when the Church of England in Trinidad was disestablished, the redistribution of the ecclesiastical grant in 1871 was clearly based on the principle that "the grant of public money made in aid of the maintenance of Christian worship" prior to that date, amounting to £10,435 annually, should be the permanent limit of the ecclesiastical grant, and that any portion of this amount, declined by any of the religious bodies, should not be handed over to the other denominations, but "applied to the general service of the Colony"; was the express understanding that the grant payable to each communion, as determined on this basis—namely, that that was "the whole sum which thereafter would be issued to it, and that no extra votes would thereafter be granted to any religious body whatever"; is it the case that various departures from this settlement have been made and extra votes granted, and, among others, the sum of £500 annually to the Church of England, and of £100 to the Wesleyan Church; so that the public revenue of Trinidad has, since 1871, been taxed for ecclesiastical purposes to an amount of more than £18,000 in excess of the proper ecclesiastical grant, taking into account the refusal of certain denominations to accept of any grant; and, if this be so, will the Government give instructions that the original agreement shall in future be adhered to?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second paragraph,
  878
  it was contemplated in 1871 that the ecclesiastical grant should eventually be apportioned among the several Christian communities in proportion to the number of members of each communion to be ascertained by a census; and that as between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England the redistribution should be effected gradually on the lapsing of the salaries of the ministers of the latter Church who were then in receipt of salaries from the Government. Except for the purpose of correcting the due proportions of the grant, it was not then intended that any extra votes should be granted to any religious body. Departures have been made from the arrangement of 1871. The grant to the Roman Catholic Church was raised in 1872 to the amount of what was estimated to be its proper proportion, without waiting until funds should become available by the falling in of the Church of England salaries. No religious census has been taken, and recently additional annual grants of £500 to the Church of England and £100 to the Wesleyans have been made as a temporary arrangement until the census which is proposed to be taken in 1891. The revenue of Trinidad has since 1871 been taxed for ecclesiastical purposes to a considerable amount beyond what was contemplated at the time. Her Majesty's Government propose that the ecclesiastical grants shall be revised after the census of 1891, but in the meantime they do not propose to interfere with the existing arrangements."

  IRELAND.—CATHOLIC TROOPS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that the Catholic parochial clergy invariably minister to Catholic troops stationed in their several parishes and districts in Ireland; why does not the same rule prevail that Irish Protestant clergy should similarly minister to troops of the Protestant faith in their various districts and parishes, and why are English Army Commissioned Protestant Chaplains brought over at great expense to discharge duties which would be quite as efficiently discharged by the local clergy at a small stipend, add which duties the local clergy are ready and willing to discharge; would he have

  879
  any objection to direct a Return of the number of the various stations in Ireland at which Commissioned Army Protestant Chaplains and clergymen of the Irish Protestant Church minister to troops, stating in each case the cost of providing for such ministrations; whether it is a fact that six out of the nine barracks in Dublin are ministered to by the local Protestant clergy at a less expense than the remaining three, which are ministered to by Army Commissioned Chaplains; and, will he take any steps to equalize the condition of the Catholic and Protestant clergy and to save the public money?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is the fact that the local clergy minister to the Roman Catholic troops in Ireland at the express wish of the Episcopal Authorities there. The same rule applies as regards Protestant denominations when the number of troops are small; but where the number is large it is considered more advantageous to have a commissioned chaplain, who can give his whole time to the men and their families. There are three stations at which commissioned chaplains are serving—Dublin, Cork, and the Curragh. All the Dublin barracks, except Pigeonhouse Fort, are attended by commissioned chaplains. Having regard to all the circumstances, the existing arrangements are considered the most efficient and economical.

  CORRESPONDENCE CARDS.
  MR. COCHRANE- BAILLIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, to meet the public convenience, he will consider it advisable so to alter the Post Office Regulations as to permit of cards for correspondence being sent through the post at the cost of a halfpenny stamp, such cards in all matters of weight, size, and instructions to conform to the regulations of the ordinary postcard system.
  MR. RAIKES: The subject of the hon. Member's question is one which has at various times been considered. The hon. Member himself sees that it would be necessary as a condition of allowing plain cards for letter purposes to pass through the post with a halfpenny stamp that such cards should in size, weight, &c., conform to the regulations laid down for the ordinary postcard. There would, however, be the greatest difficulty in
  880
  ensuring a compliance with this condition as well as constant friction between the Department and the public. It should, at the same time, be remembered that any extension of the halfpenny post can only increase the loss already attending that branch of the Postal Service. I am sorry I cannot hold out any expectation that it will be possible to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  THE HYDERABAD DECCAN MINING CONCESSION.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Times, that appeared on 7th June, alleging that the Secretary of State for India contemplates confirming the Hyberabad Deccan Mining Concession, subject to certain conditions; (2) whether it is a fact that the Nawab Mehdi Ali, the Financial Secretary to the Nizam's Government, has stated that he considers that these terms are inadequate and prejudicial to the Nizam's State, and whether the British resident at Hyderabad, and the Nizam's legal advisers in India, have expressed their concurrence with this view; (3) whether, as it appears from the statement in the Times, Messrs. Freshfield and Williams, who were appointed solicitors for the Nizam's Government on the advice of the Secretary of State for India, proposed these terms of settlement to the concessionnaires without any sanction from the Nizam's Government, and threatened to throw up the case rather than communicate the Nizam's proposals to the concessionnaires; (4) whether one of the grounds urged upon the Nizam's Government by Messrs. Freshfield and Williams, in order that it might give its assent to these terms was, that Mr. Watson, the concessionnaire (a gentleman in regard to whom, and to his partners, the Select Committee of last year on the Hyderabad Deccan Company reported,
  "The concessionnaires have used the concession for the purpose of realizing great gains not intended to be conferred on them, and that this has been done to the injury of the State from which they obtained the concession, with the assistance of their partner, Abdul Huk,"
  is a man of such financial influence in the City that his action might weaken the credit of the Nizam's Government should

  881
  some arrangement approved by him not be come to with him; and (5) whether all the correspondence referred to in the Times as having passed between the Government of Hyderabad and the British resident will be laid upon the Table, and Her Majesty's Government will give the House an opportunity to express its opinion thereon, before becoming a party to any final settlement?
  SIR G. HUNTERalso asked whether the arrangement, whatever it may be, which the Secretary of State might sanction would be a final settlement of all matters in dispute and all claims between His Highness the Nizam's Government, the original concessionnaires, and the company?
  SIR J. GORST: The statement in the Times, referred to in the question, is premature; the matter is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has no official information as to the opinion referred to in the second paragraph of the question; nor is he aware of the various confidential communications which may have passed between the solicitors and agents of the Nizam in relation to these matters referred to in the third and fourth paragraphs. Until the Secretary of State has arrived at a decision in the matter it is impossible to say what Papers can with advantage to the Public Service be laid upon the Table.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has seen any of the documents, to which reference is made in the question, in print?
  SIR J. GORST: That is rather a large question. I have seen a great many documents; but none which would enable me to answer as to all the communications which have passed between the solicitors and the agents.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If I submit these documents to the hon. Gentleman, will he consider whether they ought to be laid before the House, having regard to the decision of the Committee which sat to consider the subject last year?
  SIR J. GORST: As soon as the Secretary of State has fulfilled his function in the matter he will, no doubt, be prepared to consider what documents should be laid before the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the Papers be submitted to the House, to enable the House to take the matter
  882
  into consideration and decide what action it ought to take?
  SIR G. CAMPBELLwished to know whether the Under Secretary had no official information with regard to the opinions and the advice which the British Resident at Hyderabad had given?
  SIR J. GORSTsaid that Papers could not be laid for the purpose of encouraging the House to interfere with the Secretary of State in the performance of his duties. When the Secretary of State had carried out his duty in this matter it would be for the House to say whether it had been properly performed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: My question had no reference to the Papers before the House, but to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that the Secretary of State has no official information with regard to the matter referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the question.
  SIR. J. GORST: I did not read the question in that way. The question is, whether it is the fact that the Nawab Mehdi Ali has expressed an opinion, and whether the British Resident at Hyderabad has expressed concurrence in that opinion? The Government have the opinion of the British Resident at Hyderabad upon the case, and do not care for his opinion upon somebody else's opinion.
  SIR W. G. HUNTER: The Under Secretary for India has misunderstood my question. I do not want to know the nature of the settlement. I ask whether the decision, whatever it may be, will be considered a final settlement of the question?
  SIR J. GORST: That depends upon the company and the concessionnaires. I do not know what they would consider a final settlement.

  ST. PANCRAS.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on account of the large area and population of the parish of St. Pancras, he will consider its claim to be entitled to a separate Police Court and Magistracy?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,)The principle suggested by the question, of

  883
  parochial police courts, would involve an entire redistribution of the present court districts, which have been assigned with a view to the convenience of suitors and the facilities of communication, and would create much confusion without any compensating advantage. I am not prepared to substitute for the present arrangements a system of parochial distribution of Magistrates, although I should always be ready to consider any adjustment of the present district, which would better satisfy the needs of the population.

  POSTAL SERVICES IN IRELAND.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of the districts of Ballynacargy and Ballymahon, asking that a day mail service be established between Mullingar and Ballymahon, viâ Ballynacargy; and, if so, is it his intention to accede to the wishes of the memorialists?
  MR. RAIKES: The memorial referred to by the hon. Member has been very recently received, and I am making inquiry on the subject. I find that there have been previous similar applications from the district named; but that it has hitherto been impracticable to afford the accommodation on account of the large expenditure involved.

  THE ALBERT MEDAL.
  MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the following facts:—
  "A few weeks ago, a workman of the name of Benjamin Stanley fell into a casting-pit at Norfork Works, Sheffield, and lay scorched, and with his clothes in flames, close to a white-hot ingot. Whereupon John Smith, another workman, ran for a ladder, placed. it in the pit and began to descend, but, in his haste, he, too, fell into the pit and was badly burned; but, nevertheless, he seized Benjamin Stanley, who was unconscious, and pulled him away until, with the aid of others, he was lifted out of the pit, bearing with him the body of the man he had tried to save; Benjamin Stanley died, after great suffering, but John Smith, although badly scorched, happily has survived;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government will make any recognition of such heroic and self-sacrificing bravery?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this matter
  884
  by the Chief Inspector of Factories, and I am now considering whether the facts of the case are such that I should be justified in recommending to Her Majesty the grant of an Albert Medal.

  TRADE MARKS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a statement in the Ironmonger of 22nd June, by Mr. Donald Kempson, of Birmingham, who has recently visited Australia—namely,
  "But I was sorry to find that, notwithstanding the operation of the Merchandize Marks Act, English merchants are still sending out wire of German manufacture branded with their own (the merchant's) names as makers;"
  and, whether he will take the necessary steps to put a stop to these irregular proceedings?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: By the courtesy of the hon. Member, I have had an opportunity of seeing the newspaper named. I have no information as to the practice referred to, but if it exists, the proper way of dealing with it appears to me to be by legislation in the Colonies on the lines of the Imperial Act, and the expediency of such legislation has been pressed upon the Colonial Governments, who have promised to undertake it.

  THE AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to a letter in the Melbourne Argus, of 26th April, in which it is stated that the mails from Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, are every week detained in Adelaide For 55 hours, waiting the departure of the steamer to Europe; and, whether he will use his influence to remedy this grievance?
  MR. RAIKES: I have seen the letter to which the hon. Member refers, and I am aware that the mails from the various Colonies are despatched considerably earlier than they need be if a Colonial train service were organised in direct correspondence with the departure of the packet. The whole question of the inter-Colonial train service and the day of departure from Adelaide is a difficult one, and has been for some time receiving my careful consideration in conjunc-

  885
  tion with the Australian Agents-General in London. The whole delay would be obviated if the Colonial Authorities were to establish a mail train from Melbourne to Adelaide on Saturday evenings.

  UNITED STATES CONSULAR FEES.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United States Consuls in London, Liverpool, &c., have reimposed the charge of 2s. 6d. declaration fee on every invoice of goods shipped from this country to the United States, and that this charge is not collected from shippers in Germany to the United States; and, whether he will take the necessary steps to put a stop to this unequal treatment of British subjects?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I explained to the hon. Member last year that the fee in question was not levied by the United States Consular officers, but that it is charged by the proper British official before whom declarations on invoices, which are required by the United States Regulations, are sworn. I also informed the hon. Member of the explanation given by the United States Government of the circumstances under which the oath was not enforced in Germany, and that Her Majesty's Government had addressed a representation on the subject to the United States Government. I regret to say that the latter Government have not yielded to those representations, which pointed out that the action complained of constituted, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, differential treatment in favour of Germany as against this country. I may add that, as far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, the United States Consuls in this country have not discontinued requiring the oath.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: Last year the United States ceased to charge this fee of 2s. 6d. on a great many imports, but this year they have reimposed it.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have gone carefully into the matter, and as the United States' Government decline to waive their declaration, and our law does not admit of the Consul administering the oath, I fear there is nothing to be done.

  INDIAN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, since the establishment of the rule in the India Office that membership of the Secretary of State's Council should be held for only ten years, any appointments to that Council have been made for life; and, if so, in what instances, by what authority, and on what grounds?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; the late Sir Henry Maine, Sir Henry Yule, and General Strachey, by authority of 39 Vic. c. 7. The special grounds for the appointments were in accordance with the Statute laid in each instance before both Houses of Parliament.

  H.M.S. TRAFALGAR.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the armour plates of H.M.S. Trafalgar, lately launched at Portsmouth, have been fixed on with the screw bolts, invented by the late Sir William Palliser?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The bolts used in fixing the armour-plates of the Trafalgar have reduced shanks, as proposed by the late Sir William Palliser. In other details they are not made on his plan.

  IRELAND—PROSECUTION OF FATHER DOYLE AND FATHER BROWN.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the Government intend to proceed with the prosecution of Father Doyle and Father Brown, and the 20 other gentlemen, who were summoned last Thursday, at Archerstown, county Wexford; whether he is aware that large and representative meetings, presided over by the Mayor of Wexford, the Chairman of the Enniscorthy Town Commissioners, and the Chairman of the New Ross Town Commissioners, have been held to protest against the prosecution of Father Doyle, on the ground that Father Doyle has been largely instrumental in maintaining good relations between landlords and tenants in the district; and whether, in view of this, and the great indignation felt all through the district, the Irish Government will order the dis-

  887
  continuance of the proceedings in question?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): As prosecutions are being instituted, I am precluded from entering into any discussion of the case. The Irish Government see no reason to interfere with the proceedings.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Notwithstanding the excitement and widespread indignation which exists throughout the district, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if these proceedings are allowed to go on I view the possible result with considerable alarm.
  MR. MADDEN: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that, as the case is sub judice, I am precluded from entering into it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In consequence of the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman I beg to give notice that when the Irish Estimates are brought up I will, on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, call attention to the absolute danger to the public peace entailed as the wanton prosecution of the most respected priests in Ireland, such as Canon Doyle.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give any information in regard to the statement contained in the close of the second paragraph of the question of my hon. Friend—namely, that Canon Doyle has been largely instrumental in maintaining good relations between the landlords and tenants in the district?
  MR. MADDEN: I can only say that the accused will have the full benefit at the trial of any facts which may be proved in the case.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say why these proceedings have been postponed until the 4th of July, these gentlemen having been notified some time ago that they would be proceeded against?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I am not able to say.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then upon my word, I think you ought to be able.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  In reply to Sir J. SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield,)
  MR. MADDENstated that all the circumstances of the case had been fully considered by the Law Officers of the Crown.

  CRIMINAL PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary-to the Treasury whether the arrangements for re-organizing the Department of the Solicitor to the Treasury, set forth in the Treasury Minute, of 20th December last, include the whole of the Establishments for the Department of Criminal Prosecutions; whether any of the three Assistant Solicitors are stationed in the provinces for the purpose of Criminal Prosecutions, or whether there are any other Government officers so employed, or whether a private solicitor is employed in each case; and, whether in any other large Department of the State the plan has been adopted by making an allowance to the head of the Department to appoint and pay his own subordinates at his personal discretion?
  MR. JACKSON: The answer to the first question is, Yes. As regards the second, the three Assistant Solicitors are permanently attached to the office of the Treasury in London; but they, in common with the other officers of the Department, are liable, in the case of prosecutions of exceptional importance, to attend at Assizes. No Government officers are stationed in the provinces; but the solicitor engages such local solicitor as he considers competent to conduct each case as it arises. The plan of making an allowance to the head of a public Department out of which he pays a staff of subordinates, employed by himself, has been tried in the Department of the Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, and in that of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade. A Departmental Committee is at present inquiring whether, and subject to what conditions, a similar system can be introduced in the Departments of the Solicitors of all the great public Departments. The hon. Member, of course, understands that the sum allowed is a maximum which must in no case be exceeded; and that if the entire sum is not actually expended in any year the surplus is retained in the Exchequer, and affords no emolument to the head of the Department.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that on the Estimates I will call attention to the very unsatisfactory position in which this question stands.

  POSTMASTER OF POOLEWE.
  DR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if a man named Boa has been or is about to be appointed Postmaster in Poolewe; in either case is he aware that strong representations have been made by the inhabitants of that district protesting against the appointment of Boa; and whether he will take these representations into his consideration?
  MR. RAIKES: The Lords of the Treasury have nominated Mr. Boa sub-Postmaster at Poolewe. Unless ho should prove, upon inquiry, to be ineligible or unfit for the situation, the nomination will be confirmed. I shall, of course, be prepared to consider any representations that may be made to me on the subject.

  THE AUSTRALIAN MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, referring to the official statement that the contribution of the British Government to the total cost of the Australian Mail Steamship Service (£170,000) is £95,000 anually, and that while the British Government do not pay a fixed annual subsidy towards the cost of the conveyance of mails to and from the Cape of Good Hope, yet
  "The Government of this Country gives in lieu thereof a larger proportion of the postage on all mails exchanged between the Mother Country and the Cape Colony;"
  whether the British Post Office and the Postal Authorities at the Cape are in accord as to the proportion to be paid to the English Post Office; what proportion of postage is retained by this Country; and, what proportion the Cape Colony proposes to pay?
  MR. RAIKES: The Imperial Post Office and the Postal Authorities of the Cape Colony are not yet in accord as to the proportion of postage to be retained by the English Post Office under the new Mail Contracts; but I have proposed a scheme which I hope will lead to an early and satisfactory solution of the question.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received
  890
  any information as to the memorial alleged to have been sent by the Armenians of Van to the Turkish Government, denying the recent Kurdish outrages; whether it is the fact that the memorial was drafted in Constantinople, and sent to the Governor of Van with instructions to use pressure to obtain signatures; whether the signatories include several political criminals who have been released from prison since the sending in of the memorial; whether it is true that Moussa Bey is to be brought for trial to Constantinople, and that the present head of the police at Constantinople is Bahri Pasha, an uncle of Moussa Bey; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any information as to the alleged murders of three Armenians at Tchermong, in the province of Diarbekir, by Mahometans?
  SIR FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have no information in regard to the memorial alluded to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 of the hon. Member's question. Moussa Bey has reached Erzeroum, and was to leave that place for Constantinople on the 10th instant. Bahri Pasha, the Mutessarif of Pera, is connected by marriage with Moussa Bey, as Bahri Pasha's sister was one of the wives of Moussa Bey's father. No information respecting the alleged murder of three Armenians at Tchermong has reached Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the Foreign Office make an inquiry into the matter?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Ambassador, in pursuance of his instructions, will naturally watch these cases.

  KING JA JA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether King Ja Ja has been examined by two doctors in St. Vincent, who reported unfavourably on the condition of his health; whether the Government will now allow the King to visit England; and whether King Ja Ja has expressed himself most anxious to meet the wishes of the British Government in every respect?
  MR. JOHNSTON: If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to answer the second paragraph of the question, will he consider the propriety of sending his Black Majesty to the warm climate of the South of Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: With regard to questions one and two, the examination of Ja Ja's condition showed that he was suffering from no organic complaint, and was in no worse health than most persons are at his advanced age; the question of a change of residence is under consideration. No expression, such as that referred to in paragraph 3 of the hon. Member's question, has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, as having been used by Ja Ja, but it is very possibly true.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Have the Government any objection to allow King Ja Ja to come to England in the same way that Cetewayo, a much more important man, was allowed to come, if he will give an undertaking not to use his visit against the Government?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not prepared to give an answer to that question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then I will repeat it.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say at what date the Indian Budget will come before the House for discussion; and, whether, to prevent the postponement of the consideration of Indian matters to the close of the Session, he will take any, and what, steps for securing an opportunity for their adequate discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am not in a position yet to fix a date when the Indian Budget will be taken. Full opportunity for its discussion will be provided.

  SUPPLY.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Votes which have been passed over, in Class 2, will be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is impossible at present to say. I have already indicated the measures upon which the Government require the consideration of the House to be taken from day to day. The Estimates will be postponed until those measures are disposed of.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT—LICENSE DUTIES.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the event of no financial arrangement having been effected either provisionally or permanently between a county and a county borough under the Local Government Act, the Local Government Board will themselves provisionally determine next month the proportion of License Duties to which such authorities are respectively entitled, and will make some payment to them accordingly?
  MR. RITCHIE: In the event of no agreement being arrived at provisionally between a county and a county borough with regard to the division of the Local Taxation Licenses and Probate Duty Grant in respect of the current financial year, it will devolve on the Commissioners appointed under the Local Government Act to make the necessary provisional apportionment. I learn from the Commissioners that a majority of the counties and county boroughs have already arrived at provisional agreements, which have been submitted to the Commissioners for their sanction. Until the necessary apportionment has been made between a county and county borough the Local Government Board will not be in a position to make any payments to the authorities of those districts.

  IRELAND—BOARDING OUT OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the satisfactory results from the system of boarding out pauper children, he is prepared to recommend the extension of the provisions of the Order recently issued by the Local Government Bord for England to the Poor Law Unions in Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN: The regulations at present in force in Ireland with respect to the boarding out of orphan and deserted children appear to include the most important of the provisions contained in the English Orders referred to by the hon. Member. The main difference seems to be in relation to the visiting and inspection of these children, which

  893
  in England may be done by members of a Committee formed for the purpose, while in Ireland this duty is entrusted to the relieving officer. The Irish Local Government Board will consider whether it would be possible to appoint such a Committee, and, if so, whether any advantage could result therefrom.

  THE ZAMBESI.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with regard to the present negotiations with Portugal as to the Zambesi and the territories lying to the north of that river, and south of the sphere of Germany and the Congo State; whether the Zambesi has been treated by the British Government as a free and open river by the action of our men-of-war in pursuit of slaves, and by the British Government defraying the expenses of the Livingstone Expedition in 1859, when H.M.S. Pioneer constantly used the river without permission from any other Government; what are the diplomatic methods employed by Her Majesty's Government in order to protect the lives and properties of British subjects on and in the neighbourhood of Lake Nyassa; whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Portuguese Government, in carrying out the provisions of the blockade, prevent arms being sent to British subjects, while they allow weapons to be introduced which can only be intended to arm the slave dealers; and whether a complete surrender to the claims of the Portuguese Government, which would inevitably lead to an extension of slave trade in South Africa, is contemplated by Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There are no negotiations at present with the Portuguese Government on the subject of the noble Lord's question. We have no record to the effect that any of Her Majesty's ships have pursued slavers on the River Zambesi. H.M.S. Pioneer navigated the river, and Her Majesty's Government have maintained the right of Her Majesty's subjects to do so, as on an International highway. The danger to British settlements arises entirely from the hostility of the Arab slave dealers, and therefore there is no question of protection by diplomatic
  894
  methods. Her Majesty's Government have no such information. There is no ground whatever for such an imputation. We have no intention of surrendering any right that we have claimed in those regions.
  EARL COMPTON: The reason why I used the words "diplomatic methods" in the third paragraph of the question was that they were the words used by the Prime Minister to a deputation. I understood that the Government had promised to use diplomatic methods, in order to secure the safety of the Scotch missionaries. Is nothing being done at the present moment for the safety of the subjects of Her Majesty in the district of Lake Nyassa?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I would refer the noble Lord to the full statements which have been made, both in this and the other House of Parliament, and to the Prime Minister's explanation upon the subject. They go much further than I could do in an answer to a question. Her Majesty's Government are not indifferent to the rights which Her Majesty's subjects have gained in connection with these rivers; but, as I have intimated, no negotiations are going on at present.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Is it not the case that Arabs and native Portuguese subjects can obtain arms and ammunition, whereas British subjects are prevented from importing either arms or ammunition?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have not been so informed.
  DR. CLARK: When did the Government receive their last information? Will they ask for further information from the British Consuls as to whether it is a fact that large quantities of arms and ammunition are now passing through the Portuguese Colony of Mozambique into Central Africa?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: If that is the case Her Majesty's Government will be informed by their agents.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the Vice Chamberlain if ho will be good enough to state when the Annual Veterinary Report of the Agricultural Department for the year 1888 on the working of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act will be

  895
  presented; and why its presentation has been so long delayed?
  THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,): In consequence of the Report containing a number of coloured plates which have taken a long time to prepare it has not been found possible to issue it quite so early as in previous years. It is, however, expected that it will be ready for distribution within 10 days.

  THE JAMAICA GOVERNMENT RAILWAY.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is true that the Jamaica Government Railway, described officially as being in a flourishing condition, and which is now earning all the interest and expenses payable thereon, besides putting by I percent for a sinking fund, is to be sold to an American Syndicate for £800,000, of which £100,000 only is to be paid in cash, and £700,000 in second mortgage bonds, no interest on which is payable until 5 per cent has been paid upon £1,500,000 first mortgage bonds of the Company; is it the case that although the promoters pay £100,000 in cash, yet at the same time they are to receive back £100,000 in Ordinary Stock on the formation of the Company, besides a vast tract of land free of charges or taxation; is it the case that the £1,500,000 to be raised for the extension of said railway is virtually under the guarantee of the Government, as under the agreement for the sale, in the event of the contractors not fully carrying out their engagements, or failing to pay the interest on the bonds, the Government will have to take back the railway, thus saddling the country with a debt of £2,200,000, the interest of which is to be earned in the future, instead of a debt of £800,000, the interest of which is now being earned; and, if these are substantially the facts of the case, will the Secretary of State for the Colonies delay giving his sanction to the agreement until the matter has been submitted to the consideration of the constituencies, the recent elections having taken place before the agreement was made public?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In order to secure the extensions, which were much needed, of the existing Jamaica Government Railway, an agreement has
  896
  been made on behalf of the Government of Jamaica, subject to confirmation by the Legislative Council, with an American Syndicate for the sale of the Government Railway to a company to be incorporated in Jamaica and for the construction of the required extensions of the railway. The railway is in a flourishing condition, and is earning sufficient to pay its working expenses and the interest and 1 per cent sinking fund on the railway loan. The Government is to receive from the company £100,000 cash and £700,000 second mortgage bonds, bearing 4 per cent interest payable after payment of 4 per cent interest on the first mortgage bonds to be issued to provide for the cost of the extensions, which will ultimately amount to £1,500,000. The promoters are to pay £100,000 for £100,000 second mortgage bonds. They are also, as part of the general arrangement, to receive the same amount of ordinary stock of the company and a square mile of land for every mile of the extension. In the event of the company failing to pay the interest on the mortgage bonds or to maintain and work the railway including the extensions, in accordance with the agreement, it may be wound up, and in that case the Government are to take over the railway and extensions and issue to the bondholders £100 3½ per cent Government stock in exchange of each £100 of first mortgage bonds. In that event the Government will have incurred an addition to the public debt of £1,500,000, and will have to look to the earnings of the railway and extensions to provide for the interest. The Secretary of State has not been officially informed of the confirmation of the agreement; but he learns from the colonial newspapers that it has been confirmed by the Legislative Council, subject to some modifications. He awaits the Governor's Report, and the law which will have to be enacted to give effect to the agreement; but, as at present advised, he does not think it necessary that the matter should be again submitted to the consideration of the constituencies.

  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether amongst the men discharged from Devon-

  897
  port Dockyard from time to time there are several who have served their apprenticeship there; and, whether he could take steps to avoid the loss of these men who have been trained and gained several years' experience at the expense of the country?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Among the men recently discharged from Devon-port Dockyard some had been apprentices in the yard. Though it is desirable to retain as many as possible of the men who have passed through their apprenticeship in the yard, I am unable to give any guarantee that none will be discharged in the future.

  SALVATION ARMY AND THE POLICE.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I wish to ask the Home Secretary what information he can give the House as to the collision between the police and the Salvation Army in the Strand on Wednesday evening, and whether the action of the police was taken under the proclamation in regard to Trafalgar Square?
  MR. GRAHAM: May I ask also whether the damage done will be made good by the Metropolitan Police?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that on the 24th inst. Mr. Booth, of the Salvation Army, wrote to him asking that arrangements might be made to facilitate the passage of a procession of about 1,000 strong from the City through the Strand to Exeter Hall. The Commissioner replied that this route would certainly cause obstruction and inconvenience, and he requested that the procession should go by way of the Embankment to Savoy Street, and proceed thence by twos or threes to Exeter Hall, so as not to interfere with the traffic. Mr. Booth repeated his request, and again received a similar reply. For the last two years Salvation Army processions going to Exeter Hall from the City have invariably taken the Embankment route. At 5?50 yesterday about 600 Salvationists, with bands and banners, arrived in the Strand from the City en route to Exeter Hall. They were allowed to proceed as far as Norfolk Street, being the most convenient way to the Embankment, and were there requested by the police to turn off. The leader of the procession objected, and decided to disperse the procession there
  898
  and then, telling the members of it to go on the pavement to Exeter Hall. The pavement was immediately thronged, and some people carried a large banner, which threatened damage to the shops and lamps, and caused much inconvenience. The police requested that this should be taken down. This was not done, and in the attempt to prevent its being carried some confusion took place and the banner was broken. No persons were arrested, and the damage caused by broken windows was accidental. Owing to the crowd the police had some difficulty in regulating the traffic, which was impeded for about 20 minutes. I am informed by the police that the account in the papers of what took place is much exaggerated. The police only interfered with the procession in consequence of the grave public inconvenience caused by a procession at that hour along a crowded thoroughfare like the Strand, and not in consequence of any regulations issued with regard to Trafalgar Square.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Under what statute did the police act?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The police, under a number of statutes that I need not enumerate, have power to regulate the traffic of the streets, and a body of 600 persons marching in procession with bands and banners through a crowded thoroughfare is a public nuisance.
  MR. HOWELL: May I ask under shat police regulations it was that the processionists were ordered to proceed in twos and threes?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The suggestion of the police to this effect was a suggestion of common sense.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSIs it not the fact that the Salvation Army have been allowed to proceed to Exeter Hall along the Strand on this occasion in the two previous years?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In the two previous years the procession proceeded along the Embankment.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Was the interference with this procession in consequence of the proclamation with regard to Trafalgar Square?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; quite irrespective of any proclamation.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to give notice that I will put a further question on the subject.
  DR. CLARK: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the procession proceeded quite quietly through the City, and that it only became a nuisance when it came within his jurisdiction?
  EARL COMPTON: Was the action taken by the police due to the fact that this was a procession of the Salvation Army?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly not. That had nothing in the world to do with it. Notice was given by Mr. Booth that a body of 1,000 persons was going to proceed along the Strand to Exeter Hall, and when the procession arrived the processionists were requested to take the route by the Embankment.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to give notice that on the Second Reading of the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill I will move that
  "This House declines to consider this Bill until the Local Government (scotland) Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill have passed through Committee."

  THE CASE OF THE DESERTER THOMPSON.
  MR. WADDY: I rise, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance—which is, the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and the Admiralty and Captain Woodward and other of Her Majesty's officers, under the direction and sanction of the Admiralty, as disclosed in the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in the case of "The Queen v. Woodward."
  MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the hon. Member that he is doubly precluded from bringing forward this Motion. The Vote the other night, as I understand, was purposely postponed, and now stands for the 1st of July, to enable the whole question to be gone into; and the hon. Member for Coventry has a Motion on the Paper to go into the whole question of the arrest of Thompson.
  MR. WADDY: I venture without questioning your ruling, Sir—["Order!"] I hope I may be permitted to indicate with great respect the difference which appears to me to exist between the two.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no difference. It would be a case of anticipation of the most decided character, and I cannot permit it.

MOTION.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE NOTIFICATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to provide for the Notification of Infectious Disease to Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Long.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 293.].

  COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAMBER (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No 216.]
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday 1st July, and to be printed. [Bill 290.]

  JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 217.]
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday 1st July, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to. be printed. [No. 218.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 218.]
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into Consideration upon Thursday 4th July, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL [LORDS] (No. 249.)
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL. (No. 285.)
  As amended, considered.
  SIR R. PAGET: I beg to trove the omission from Clause I of all the words after the word "Scotland" to the end of the first subsection. As it stands the clause seems to be of a somewhat misleading character, and it is with the desire of making it clearer that I propose to remove these words. I have already, in the Committee on the Bill, received from my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) the clearest assurance that the Board is not to be a consultative body, but is to be one analagous to the Local Government Board, and that the President is to be a responsible Minister, who cannot shelter himself behind the opinions or decisions of the members of the Board. My object is to secure that there shall be no doubt whatever in the matter, and that we shall have virtually a responsible Minister acting by himself and not even assisted by a consultative Board.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Scotland" to end of Sub-section 1.—(Sir R. Paget.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I do not know whether my hon. Friend wishes me to repeat the assurance I gave the Committee last Monday. If a Member of the Government repeats assurances he has given, it seems to me he almost weakens the force of the statements he has previously made. The House is generally prepared to accept a positive statement and engagement made by a Member of the Government on his responsibility; and I can only say I adhere to every word I used on Monday as to the absolute personal responsibility of the President of the Board. These words are not intended and shall not have the effect of lessening in any degree the responsibility of the President. It is not intended that by the admission of any other persons to this Board the President shall be able, in the slightest degree, to shelter himself from or relieve him-
  902
  self of that responsibility which is placed on him by this Bill, and which he will receive under the same conditions as the President of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board receive theirs. There are other reasons why this power of associating other members with him should exist. In order, however, to guard against the danger which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) referred to the other day, I propose to insert these words after the word "pleasure"—
  "Provided that the Board shall not be entitled to act unless the President or some one of the officers of State above-mentioned is present."
  The result will be that no official act of the Board can be done without the presence of a responsible minister. There may sometimes be reason for sudden and immediate action, and these words will prevent anything being done except with the consent of a responsible minister.
  MR. HENEAGE: I am quite willing to accept in perfectly good faith any expression of opinion which falls from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, but the right hon. Gentleman can only answer for the course of procedure of the present Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) established a Committee with a Vice President in this House, the object being that the Vice President should be responsible, but for the last two years we have had a state of things under which there is no responsible Minister in this House. The Vice President in charge of agriculture has become an absolute myth. He is a Member of the other House, and whether he does any work in the Committee on Agriculture we do not know. It would be perfectly fair for any future Government to read this Act in such a way that any Member of the Board might do the work of the President in his absence. I must say I do not think the Government are carrying out the undertaking given the other night to the effect that the President of the Board would be the Minister solely responsible, if we are to have a provision that the Board may meet and transact business in the absence of the President. If the words proposed be adopted, we shall be in exactly the same position as

  903
  we were in the first instance. Of course, after what has taken place, one is helpless in the matter. I received the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, and I accepted it in perfect good faith, but it seems to me that if these words are accepted the Minister at any possible time may be utterly irresponsible.
  SIR R. PAGET: The assurance of my right hon. Friend is so clear and so pronounced that, though I myself should infinitely prefer to leave these words out, I shall not press my Amendment to a division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after the word "pleasure" to insert:—
  "Provided that the Board shall not be entitled to aet unless the President or one of the officers of State above-mentioned is present." —(Mr. W. H. Smith)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I may be allowed to assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage) that these words have been most carefully drawn, and will, I believe, be sufficient for the purpose, but if it should be found that anything has been omitted a change can be made in another place.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman in all good faith, but I would ask whether, if the President is present, but does not agree with the decision of the Board, such decision will be an act of the Board.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understand that it is not contemplated for a moment that the Board shall control or interfere with the responsible Minister in the sense of a consultative body. I take it that the Minister for Agriculture will be as supreme in his own Department as the Presidents of the Board of Trade or Local Government Board are in theirs. I understand the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord to say that anybody who is put on the Board is to have really no executive power or responsibility at all. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) and the hon. Gentleman opposite may accept the proposed alteration as really, substantially, and, I think, wisely carrying out the intentions they have in view.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: An undertaking was given on Monday that we would consider whether "all" should be substituted for "such" in the 8th Section. We think it would be better to keep the wording of the clause as it is,
  MR. JEFFREYS: I wish to ask whether the new Board will take over the supervision of the new Inspectors?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): That will be considered, if necessary, under the provisions of the Bill, which enable such matters to he transferred.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not know whether the House will consent to the Third Reading of the Bill being taken now. There is practically no difference of opinion in the House upon the measure.
  Motion made, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 137.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to propose to leave out "(c) an assessor nominated by the Chancellor." The ground on which I make this proposal is that, as far as our experience has gone, the only result of the patron. age of the Chancellor has been to introduce another person of exactly the same stamp as the assessor nominated by the Senatus. During all these years, with scarcely a moment's interval, the University of Aberdeen has been under the control of a thoroughly reactionary Government not caring for the interests of education, and solely concerned with exercising the patronage of the University in a Tory and Church direction.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, line 32, leave out "(c) an assessor nominated by the Chancellor."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I cannot accept this Amendment. The office of Chancellor was established

  905
  as comparatively recently as 1858, and I think it most desirable that he should be represented on the Court for two reasons—in the first place, in order that his influence may be duly exercised at the primary stage of administration; and, secondly, in order that he may be in touch with the sentiments that prevail in that mixed body. At the last sitting of the Committee it was urged that there should be a representative of the town of St. Andrew's and one of the town of Dundee on the University Court of St. Andrew's. The Government thought it necessary to oppose both propositions having regard to the inferences which might be drawn from the adoption of either. As regards the question of St. Andrew's, which the House is now considering, I need hardly say that if it should meet the general views of the House, as indicated on the last occasion and also now, that there should be some strong local representation, the Government are quite prepared to carry out those views. I will go further, and say that various Amendments face us as regards like questions in the case of the other Universities; and the Government think it is perhaps right that the general public should be represented, and think it better that it should be a universal representation and not merely a local representation of the public. We propose in this Bill that the Crown should be vested with the nomination of two members. It appears that there is a strong feeling in some sections, I might almost say in all sections, of the House in favour of a more distinctively local representation than is implied in that method, and the Government are prepared to give way to this extent—that they will give one of the Crown nominees to be elected by the Town Councils of Glasgow and Aberdeen. The result will be that the shall put upon a completely symmetrical position the composition of the whole of the University Courts to this extent—that in each of them there will thus be two municipal representatives. In the case of St. Andrew's I think that even the hon. Member for St. Andrew's will hardly suggest that we should give at once the Provost a seat and an assessor elected by the Town Council another seat. But the Government think that the present affords a happy opportunity of dealing
  906
  with both the old and the new by giving a seat on the University Court to Dundee as well as to St. Andrew's. Accordingly, as the best and most dignified course for both these, the Government propose to seat the Provost of St. Andrew's and the Provost of Dundee on the -University Court of St. Andrew's. They propose to give the University Courts of Glasgow and Aberdeen another municipal member, their Provost being already seated; and, therefore, in each case there will be an assessor elected by these Town Councils. That does not require to be extended to Edinburgh, because Edinburgh is the centre from which we start, and is represented by its Provost and an Assessor. I hope that the Committee will consider that these are fair concessions on the part of the Government, and that it is a matter on which the Government should consider not merely the reasons, but the preferences, of all sections of the Committee. I have said that we propose to find the seats thus required by reducing the Crown nominees from two to one. I think the Committee generally will be of opinion that this is a fair holding of the balance between the general public and the local public. It would hardly be possible to justify the placing of the whole representation in the local communities unless the Universities were to renounce their claims to public recognition generally, and confine themselves to the localities in which they are situated. I think that that would be a mistake. I hope I have convinced the Committee of the desire of the Government to conciliate opinion on this subject; and in view of the concessions of the Government I trust I may appeal to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to curtail the discussion on the other points to be raised hereafter on this clause. As to increasing or decreasing the numbers of the University Courts, I believe there is a general agreement that the University Court is large enough in each case, and accordingly in proposing the curtailment of Crown nominations, we have had regard to what I believe is the prevailing feeling. But there is one other point upon which I hope to enlist the support and sympathy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has been suggested that we might find seats for the purposes

  907
  I have indicated by reducing the representation of the General Council and the Senatus. I deprecate the adoption of such a course, and for this reason. Down to, I may say, the day before yesterday, the whole of the reforming movement within the Universities was directed to increasing the representation of the General Council, who, we have always been told, are regarded as representing the general University public. It is only in this Parliamentary discussion that there has been anything urged in favour of this further representation of outside bodies. The Government has yielded to that; but before hon. Members think of cutting down the number of representatives sent by the General Council, I would ask them—Have they settled accounts with those who have hitherto been the University reformers? I have always understood that the desire of the General Council is to have four representatives, and that they will he content if they have the same number as the Senatus. That seems to afford an opportunity of carrying out various arrangements such as those which I believe were suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds. I have gone thus far for the purpose of showing that the Government have carefully considered the proposition now made, and I trust the Committee will forgive him for having taken this opportunity of making a statement which I hope will greatly facilitate the passing of this clause and of the Bill itself.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I am anxious at once to recognize in the fullest degree the spirit in which the Lord Advocate has addressed the Committee. All that we complained of on the last occasion was that there was not, as we thought, a sufficient disposition on the part of the Government to make concessions or to recognize the strong feeling that existed as to the necessity for local public control being more or less exercised in the affairs of the Universities. The learned Lord now proposes that there shall be two municipal representatives on the Court of each University. For my part, I cannot say that that is altogether a sufficient representation, but it is an adequate representation for our purpose at present. It is quite possible that in the future some means may be devised
  908
  for bringing in the opinion in that way, of what I may call the mother county of the University. But my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and others who have Amendments to that effect on the Paper, will recognize and admit that things are hardly ripe for entrusting to a County Council duties such as these, and I therefore should be disposed to suggest to my hon. Friends that they should be in the main content with the concessions which the Government have made. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to find his municipal representation by taking away one of the Crown nominees, but I think there are a good many of us who would prefer to see the other Crown nominee go by the board likewise, because they are not representatives of outside opinion in the same sense as those representatives sent by elected bodies. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will not understand us as accepting the alterations as wholly satisfactory. The Lord Advocate also objected to any diminution of the representation of the General Council, and of the Senatus Academicus. I will not, however, delay the proceedings of the Committee by discussing that matter. I will only express my opinion, and I think it will commend itself to hon. Members behind me, that the manner in which the learned Lord Advocate has met our wishes is for the moment satisfactory, and is as much as we could reasonably expect him to do.
  DR. CLARK: I have to congratulate the Lord Advocate on the statement he has made, a statement which will make the passage of the clause much easier. But the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the Provost, whereas the opinion of the House has been to drop the Provost and adopt an assessor elected by the Town Council. The Provost is a busy man whose entire time is taken up very often, and we shall not add to the strength of the University Court by placing this ex officio member upon it. I should also like to know whether the Government wish to give the Lord Rector, who is often a hack Party politician, a seat himself, and also an assessor. Lord Rectors are appointed for Party and political purposes.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Member thinks fit to describe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

  909
  Mid Lothian as a hack Party politician his argument applies, because he and many other able men have been Lord Rectors. It has also been found that the representation of the students by this means has had the effect of adding most valuable information to the Court, both in the person of the Lord Rector and of his assessor.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that the discussion is rather wandering from the immediate subject before the Committee. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen withdraws his Amendment we can go into this question.
  DR. HUNTER: I can hardly withdraw my Amendment at present.
  MR. WALLACE: I can scarcely express so much satisfaction with the statement of the Lord Advocate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order If the Amendment is not withdrawn the discussion must be confined to it.
  MR WALLACE: I was doing so, but had only got to the first half of the sentence, for I was about to say that what the Lord Advocate said has not convinced me of the desirability of withdrawing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I think it is desirable to withdraw the assessor of the Chancellor from the University Court. We have had complaints of the large and unwieldy character of the Court, in which I joined, and by withdrawing the Chancellor's assessor we should take one of the most innocent modes of lessening that difficulty, and that withdrawal would also have an important influence in adjusting the balance on these Courts between public opinion and purely academic union. There is too much of the academic element on the University Court. We do not want the popular element necessarily to be predominant, but we know that the tendency of academic bodies is to have a professional bias. With regard to the University of Edinburgh, I do not see why it should continue to have only two representatives of public opinion within the University Court. That University has always been one ahead of the others in this respect, and I do not see why that advantage should be taken away. But in connection with St. Andrew's there is this additional and peculiar reason for sacrificing
  910
  the Chancellor's assessor, that there the academic element is to be peculiarly prominent, for they are to have no less than three principals of colleges. It seems to me that that is too much, and that it would be well, especially in this case of St. Andrew's, to remove the one academic element which we could most safely abstract from the University Court—namely, the Chancellor's assessor.
  MR. JAMES A. CAMPBELL: May I remind the Committee that the Bill does not constitute a University Court for the first time, but is only improving a system with which we are already familiar. The Chancellor's assessor has been a member of the Court ever since there has been such a Court—viz., since 1858. It seems most natural that the Chancellor should be represented on the Court by an assessor. He is himself not a member of the Court; and although the highest office-bearer in the University, he is not called upon to take part in the administration of University affairs. It is a mere assumption to say that his assessor would necessarily strengthen the academic as contradistinguished from the popular element in the Court. I may also remind the Committee that the subject has been fully discussed in Scotland for years past by those most interested in urging reforms, and no objection has been raised to the continuance of the Chancellor's assessor as a member of the Court. It would, in my opinion, he undesirable to make changes upon a scheme which had been so carefully considered, and which had been agreed to as a proper compromise by all parties.
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities has told us this is a compromise come to with certain persons in Scotland—I suppose between the Universities and parties representing the reformers in the Universities. But our duty, as Members of this House, is to do what we believe to be best, independent of other influences and without considering whether it is necessary to propitiate particular persons who have any special interest in the matter. I do not think any substantial argument has been used to induce us to believe chat the Chancellor's assessor is a very useful member

  911
  of the University Court. He was appointed in 1858 as an experiment, and he has sat since then; and I venture to say, with some confidence, the experiment has not been a success. He has not been a very useful member of the Court. He is a person who personally has no connection with the University beyond his functions, which were created in 1858. In the case of the University of Edinburgh he is, as we know, the President of the Court of Session. But he is usually a great nobleman, not particularly versed in University affairs, and there is no reason why in those affairs his opinion should be valuable; in point of fact, he usually leaves such matters to some local and practical gentleman of his acquaintance. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh that the Chancellor's assessor represents the academical element. I should think better of him if he did. He does not represent any element at all. But coming back to the latter argument, is the Court already too large? The Lord Advocate said he thought the Court was quite large enough, and many of us are inclined to think it is too large, and that it might be cut down by at least four. The Court will consist of 16, and possibly of 19 or 20 members, a large body for working purposes; it would he a great deal better if the number did not exceed 11 or 12. I feel inclined to support my honourable colleague in striking out the Chancellor's assessor.
  MR. JAMES STUART: When the Chancellor's assessor was added to the Court, the difficulty was who to put on, but now the difficulty is, who are we to strike off? We do not strengthen the Court by adding numbers, for it is not likely that any questions will come to a division by a dead vote. You want a compact, workable body. Perhaps one of the principal functions of the Court will be the appointment of professors. I dare-say no Gentleman in the House has had a more varied experience in this respect than I have had of elections by large and small bodies. I can give an unqualified opinion, and I say the very best body to make a good choice is a small body who can sit round a table and discuss the merits of a professor whose appointment is under consideration, and the decision then will probably
  912
  be arrived at without the necessity of coming to a vote. You want a body small enough to feel individual responsibility, and you will not have cliques arising within the body who will make up their minds apart from the general body as to who is to be elected. I am sure those who have had experience will sympathize with the view I take. The size of the University Court, copied, I know, from the preceding Bill, is one of the blots of the present Bill. A Court nunbering 20 is far too large. I would rather have a Court no bigger than the present Court of St. Andrew's, numbering half a dozen. But I see the difficulty of always getting a Court together if it is so small, as well as other difficulties, but still I think a Court of moderate size short, if possible, of a dozen is most desirable. I hope the Government will not regard Amendments in this direction as being in any sense brought forward from a Party point of view. So far as I am concerned, I shall support Amendments as they come on, simply with the view of constituting a workably-sized Court, among the members of which there will be individual responsibility, each member fitted and suited to the functions to be discharged, not overloading a small, well-chosen body with ex officio members.
  SIR A. CAMPBELL: I cannot support this Amendment. It is admitted that the Chancellor is chosen as a man of ability and high position, and he has given him an assessor to fulfil the duties when the Chancellor is not able himself to be present; and I think the gentleman chosen to the high position of Chancellor of the University would give very serious consideration to the appointment of a person to act as his assessor. I am sure that to strike out the assessor of an independent man such as the Chancellor would be a means of reducing the Court that would seriously militate against its efficiency. I agree that it is desirable the Court should be small, but I cannot support this Amendment.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: If the only question before us were the suitability of the assessor of the Chancellor as a member of the Court, I should have considerable difficulty in supporting the Amendment, for I think so long as he is there, there is a good deal to be said for the Chancellor having some

  913
  share in the government of the University. On this account, if on no other, I take the view that my hon. Friend might be content to acquiesce in the concession of the Lord Advocate. At the same time, I feel that the Government have not shown themselves alive to the paramount importance of reducing the Court to a reasonable size. It is an overgrown Court, and that is a now feature introduced by the Bill. The effect will be to considerably reduce the individual responsibility of members in the distribution of patronage, and on that account I shall support the Amendment.
  MR. HALDANE: As regards assessors appointed by the Chancellor, I must say I do not think experience has shown that they have been appointed with any peculiar bias. I take "Oliver and Boyd's" list, and I find in Glasgow, for instance, that the assessor appointed by the Chancellor is Sir James King, and he, I think, is Lord Provost, and certainly does not represent any improper element. Then I find at St. Andrew's, the Chancellor's representative is the Earl of Elgin, a suitable person to have on the University Court, both from local knowledge and other reasons. At Aberdeen, the assessor of the Chancellor is Mr. Ramsay, a gentleman of whom I have no knowledge. Then at Edinburgh, I find the Chancellor's assessor is Mr. Graham Murray, a distinguished Edinburgh citizen, and a very proper representative to be on the Court. I only mention these names as indicating the class of persons it has been the practice to appoint. I think my hon. Friend might be content with the representative element contained in the Lord Advocate's proposal.
  MR. HUNTER: I am satisfied from the expression of opinion we have had that I ought not to press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK: The Commission, under Sub-section 12 of Section 14, are to have power to lay down regulations for the constitution and functions of the Students' Council of each University, and to frame regulations under which the Council is entitled to make representation to the University Court. Would it not be better to give the
  914
  Council direct representation on the University Court?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think, on the whole, it would be more expedient to abstain from making that change. The students have already plenty of electioneering, and I think the sense of the Committee is against the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment proposed, after line 33, to insert—
  "(e) The Provost of St. Andrew's for the time being; (f) the Provost of Dundee for the time being."—(The Lord Advocate,)
  DR. CAMERON: A short time ago my hon. Friend below me called attention to the advantages of not nominating the Provost, but of allowing the Town Council to select their own representative. No man is better qualified for a seat on the University Court than the present Lord Provost of Glasgow; and, as a matter of fact, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out he has been for some time, and is at present, a Member of the University Court as assessor for the Lord Chancellor. In this instance the Lord Provost is specially qualified, and is already provided with a seat; but, as a rule, would it not be better to allow Town Councils to elect their representative? The Lord Provost in a large town has an immense amount of work to do; he is ex officio a member of all the Committees of the Town Council; his work is arduous and important, and he is elected because of his qualifications for the office of Provost, not because of any fitness or taste for matters connected with University administration. But on the Town Council there may be found excellent men who would fill the position of municipal assessor in these University Courts in the best possible manner. Take the case of Dundee. I do not know who the Provost may be, but I will venture to say that it is probable that among the ex-Provosts, or the more leisured class of Town Councillors, you would find a representative at least as well qualified as the Provost, and certainly able to give more time to the duties of the office. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have received a certain amount of concession, and I do not propose to do more than throw this out as a suggestion. The Lord Provost

  915
  of Glasgow is ex officio the occupant of many positions. I have often thought of bringing in a Bill enabling a man to relinquish some of his ex officio duties, but it is absurd when a man is encumbered with the duties of a number of offices to thrust upon him another office which might be better filled with more advantage to the University and in accordance with popular representation by an elected assessor.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this question; it was a demand made by the Scotch Members on the last occasion. The concession made by the Government to meet our wishes calls for some acknowledgment, and this I make most fairly. On the other hand I think it is a most difficult question to decide whether the municipal representation should be provided by election or whether it should be vested in the highest City officer. On the whole I am inclined to think it is better to have it attached to the office of Provost, for I do not think we can too much magnify the importance and dignity of the Chief Magistrates of these great cities, and these duties will be accepted as honourable and dignified additions to the functions of the office. I am glad my hon. Friend does not propose to spoil the grace of the concession on the present occasion by challenging this principle. There is only one small Amendment which for a special reason I offer for consideration. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman refers to the "Provost" of Dundee, and I daresay he anticipates the point I am coming to. The Tight hon. Gentleman knows that there has been conferred upon Dundee the dignity of a City, and one consequence of this change in its constitution is that the Chief Magistrate has—I do not know whether by the advice or with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman—assumed the style and title of "Lord" Provost. It does not become me, as a Member of the Radical Party, to insist upon the importance of titular distinction, and I do not put it upon this ground; but as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are many people who attribute some importance to these things. I have been advised that the legality, or at all events the propriety of the assumption of the title by the Chief Magistrate of Dundee, will be more or less
  916
  determined by the style in which he is alluded to in Acts of Parliament. This, I believe, will be the first Act passed since the assumption of the title which, if recognized here, will settle his style and dignity for the future in a manner consonant with the wishes of the people of Dundee. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not object to the insertion of the word "Lord" before Provost of Dundee.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: As an ex-Lord Provost and probably the only one in the House, I may be allowed a word or two. It is true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has said, many duties attach ex officio to the Lord Provost, but I think also that these functions are such as any city would be proud of having vested in its Chief Magistrate. Though the Lord Provost is ex officio a member of all the Town Committees, it is not expected that he shall give attention to the details with which the smaller Committees are concerned. There is much to be said in favour of attaching the University Court to the office of Chief Magistrate. We must not look a gift horse in the mouth too closely, but should accept without hesitation this honour the Government has agreed to confer upon the representatives of these University cities.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: I should fail in my duty if, as Member for St. Andrew's, I did not take the opportunity of thanking the Lord Advocate and the Government for having made a graceful concession to the views we advanced on a previous occasion. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, I think it right to state that I have been in communication with the Town Council of St. Andrew's on the point, and the view indicated to me is that it would be more acceptable that there should be a power of appointing an assessor, rather than that the Chief Magistrate should be ex officio a member of the University Court. Personally, I have no very strong feeling in the matter. I put down an Amendment on a previous occasion as being the most modest demand I could decently make, but I have no objection to offer to the proposal of the Lord Advocate.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the Committee is now ready to come to

  917
  a decision, and I judge the prevailing view to be in favour of the Amendment as it stands. As to the point raised with good humour by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee, I am afraid I could not take the step he suggests without offending the susceptibilities of the hon. Member who has just sat down as representing the ancient cathedral town of St. Andrew's. I defer so far to the views of the hon. Member for Dundee as to express an opinion that nothing in this enactment will prejudice any claim put forward to the style and title of Lord Provost of Dundee.
  MR. BARCLAY: I do not agree with the Lord Advocate that it is the opinion of the Committee that the Provost should sit as assessor in the University Court. Our object is not to add to the dignity of the position of Provost of St. Andrews or Dundee, but to constitute the best University Court that can be devised. If either the Lord Provost of Dundee or the Lord Provost of St. Andrews—to give equality of title—are supposed by the Town Council to be the man best qualified to sit in the University Court, then by all means let him be appointed by the Town Council. In the case of Dundee there is this difficulty—that there is a considerable distance to travel to attend the sittings of the University Court at St. Andrews. No doubt, however, if the Lord Provost saw it was compatible with his other duties to attend, the Town Council would appoint him if specially qualified. But I am strongly of opinion that it should be left to the Town Council to appoint the man whom they think best qualified to act as their assessor.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I must protest against St. Andrews being called a Cathedral town; we abolished the Cathedral 350 years ago. An ancient city it is, and it has been called by one right hon. Gentleman an ancient and Royal burgh; but I think he must have been thinking of the Golf Club, which is really ancient. As to the question before us, while acknowledging the concession made by the Government, I should myself prefer it in the other form, and this I do considering it particularly in connection with St. Andrews. You want special qualifications for these educational matters. The Lord Provost might be an excellent
  918
  official, from an administrative point of view, but perhaps not the best choice in other respects for an assessor in the University Court. The function of St. Andrews has become in a great measure the education of schoolmasters. We are to have a certain amount of the lay element in the University Court, and in view of the difficulty we have in getting schoolmasters adapted to modern requirements it is important that you should have in your lay element a strong influence as representing popular requirements, to counteract the tendency to a too academic system in the University. But it is not a matter to fight about. I only express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the propriety of allowing a fair proportion of local popular representation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BRYCE: Considering that the Lord Advocate has gone a good way, if not all the way, we desire, it would be rather undesirable I should divide the Committee on the next Amendment, which is to substitute "two" for "four" in line 7. I do propose, however, to divide the Committee on an Amendment lower down relating to the Crown Assessors.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I have an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, but I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to move the omission of the words "four assessors," in line 34, in order to insert "one assessor." The University Council was an institution invented in the year 1858, before which time the Scotch Universities had no experience of any such institution. The father of that scheme must be conscious that it has been very far indeed from realizing his expectations. I have more than one objection to increasing by a single vote the power of the University Council. In the first place, you do not increase the power of the students. I do not know what is the case in other Universities; but I do know that in the case of the Aberdeen University the only improvements we ever obtained from the University Court were the result of the election of Sir Mountstuart Grant Duff by the University students. I protest very strongly against increasing the power of

  919
  the graduates without some corresponding increase in the power of the students. Let me point out how utterly unwieldy and unsatisfactory a body the University Council is for electing persons to the University Court. A single circular sent out in the case of the University Council of Aberdeen, and that is the smallest with the exception of St. Andrews, costs £20; and if there is any dispute as to the appointment of an assessor it is scarcely possible for any member to become a candidate without paying from £70 to £100. The other day I cast my eye over the list of graduates and the members of the University Council of Aberdeen, and I find that two-fifths of them are situated at a distance from Aberdeen, which made it impossible for them to attend the meetings of the University Council. We all know that the attendance at the half-yearly meeting of the University Council is ridiculously small. When the Council was first started it was hailed with great enthusiasm, and I remember the time when 120 were present at a division. I dare say that now you would not get 30 people to go near the place. The graduates are tired of playing at debating society work, and the consequence is that the University Council no longer excites any real interest. The fact is, the Conservatives and the Established Church people send out a Whip on the occasion of an election, and there is a Party fight of the most objectionable kind. In 1872, three or four of us thought we would like to elect a man holding our own views. We wrote to our friends and got up a list of 70 members. We then issued a Circular. The enemy became demoralized and alarmed. They withdrew their men and our candidate was elected. I consider that it is ample and sufficient to have one assessor, and that to increase the number to four is only to aggravate the evils.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, line 31, leave out "four," in order to insert "one."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That ' four' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: My hon. Friend has advanced an admirable argument why "one" should not be substituted for "four." He states that, under present circumstances, the pre-
  920
  dominant party of a University always appoint a member to suit them, and he said that the Tories and the clergy in the case of Aberdeen always appointed a member to represent themselves. The object of appointing four assessors to the General Council is that there shall be a distribution of representation, that the Faculty of Medicine, of Law, of Divinity, and of Arts should each have the opportunity of being represented by persons with strong proclivities in the direction of that particular kind of study. I think that "four" will popularize the council very much better than "one," and that "one" will always have the effect of leaving the representation in the hands of the predominant party.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not quite see how the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to be carried out except by the adoption of such an Amendment as is now before the Committee. I am bound to say the bon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has justified the Amendment on grounds which I suppose may be called general, although they were confined a good deal to the special case of the University of Aberdeen. In the case of the University of St. Andrew's there is a greater need of restriction than in that of any other University. The General Council of St. Andrew's is very large compared with the size of the University. The constituency is widespread, and I should think the proportion of members who attend the meetings is smaller than that attending the meetings of other councils. Indeed, it is a matter of common repute that the General Council of St. Andrew's is very much an instrument of the professors.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: There are two reasons for the acceptance of this Amendment. In the first place, there is a general consensus of opinion that the University Court is too numerous; and, secondly, it is notorious that the constituency of St. Andrew's is composed of medical men scattered all over the world. It is well-known that formerly the medical degrees of St. Andrew's could be bought with the greatest ease. ["Oh, oh!"] I admit that of recent years that has abated. The Representative Council of St. Andrew's is not a satisfactory body. I hope the medical school of Dundee will remedy this defect. In that case we should have a real medical

  921
  school in connection with the University of St. Andrew s.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Kr. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING,): I think I should be wanting in my duty to St. Andrew's if I did not meet the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what may have been the state of matters a great many years ago; but certainly the present medical graduates of St. Andrew's have all undergone a stringent examination. As to the general question, I entreat the Committee to remember the history of this whole matter of University Reform. It originated with the members of the General Council. Their claim to representation has been admitted by successive Governments, and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Leeds has cast the weight of his great authority in favour of the proposal of the Government. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member by their Bill of 1885 fixed the representation of the general council at three members, but by the Bill of last year the number was extended to four. The principle of representing them fully has therefore been conceded on both sides of the House, and it would be exceedingly unfair were we now, at the last moment, to turn round and make this alarming reduction.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I am sorry to find myself no longer in sympathy with the lion. Member for Aberdeen, and unable to support this Amendment. It is possible that many of the Councils have tended to fall asleep, as many bodies of that sort do; but, taken at their worst, they are a nearer approximation to the representation of popular opinion than anything else within the walls of the University. They are the body from whom this impetus for reform has come, and I think my hon. Friend has hardly realized what the practical effect will be of cutting down the representation of the General Council. I agree with all that has been said as to the Court being too large; but it is not so very easy to alter it now, and if a reduction of the Court is to be made by taking away representatives nominated by the General Council, it will increase
  922
  immensely on the Court the very party which we think is over represented already. We have the representatives of the Senate, we have the Principal's, the Chancellor's, and the Rector's assessors, —and here I may say I agree with what has been said as to the assessor nominated by the Chancellor—we shall have eleven coming from these sources, and I think we should, therefore, have at least four members coming from the General Council. I cannot support the Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELL: I also am sorry to be obliged to object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. It is well known, as to the University of Glasgow, that the General Council are the leading spirits in University reform, and the object of having four assessors nominated by the General Council was to counterbalance the other members. These representatives, it seems to me, are just those most likely to look at matters from a practical, as apart from an academic, point of view.
  MR. HUNTER: If I could have taken the view entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) I would not have brought forward the Amendment. I think we have discussed the proposal at sufficient length, and I must say I have not received sufficient support to justify me in carrying the Amendment to a Division.
  DR. CLARK: Before this Amendment is withdrawn, I desire to say that, to my mind, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy has made a most unjustifiable attack on the University of St. Andrew's. I think the graduates of St. Andrew's will bear comparison with those of any other University. There is no necessity for it to pass incompetent men, because where they are limited to 10 they can generally get 20 or 30 students.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I made no attack on the University of St. Andrew's, but merely on the Medical Faculty. I admit that lately there has been a fair examination for medical degrees; but I say that the people who go to St. Andrew's for these degrees, as a rule, do rot belong to the locality.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, Clause 5, page 2, line 35, leave cut "four" and insert "three."—(The Lord Advocate).
  Question proposed, "That the word three ' be there inserted."
  MR. HUNTER: There can be no doubt that this representation of professors is excessive compared with the other members of the Council. I have had a little experience of the government of a College, which has not the advantage of great endowment, but which has rendered distinguished service—I mean the University College of London. The professors of University College used to complain that on their Council, which corresponds with the University Court, there was not a single professor. There was great jealousy in admitting the professors. Ultimately, I believe, they did admit one. Well, I believe that it would be desirable that there should be one member of the Senatus on the University Court for the purpose of communicating the views of the Senatus to the Court, and the views of the Court to the Senatus; but to give these gentlemen a voting power is an entire mistake. It ought to be reduced to a minimum, because the function of the University Court is to control the professoriate. If this form of University Court is adopted in Aberdeen University, for instance—and I am speaking from 25 years' experience of the working of the Court there—the consequences will be most prejudicial to the cause of education and most injurious to the University. I am in favour of one assessor only, and I think they will be well advised if, having abandoned the number four, they reduce it to one.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I hope the number will not be reduced beyond three. To do so will be to cripple greatly the Court of St. Andrews for the work which the Bill casts upon it. The measure proposes greatly to increase the responsibility of the Court, and it is, therefore, necessary that there should be upon it a sufficient number of those acquainted with the working of the University.
  DR. CLARK: It is suggested that the number should be "two" instead of "four." When we have taken a division on the present Amendment, it will be competent, I presume, for the
  924
  Member for Aberdeen to move that "two" be inserted?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question is that "throe" be inserted. Of course, if that is carried, there is an end of the matter. If, however, it is lost, it will be competent for the hon. Member to move to insert "two."
  DR. CLARK: I would ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) not to press his suggestion, but to wait for the Amendment of the other Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) who proposes to substitute "two" for "four."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question is that "three" be inserted, and the division must be taken on that.
  DR. CAMERON: I would support the proposal to alter the figure to "two."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 197: Noes 116.—(Division List, No. 159.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I move the omission from Clause 5, line 36, page 2, of the words "two assessors" in order to insert the words "one assessor."
  MR. BRYCE: My objection to an assessor nominated by the Crown is, first of all, that the Court will be too large, and I should prefer a smaller body of between 7 and 13; and, beyond this, I do not see that anything is to be gained by the appointment of a Crown assessor. It is impossible for the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate to know who is the best and fittest person, and what is the position in the University Court which applies to any particular individual. The result would, in fact, be simply this—that the Secretary of State would write down to the Commissioners and ask "whom do you appoint as assessors," and the appointment would become a mere act of Crown patronage. The experience we have already had of Crown appointments does not lead us to desire to increase the number even by one, and, consequently, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to the withdrawal of the proposal altogether.
  Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There is a good deal that may be said in favour of the proposal on the one hand, and on the other there is much that may be said against it; but, as I do not see that it is one that recommends itself to the

  925
  feeling of the Committee generally I am prepared to give way upon it.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate what he is going to do with the corresponding clauses relating to the other Universities? What, for instance, does he propose with regard to the University of Edinburgh?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have no hesitation in saying that my action in this instance will apply to every case.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the proposal for two assessors to be nominated by the Crown upon the Court of the Edinburgh University?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Certainly, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 5, page 2, line 36, that the words "two assessors nominated by the Crown," be omitted.
  Agreed to.
  DR. CAMERON: I have to move the omission from lines 37 and 38 of Clause 5, of the words "not exceeding four in all." As the clause stands, in Glasgow, for instance, there will be two new colleges applying for affiliation right off, and we may soon have at Paisley and other places round Glasgow other colleges that will also apply to be affiliated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has very properly proposed to deal in the same way with the Constitution of the Courts in all the Universities, a circumstance that very greatly simplifies the matter, and impels me to move this Amendment in connection with the University of St. Andrew's. The object of the Amendment is this: if the clause is passed as it stands, and a single college is affiliated to the University of Glasgow, the result will be that if that college should get four representatives, other colleges that may be afterwards affiliated will have none. As the Bill was originally drafted, the words I propose to admit, "not exceeding four in all," were not in it, but were inserted afterwards, in order that the representatives of the affiliated colleges might not be so numerous as to swamp the representatives of the Universities on the Council. But this contingency is provided against by a clause inserted in a subsequent part of the Bill, which provides that the representatives of
  926
  affiliated colleges in the University Courts shall not vote on any question affecting the funds belonging to the Universities—a clause which does away with the necessity for the limitation I propose to remove. If my Amendment be carried it will simply allow a discretion to the University Commissioners or the Committee of Privy Council to regulate the number of representatives, which they would probably do by granting one representative to each affiliated college. The clause as it stands would, in my opinion, militate against one of the most important objects of the Bill—namely, the representation of each of the affiliated colleges.
  Amendment proposed, in clause 5, lines 37 and 38, to omit the words, "not to exceed four in all."—(Dr. Cameron).
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING: I would point out, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment, that it has been strongly urged on the Committee that the University Courts ought not to be enlarged, and we have, accordingly, been engaged in endeavouring to reduce them. As this Amendment might have a tendency to increase rather than diminish the number of representatives composing the Court, I do not think we ought to assent to it. At the present moment we are scarcely in a position to say whether four representatives as proposed by the clause would be too many or too few, and it ought to be remembered that the idea of affiliation, as a rule, has reference only to graduation. If it should turn out that the number of colleges desirous of being affiliated should be so large as to require further representation, it will be easy to meet the difficulty by the introduction of a very simple measure. I would, there fore, ask the hon. Member to allow the clause to stand as it is, leaving the point he has suggested as a matter for further consideration if necessary.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division have shown that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in this clause which ought to be cleared up by the Government. The hon. Member assumed that

  927
  one affiliated college might have the whole of the four representatives provided for in the clause to the exclusion of other colleges that might afterwards be affiliated. I confess that I had read the clause differently, the meaning I attached to it being that there shall be four representatives of four single colleges. If this is not made sufficiently clear in the wording of the clause it ought to be made clear, because, in my opinion, it would be wrong to put it in the power of the Commissioners to give four representatives to any one affiliated college to the exclusion of other colleges which might also be affiliated. For my part, in the interests of the Universities, I object to the Amendment, and hope it will not be pressed, as I think that four representatives of four colleges will, for the present, be ample.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think it evident, from the fact that the Bill proposes to give powers to the Commissioners to make ordinances to extend any of the Universities by affiliating new colleges to them under regulations to be laid down by the Commissioners, that it has been in contemplation of the framers of the measure that there should be more than one representative for each college. For my part, I cannot see the use of the limitation proposed by the clause. It has been suggested by the learned Solicitor General for Scotland that in case of its being found needful fresh legislation might be introduced; but I think that while we are legislating on this subject we ought to do what it is desirable should be done once and for all. Under the 15th Clause it is pretty certain that the Commissioners will give representatives to the affiliated colleges very sparingly; but if a large number of colleges should claim affiliation, I do not see why it should be again necessary to take up the time of Parliament by bringing forward fresh proposals.
  MR. CALDWELL: The object we have in view in this matter is to see that the popular element shall be admitted to the University Courts, and if you were to have one college with three or four representatives, thereby excluding the others, this principle would be entirely upset.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The object of the limitation inserted in the
  928
  clause was that the University body should not be swamped by the representatives of external interests, and I have no doubt that the University Court, after the expiry of the powers of the Commissioners, will have due regard to the equitable and due proportions of representatives.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. BLANE: I think there should be some representation of the Catholic minority on this University Board, and I propose that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow should have a seat upon it. If he had a seat upon the Court it would be giving a representation to one-sixteenth of the whole. I ask you to be as tolerant of the Catholics in Scotland as the Catholics of Ireland are tolerant of the Presbyterians. Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, after line 7, insert, "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow for the time being.'"—(Mr. Blane.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have no doubt that the distinguished Prelate named would be well acquainted with educational subjects, and would be a useful member of an educational governing body. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman will see that I could not accept this Amendment without finding seats for other and larger religious communities of the country.
  MR. BLANE: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is entirely weak. He puts a theological test in the Bill, and then puts it forward as an argument against our representation. And this theological test is so absurd that they claim the divine right of private judgment.
  MR. WALLACE: I am prepared to do my best to destroy anything in the nature of a theological test in the Bill. But whatever theological test may be in the Bill, there is none for membership of the University Court, and that is the point of the Bill which is at present under discussion. I think the difficulty which the Lord Advocate put is really unanswerable, and it seems to me insurmountable. If we were to give a seat to one particular religious connection, we could give nothing less to every religious denomination in

  929
  Scotland. There are, I think, as nearly as possible 57 separate religious denominations in Scotland. I shall be exceedingly glad to do all I can to assist my hon. Friend in expelling anything in the nature of theological intolerance or theological tests from this Bill, and I trust we shall have his valuable assistance on that occasion. At the present moment, and in the present connection, I do not see how it is possible, on practical grounds, to assist him in this matter.
  DR. CAMERON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press this matter to a division. I have known the Archbishop of Glasgow for a great number of years, and I am sure every Colleague of mine in this House will bear me out in saying that there is not in Glasgow a man who is more widely beloved and respected than its present Archbishop. He is a scholarly man, and one whom it is very desirable to have on the University Court. But, of course, Scotchmen are required to vote in accordance with principle, and I would rather not see the Amendment pressed to a division, because, in voting against it, our votes might bear a personal construction, which, I am certain, none of us would like put upon it. I am sure the Archbishop has only to express a personal wish, and by popular election he would certainly be returned a member of the University Court.
  MR. BLANE: In consequence of the appeal made to me by the Scotch Members, who ought to know their own business best, I shall withdraw this Amendment. The reason I brought if forward was that I wish the same tolerance to be shown to Catholics in Scotland as the Catholics in Ireland show towards Dissenters in Ireland. It was on that ground I brought the Amendment forward, though I find it is not very generally accepted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELL: I wish to move an Amendment to apply the same principle to the College of St. Mungo in Glasgow as has been applied in the case of the University College of Dundee, and. that the College of St. Mungo shall be affiliated and made to form part of the University. When this Bill passed through the House of Lords, the St. Mungo College had not been incor-
  930
  porated. Since the Bill passed through the Lords St. Mango College has been incorporated. It has a thoroughly equipped medical school, far superior to anything possessed by Dundee, which is in relation with the Royal Infirmary of Glasgow the largest hospital in Scotland. It affords opportunities for practising surgery, and in addition the students of St. Mungo's are qualified for practising medicine.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 3, after "principal," insert the words—
  "At present in existence in the University, the Principal of St. Mungo's College, if and when the said College shall be affiliated to form part of the University."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Anyone acquainted with the relative positions of St. Andrew's and Glasgow Universities, knows that St. Andrew's is to a large extent associated with the University College of Dundee. In the case of Glasgow that is not so. It is absolutely impossible to single out cases of this kind, and to confer representation. There is really no precedent in the case of Dundee for the proposal of the hon. Member.
  DR. CLARK: I think it is a great mistake to have a number of principals, and you would be still further increasing the number by agreeing to this Amendment.
  Question put and negatived.
  DR. CAMERON: I would point out to the Committee that Clause 5 would have the effect of turning out of the University Court a very capable member of it. Sir James King, the present Lord Provost of Glasgow, has been a member of the University Court for a very long time. If you pass the Bill as it stands, instead of having a permanent seat as assessor for the Lord Chancellor, he will have a temporary seat as Lord Provost of Glasgow, and when his period of office expires, he will go out, and you will thus lose one of the ablest and most assiduous member of the University Court. Would it not be much better at once to let the Lord Povost and Town Councillors select their own man? If you wanted an illustration, you could not have a better one than

  931
  where the Lord Provost is at present the Lord Chancellor's assessor, and where you disfranchise him if you pass the Bill as it stands.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 4, leave out "the Lord Provost of Glasgow for the time being," and insert—
  "An assessor nominated by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Glasgow."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. CALDWELL: I think this question should be determined without reference to the present holder of the office. Let us look at what would be the result. If the Town Council exercised the right of appointing their assessor, you would have an assessor sitting practically for a lifetime. The appointment would be renewed, and you would have the University Court occupied by a body of men who had life appointments. In the case of the Lord Provost, he would retire every three years, and you would in that way have the advantage of a change of Lord Provosts. I think it would be a great advantage that those who represent the Town Council should be popularly elected and liable to change. Another point is that it would give a status to the position of the Lord Provost, and would interest him in University matters, because he would be compelled personally to take part in a great many of those important functions which are performed by the Universities, and he might exercise more influential action on questions of reform than a mere assessor appointed from time to time.
  MR. BARCLAY: Of course, if the assessor prove satisfactory to the Town Council, he will very probably be continued in office. If you tie him down to the Lord Provost for the time being, there would be considerable difficulty in the way of having a satisfactory assessor, representative of the town of Glasgow and the University Court. The object is to secure the best man qualified to represent the city and the University Court. I have no doubt whatever that the Town Council would elect the Lord Provost for the time being, if they thought he was the more suitable person; but if there were some
  932
  other person pre-eminently qualified for office, they would not hesitate to go outside the Town Council to appoint him. If this wore a purely ornamental office and no duties attached, then by all means let the Lord Provost be selected. But the office has duties attached to it in connection with the administration of the affairs of the University, and I am very sure that the position of the representation will be improved by having an assessor elected by the Town Council and not fixing it upon the head officer.
  DR. CLARK: I do not think you should tie the hands of the Town Council, and limit them to their Provost, for there might be those outside who took great interest in the matter, like the hon. Gentleman now Member for the University. I think it would be a great mistake to make a General ex officio member.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I hope the Committee will have no difficulty in disposing of this Amendment. I would remind them of what they have already done. They have deliberately given a place on the Court of St. Andrew's University to the Provost of St. Andrew's, and now there is actually hesitation on the part of some hon. Members about placing the Lord Provost of Glasgow on the University Court of Glasgow University. Surely bon. Members must have forgotten what was done in the case of St. Andrew's, when they object to the Lord Provost of Glasgow being placed upon the Glasgow Court.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 6, insert, "Assessor appointed by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Glasgow." (The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. CLARK: There is another body which I think is equally entitled to representation in the University Court, and that is the School Board. I think we cannot introduce too much of the popular element into the close academic ring. I therefore propose to enable the School Board to nominate an assessor.
  Amendment proposed, same clause, after word "Glasgow," insert "An assessor nominated by the School Board of Glasgow."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not see how it is possible thus to give recognition to all these bodies. It is easy to support these proposals by plausible considerations, but we really must draw a line somewhere. I think on the whole the Committee is well satisfied with the composition of the Court.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: There is another consideration to be borne in mind. In Glasgow and Edinburgh you give an assessor as well as the Provost a seat on the University Court, but you give nothing to the counties. I think more consideration should be shown for the County Councils than for the School Boards. You have already got popular representation in the Courts.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 9, leave out "two" and insert "one."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, lines 10 and 11, leave out "not exceeding four in all."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed in Clause 5, page 3, line 19, insert "Two assessors nominated by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Aberdeen." (Mr. Bryce.)
  MR. BRYCE: I think it would be worse to appoint two Assessors instead of one as proposed by the Bill, considering the extent of the University work in Aberdeen, but considering the way in which our advances have been met, and the kind of the compromise arrived at. I do not propose to persevere with the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WALLACE: In the next Amendment, which stands in my name, I had proposed to insert three assessors, instead of one assessor, but, after what occurred to-day, I shall confine my proposition to the insertion of two assessors, and I shall be curious to hear the reasoning by which the Lord Advocate intends to justify the change of principle on which he is dealing with the University of Edinburgh. That city, for reasons already explained, has held a somewhat exceptional position on
  934
  account of the history of the municipality in connection with University education, and that position it was proposed to recognize by giving the municipality of Edinburgh an additional element of representation over and above that given in the other municipalities in which Universities are situated. But under the present proposal of the Government it is proposed to place Edinburgh on exactly the same footing as the other University towns and cities. I want to know why that distinction is to be withdrawn from Edinburgh, for the facts are precisely the same now as they were two nights ago when the Solicitor General for Scotland spoke of the claims of Edinburgh to exceptional treatment. I intend, certainly, to take a division on this question if the Government do not give us a reasonable concession.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 3, line 33, to leave out the words "an assessor," and insert the words "two assessors."—(Mr. Wallace.)
  Question proposed, "That the words an assessor' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING: I shall certainly not unsay anything I said the other night in praise of the historical conduct of the Edinburgh Council towards the University. The point now raised is one mainly of dignity, and the hon. Member has not shown how the Edinburgh Town Council is in the least degree prejudiced by the Government proposal to give to other -University towns a similar representation to that enjoyed by Edinburgh. I think the municipality of Edinburgh would be the last body in the world to grudge such a grant, simply because it has been made to another Council. I fail to see how the Government proposal destroys the distinctive position of the Town Council of Edinburgh. Under this Bill it will still retain an exceptional advantage over all other Town Councils in Scotland because we propose to retain the Curatorial Court, which does not exist in any other University, and upon which the Town Council of Edinburgh is very largely represented.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think that the learned Solicitor General quite appreciates the argument of my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly there is a representation of Edinburgh City on the

  935
  governing body of the University, but it is a diminished representation. At present the city representatives on the Court are two out of eight; on the new Court under the Bill they will be two out of sixteen. I hope the Lord Advocate will see fit to restore Edinburgh to the position which it formerly occupied.
  MR. CALDWELL: Allow me to point out that we have throughout accepted in this Bill the principle of uniformity, and I do not see why Edinburgh should be treated differently from Glasgow in this matter. The people of Edinburgh of to-day have not done more for their University than have the present population of Glasgow dono for theirs. If the Government concede the demand now made on behalf of the Edinburgh Town Council, I give them notice that, on Report, we shall ask them to make a similar concession to Glasgow.
  MR. WALLACE: I must say that the argument of the Solicitor General seems to me simply to advance the arithmetical paradox that there is no difference between one and nothing, and to a body which formerly had one more representative than its neighbours, is exactly in the same position when it is going to have no more. I confess that the subtlety of that reasoning is utterly be yond my grasp. The hon. and learned Gentleman stands by his historical statement, but he does not stand by the inference which he drew from it. This is not a mere matter of dignity. The claim is advanced on behalf of Edinburgh on the ground of its history and its proved utility and educational traditions; and we want to maintain on the Court the efficiency in that respect of the Edinburgh municipality. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will have very great difficulty indeed in satisfying his academical constituency that he merits their confidence in the treatment which he is applying to this matter.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 61.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The Committee will observe that after the word "of," in line 23, I propose to insert "St. Andrew's." Provision is made as to the first election of assessors in the case of the Edinburgh and Glasgow and Aber-
  936
  deen Universities. Whether by mistake or otherwise St. Andrew's is omitted.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 4, line 23 after "of" insert "St. Andrew's."
  MR. M. T. S. DARLING: It is certainly not by mistake that St. Andrew's has been omitted. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 16 he will see that provision is distinctly made for the first election at St. Andrew's. The object we have in view is that the election at St. Andrew's shall not take place until after the affiliation of Dundee.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Will the result be that in the event of affiliation never taking place there will be no election? The simplest way would be to put St. Andrew's on the same footing as the other Universities. The affiliation is not a certainty.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the notices of Amendments to Clause 16, he will find I propose to move the insertion of the words—
  "and, in the event of such affiliation not taking place within such time after the passing of this Act as the Commissioners shall consider reasonable, they may regulate the time, place, and manner of such election as seems to them best."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman may meet the case, and, therefore, I will not press mine.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The object of this and the consequential Amendment is to make this part of the Bill clearer. The paragraph under consideration treats in its first lines of the assessors of General Council and the assessors of Senatus, but the latter part of the paragraph refers to the assessors of General Council only. My Amendments would make this paragraph deal from the beginning with the council assessors only, and would introduce a separate paragraph for the assessors of the Senatus.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, lines 27 and 28, to leave out "and the assessor of the Senatus Academicus."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  Question, "That these words stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, page 4, line 29, leave out "respectively."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  Question, "That respectively' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  SIR. PLAYFAIR: The next Amendment, and a number of consequential Amendments, have been framed to provide for the election of two assessors every two years, instead of there being an election of one every year. The reason for the change is twofold: firstly, that it is a very costly thing to send out a circular to 6,900 members, as in the case of the Edinburgh University; and, secondly, that the electing of one assessor every year gives a predominant interest to a particular class. If the theological interest predominates, and one assessor is to be appointed, it is very likely the assessor will be appointed by that interest; if the medical interest predominates, the assessor will very likely be returned by that interest; whereas, if you have two assessors elected every two years, you are likely to have the different interests represented by the University obtaining one representative of each. I think that academically and economically this Amendment is desirable; its adoption would certainly simplify the working of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, page 4, line 29, leave out "four," and insert "two."—(Sir L. Playfair.)
  Question proposed, "That 'four' stands part of the Clause."
  MR. CALDWELL: It is very desirable we should have an appointment every two years, but it is not necessary that the members so appointed should retain office only for two years, which this Amendment practically provides.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: The hon. Member does not quite understand the meaning of the Amendment. All the members will ultimately remain for four years, but two will go out at a time.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That 'two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I propose to insert after the words last inserted—
  "No member of the Senatus Academicus shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any assessor of the General Council."
  There is a considerable feeling among a good number of members who take an interest in this question, that the Senatus Academicus have got to the very full their share of representation, Is it agreed?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONsignified assent.
  Amendment proposed, page 4, after the words last inserted, insert —
  "No Member of the Senatus Academicus shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any assessor of the General Council."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, page 4, line 40, after "retired," insert—
  "The assessor of the Senatus Academicus of each University in office at the passing of this Act shall continue in office for such period not exceeding four years in all from the date of his election as the Commissioners shall appoint; and the Commissioners shall regulate the period for which the three new assessors to be appointed by the Senatus Academicus of each University shall hold office, so as to provide in future for a regular system of rotation, and, in the event of a casual vacancy, the person elected to fill such vacancy shall go out of office at the date when the person whom he succeeded would, in the ordinary rotation, have retired."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
  DR. CLARK: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he intends to empower the Town Councils to elect. The Edinburgh Council does it under an old Act, but the Town Councils of Glasgow, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, and Dundee, only acquire the right to send a representative under this Bill, and that only since we amended the measure, as, prior to the Amendment, only the Edinburgh Council had the power. I want to know if it is necessary to insert anything in the Bill to define the mode of election?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No. The right is conferred by the Bill, and the Town Councils can effectuate it by proceeding to the election according to their constitutional right.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 5, line 2, after "Act," insert—

  939
  "Whether the title to such property has been taken in name of the University or such college, or in name of any person or persons in trust for or on behalf of the University or such college."—(Mr. Baird.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment agreed to, Clause 5, page 5, line 16, after "constituted," insert —
  "And shall, while so continuing in office, exercise the powers conferred on University Courts by The Universities (Scotland) Act, 1858,' but shall not exercise any of the additional powers conferred on University Courts by this Act, except the power of consenting to the affiliation of the new college."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to move, in line 17, to leave out from "and in" to "senior principal," in line 18 inclusive. The Amendment only relates to a small point, but it may turn out of practical utility. Clause 5 provides that the President of the Court shall be the Rector when he is present, or in case he is absent the senior principal, and I think it is open to doubt whether it is advisable to give the senior principal this ex officio part, as a great deal of the good working in a Court may depend upon having as President a man who has a talent for chairmanship, which talent the senior principal may not possess. If the Amendment is accepted, I propose to move words, in line 3, to provide for the absence of the Rector—that is to say, to empower the chairman to elect as chairman the person he might think most fit for the post.
  Amendment moved, Clause 5, page 5, line 17, leave out from "and in" to "senior principal," in line 18 inclusive. —(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In this clause we only carry forward into the new constitution the practice at present regulating the office of chairman. I should deprecate doing anything to displace the order and precedence of these University dignitaries, and I rather think it would be a derogation of the authority and position of senior principal if he were to lose the right he at present possesses of acting as chairman in the absence of the Rector. I do not think the matter is of much importance,
  940
  but my preference would be for holding to the present practice.
  MR. HUNTER: If it is not intended to accept the Amendment I have lower down on the Paper, as to the casting vote of the chairman, I think it would be an advantage to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCE: It is not worth while putting the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to, Clause 5, page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out, "or in the case of St. Andrew's University the senior principal."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to move to leave out in line 21, "the person presiding," to end of the sentence. It seems to me much better in cases where there are equal votes on each side that the question should be decided in the negative, according to the practice of this House and the House of Lords, or, at any rate, that the question should be disposed of another time. The casting vote was introduced originally because the number of the Court was extremely small. In the case of Aberdeen, the Court only numbered six, and it frequently happened that there were only four members present, and it was only natural to expect that the voting would often be equal. If there had not been a provision for a casting vote it might have been difficult to make progress with business. The conditions, however, are now to be changed. The Court will consist of from 14 to 16 members, and the occasions in which the voting will be equal is not likely to be frequent. It, therefore, seems to me that in the event of the votes being equal, the proposition should drop.
  MR. M. T. S. DARLING: The absence of a casting vote might delay the appointment of examiners. I do not think, under the altered circumstances, it is likely that there will often be equal voting; but, at the same time, I think it worth while to make provision for such a contingency.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  In Clause 5, page 5, line 23, after "equality," add—" In St. Andrew's University the principal of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard shall, in addition to his office as such,

  941
  possess the title and status and discharge the functions of principal of the said University, but without any claim to additional salary in that capacity."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I think that so small a point as this might well be left to the decision of the Commission to be appointed under the Bill.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Does the hon. Member take exception to the whole of the Amendment, or only to the last line?
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: That is all.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: If that is all I must express my entire concurrence in the proposal.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am prepared to modify the last part of the Amendment by leaving out "but without any claim to additional salary in that capacity."
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment to omit the words "but without any claim to additional salary in that capacity."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 5, line 29, leave out "if any."—(Mr. Baird.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept this Amendment, the words objected to being designed to meet the plural.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The next Amendment which stands in my name is one which I think would be acceptable to St. Andrew's University and all the colleges of it. It is to omit the proviso which would prevent a member of a University Court who represents an affiliated college (excepting University College, Dundee), from sitting and voting while the Court is engaged in the ad-
  942
  ministration of funds or property, for the purpose of inserting a sub-section to provide that the Court shall have power to review any decision of the governing body of a college in a matter appealed against by any member of the University interested. The Amendment would, I think, effect what is desired by a great many members of the Glasgow University. An hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baird) has an Amendment to which I should heartily agree in case this Amendment is lost. The clause is most unfortunately worded, because it appears that an affiliated University would not be able to deal with University funds or property. Any affiliated college ought to have the same power over the University property as the permanent colleges. The question is how the blot should be remedied—whether by leaving out the last part of the clause or by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow. I cannot help thinking that either one thing or the other must be done.
  Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 5, line 46, after "property," leave out to end of sub-section, and insert the following sub-section:—
  "(2) To review any decision of the governing body of any college on a matter within its competency which may be appealed against by a member of such governing body, or other member of the University having an interest in the decision."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman deserves attention, because the whole object of the clause as it now stands is to preclude the representatives of affiliated colleges from interfering with property which is invested in the University as a whole. I think, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow has adopted in his Amendment on the same point the best method of effecting that object. The words used by the right hon. Gentleman go beyond the object we are all interested in attaining.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I would suggest that we should make no restrictions at all as to the subjects on which the affiliated colleges shall go to the University Court. The whole matter

  943
  should be left to be dealt with by a subsequent clause. Indeed the decision of this matter should be transferred from the House of Commons to the Commissioners.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think it would simplify the matter if the course were adopted of leaving out everthing after the word "property" in line 36, because the proviso which begins in the middle of that line is really a limitation of the general powers conferred by Subsection 4 of Section 15. The object I had in moving the Amendment would be entirely met if the whole of the proviso were left out. When you read Sections 15 and 16 together, Section 15 says there is to be a sort of reciprocal representation between the affiliated colleges and the University; then as a rider on that, there is a power conferred on the Commissioners and withdrawn from the cognizance of the representatives—it may be of the University or of the affiliated colleges—particular subjects; but then there comes in again the proviso that this power shall not extend to particular cases. And as an exception from the exception, so to speak, there comes in the one I object to in particular, which relates to the case of Dundee. I agree that difficulties might arise and prove serious between two bodies which I am sure we all desire to bring together, and the risk of such difficulties would be removed if this proviso were left out. The Commissioners under Section 14 would have before them, and be free to act upon, all the reasons which could be urged on the one side or the other, whereas, as the clause stands, it would have an adverse effect on St. Andrew's, which would in this respect be made an exception from the general system of Scotch Universities.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The limitation which occurs in that part of the Bill, arises, has arisen from the anxiety which exists to deal with the case of the relations between Dundee and St. Andrew's so as to prevent anything occurring which might mar the equity of the Union. The right hon. Gentleman proposes a solution of the difficulty which will meet the case, and I am prepared to strike out the proviso, for I think what he proposes, leaving the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners, would be satisfactory.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: As consequential upon what the right hon. Gentleman says, we should leave out Sub-section 4 of Clause 15.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; that is so.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I have an Amendment down in the same sense, but I have no doubt the concession of the Lord Advocate will meet the necessity of the case.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Having struck out those words, I now move the insertion of the words on the Paper. It is a question whether the University Court should not be a Court of Appeal against the governing bodies of the colleges. There ought to he some Court of Appeal, but I do not wish to press the proposal if it is against the general feeling of the Committee.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the proposal of the right hon. Baronet is premature until the consolidation of the affiliated colleges is established. My impression is that the idea the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind applies to some other Amendment on the Paper.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I desire to move, in page 6, line 12, after "subsection 1" to insert,
  "Provided always that the University Court shall not review any decision of the Senatus Academicus in a matter of discipline, except upon appeal taken either by a member of the Senatus or by a member of the University directly affected by such decision."
  The object of this is to provide that the University Court, while having power to review the decisions of the Senatus on other points, shall not do so on matters of discipline, unless upon appeal.
  Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 6, line 12, after '' sub-section 1," insert—
  "Provided always that the University Court shall not review any decision of the Senatus Academicus in a matter of discipline, except upon appeal taken either by a member of the Senatus or by a member of the University directly affected by such decision."—(Mr. J. Campbell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. WALLACE: I move, in page 6, line 15, after "recognition," to insert, "subject to such regulations as it may consider proper." The object of this Amendment is to enable the University Court to make regulations with regard to extra-mural teaching for the purposes of graduation. My reasons for thinking that would be a proper modification of the spirit of the Bill, are, first of all, that in the matter of extra-mural teaching, it is one that will require regulation from time to time; and I do not think it would be wise to accept merely such regulations and conditions as may seem proper to the Commissioners at the time when they take this subject into consideration. I think it is a matter which is too flexible, too much subject to having the propriety of it determined by varying circumstances which may from time to time arise to be subjected to an immutable set of regulations such as the Bill proposes. I do not think anything could be better understood at the University Court as now constituted than a matter of this kind. If the Court is not competent to judge what ought to be done on a subject of this nature then we have very unsuccessfully provided the Court with a constitution. I would trust this power into the hands of the University Court, because I think they have interests which are entitled to be regarded. Subsequently I shall propose to subject them to conditions which would prevent them from going to excess in the way of safeguarding their own interests. This subject of extra-mural teaching cannot fail to be one on which the University Court are at present not likely to go too far in the view of those who have Conservative ideas on this matter. It will be to the interest of the University Court to see that nothing is done in that way that will interfere with a source from which they are to derive the funds for the support of the University. They will not be inclined to go too far in the way of diminishing the amount of fees that are to be drawn by the professional classes, nor will they be forgetful of the position of the different chairs. While that is so it is necessary on the other hand so to arrange matters that the University Court shall not be under too great a temptation, or rather will not be too much left at liberty to consult their
  946
  Conservative instincts. I am therefore making this proposal with the distinct view that by-and-by the academic tendency, if I may so call it—the tendency to be too exclusively academic in arrangements of that kind—shall be guarded against. The Court will have power under this subsequent Amendment to give all graduates of a certain standing power of extra-mural teaching to qualify for degrees under regulations to be made by the Court itself. I desire to throw open degrees, so to speak, to all the world, or to the whole Scotch world, under certain regulations to be laid down by the Commissioners.
  Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 6, line 15, after "recognition," insert "subject to such regulations as it may consider proper."—(Mr. Wallace.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not yield to the hon. Member in the earnestness and warmth of any desire to break up what I cannot but regard as the extraordinary, and unprecedented, and unparalleled monoply of official teaching at the Scotch Universities, and of introducing the freest extra-mural teaching, but it is for that reason that I venture strongly to dissent from his present view. I think it would be a most unfortunate thing—if we are to have a practical reconstruction of the teaching of the Scotch Universities—and that is the main object of this Bill—should we allow the initiative in this matter to the University Court. We have been discussing the University Court for a good while, and it is evident that many hon. Members have a great doubt as to what the political bearings of the Court will be—and I use the word "political" in regard to University politics entirely. Now, my interest in this Bill and that of the Scotch people consists in this, that we look to it to break up the existing state of things in the Scotch Universities as far as that state of things requires radical reformation. The intention of Parliament is laid down as clearly in this clause as was ever done in any clause of a Bill, and if that intention is not carried out, the Bill will be a failure. Parliament will nominate a Commission, and though that Commission may not

  947
  be such as ardent University reformers in Scotland might desire, at any rate it will be a Commission to carry out the wish of Parliament as embodied in the Bill, and in no part of the Bill more than in this clause. I would appeal to hon. Members inclined to support this Amendment to hesitate before they do so from a University reform point of view. Of course it is extremely important that the power of extending extra-mural teaching should not cease with the life of the Commission. In one way or another we think that that power ought to be prolonged, and on that point I should not be disinclined to support my hon. Friend if he proposed that after the expiration of the Commission the University Court should be the authority on this matter; but I have an Amendment on the Paper by which, on the expiry of the Commissioners' powers, it is provided that those powers shall be taken up by the University Committee. On the whole, I prefer my Amendment to that of my hon. Friend's. I should regard with something little less than dismay the proposal to transfer the powers of the Commissioners—a body of gentlemen who know that their charter of appointment requires them to carry out the intentions of Parliament—to a body elected in the manner the University Court is to be elected.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Trevelyan) has, I think, substantial ground for arguing that there should be a continuance, in some manner or other, of the powers of regulation that are to be vested in the Commissioners. It is manifest that, after the expiry of the Commission, there might arise questions which ought to be determined by the exercise of powers similar to those of that body; but I doubt whether, looking to the composition of the Universities Commission, that will be an appropriate body for the discharge of executive functions. The better way would be that the Commissioners should be the ultimate judges in the matter. The question is not one of principle, but rather of detail.
  SIR. G. TREVELYAN: The question is whether the University Court or the Commissioners should be supreme, and when I come to my Amendment I shall explain it in such a way as, I think,
  948
  will render it acceptable to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I quite agree that there should be carried forward the power of adjusting the conditions under which recognition should be granted as to teaching for the purposes of graduation, but beyond this I do not think it would be convenient to proceed.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I do no t think sufficient attention has been given to the provisions of Section 20, which seem to go a considerable way in the direction of the Amendment, and to lay down a clear line of policy. Section 20 says—
  "After the expiration of the powers of the Commissioners the University Court of each University shall have power to make such ordinances as they may think fit, with the consent of the Chancellor signified in writing, and the approval of hon. Members in Council.…altering or revoking any of the ordinances affecting such University."
  It is obvious that under Clause 6, Subsection 4, it will be the duty of the Commissioners to frame some ordinances on the subject of the teaching of any college or teacher, and after the expiration of the powers of the Commissioners it will be the function of the University Court to deal with these ordinances, subject to the supervision of the University Committee; and I submit that that is exactly the proper line to take, but it may be necessary somewhat to expand the phraseology of Sub-section 2 of Section 20.
  MR. HUNTER: I think that on reading the clause carefully the Committee will see that the first two lines give an absolute power to the University Court to recognize "the teaching of any college or individual teacher for the purposes of graduation." If the clause stopped at these words it would give an absolute and unlimited discretion to the University Court in the matter of extramural teaching. I consider that the University Court, as constituted, is so strongly impregnated with the professorial element that it might be safely trusted with this power. But the fact is that the power of extra-mural teaching is not given absolutely to the University Court, but is limited in two directions, by the words "to such an extent and subject to such conditions as the Commissioners may determine." I should hope that whatever else the

  949
  Government may do they will agree to omit these latter words. The question is this—does the Committee think that the University Court should have an absolute an unqualified right to sanction the teaching of any college or teacher for purposes of graduation? If my hon. Friend desires absolute liberty in this respect he would better attain his object by moving to omit the words after the word "graduation," which would enable us to vote on the question without embarrassment. The question is one of as great importance to Scotland as any that arises on this Bill, and is deserving of the fullest consideration on the part of the Committee, whose opinion will, I trust, be in favour of leaving the University Courts entirely unfettered by any restrictions.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment would be to vest exceedingly large powers in the University Court, because it would deprive the Commissioners of the power of laying down the general rules for the regulation of the University teaching and to create a Court of a competitive character. I quite agree with those who think it would be better to trust to the general scheme of regulations laid down by the Commissioners.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Speaking for the Edinburgh University, in which I obtained my own education, I may remind the Committee that that University is in favour of free trade in teaching. I think the University teaching is very much more efficient than formerly, and the falling off in extra-mural teaching in Edinburgh is probably due to that cause. Although I sympathise with the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I think it would, if anything, lessen the powers of the extra-mural teachers, that is to say, if the restrictions are the same as they used to be in my day. As far as I remember, no one was allowed to teach extra-murally unless he were able to pass fairly a moderate examination. Therefore, I think, perhaps this Amendment might tend rather to restrict it than otherwise. But at the same time, I entirely concur in his general view. I do not see myself why any efficient graduate should not be allowed to teach under proper restrictions, and I shall be very glad to support the further Amendment to that effect.
  MR. WALLACE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan, that the Amendment I propose would not be at all productive of competitive examining powers. I have made the Amendment distinctly with the view that the Clause at the end of Subsection 4 is to be omitted. I do not want the Commissioners to be able to lay down either the extent or the conditions under which the power of extramural teaching is to be exercised. With respect to leaving the University Court free for the exercise of this power. there are securities provided in the nature of things, in the fact that it would he the interest of the University Courts to protect the interest of the institutions they govern, while on the other hand there would be express regulations as to the matter which I contemplate putting into the Bill to be made part of an enactment by Parliament. My hon. Friend has called my attention to the clause, which I carefully studied in devising my Amendment. Upon the whole I am inclined to think that with a little modification, Section 20 might be made capable of securing all we desire; at all events, in the future. When the Commission has run its course, I think it may be possible under that section to secure that the matter shall be practically in the hands of the University Court. Taking this view of the matter, I do not think I should be justified in troubling the Committee with a division. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think, after what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh has said, and the impression which I gathered from the Lard Advocate that some machinery ought to be laid down by which the power of regulating extra-mural teaching shall regulating survive the death of the Commission, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I spoke under a misapprehension as to the Committee of the Privy Council. I think, however, that this will do as an Amendment of the right hon. Baronet to leave out all the words after the word "Commissioners," and to insert these words

  951
  "These regulations, after the expiration of their powers, may from time to time be modified or altered by the Universities Committee."
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: This is not the regular way. Section 20 lays down clearly how the powers of the Commission are to be carried on when the Commission has ceased, and why should an exception be made of one power, and mentioned in advance by this clause?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My impression was that it would be better to take this opportunity to dispose of the point rather than leave it to another stage when other things would be under consideration and attention would be blunted.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: As far as I am concerned, I prefer the course suggested by the Lord Advocate.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 6, page 6, line 17, leave out from 'to such,' to 'may determine,' in line 18, and insert under any regulations on the subject laid down by the Commissioners, or, after the expiry of their powers, by the Universities Committee."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I must press my view on the subject. The Bill lays down in a clear manner that, whatever is done by the Commissioners may, on the expiration of their powers, be altered by the Universities Committee. To take out one of these powers and to give the Universities' Committee power to deal with it directly I think is a very great mistake, and is not only a matter of bad drafting, but is calculated to lead to great confusion.
  MR. HUNTER: It seems to me that the University Committee, which is a purely judicial body, is not the proper tribunal to exercise functions of this character.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have read Clause 20 with very great care, and I must say the process through which the various bodies referred to in it will have to go is one I could say a great deal about, but will not do so now. I own I prefer the Amendment as amended by the Lord Advocate.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I now move to amend the Amendment:—
  952
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'Commission,' and to insert these words—'These regulations, after the expiration of their powers, may from time to time be modified or altered by the University Committee."
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to leave out lines 17 and 18, page 6, and insert—
  "Provided always that every holder of the highest degree conferred after examination and with honours, where such honours are given, in any faculty shall, subject to such regulation as aforesaid, be a recognised teacher for the purposes of graduation on such faculty."
  I am well aware of the large character which this Amendment assumes. At first sight it presents a revolutionary aspect, but it is not so. It is simply a partial restoration of the ancient state of things. The time was in the Scottish Universities, and it was according to their constitution as founded by their munificent and far-sighted donors, when every graduate had the right to teach, the consequence being that at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuries Europe was flooded with teaching graduates from the Scottish schools conferring great benefits upon the communities amongst whom they went, and reflecting lustre on the seminaries from which they came. I do not propose anything so extensive as that; I simply ask a restoration to the Universities of fragments of their original arrangements and constitution. I do not propose that all graduates, in arts at all events, should be invested with such powers of teaching as would make them a source from which the right to graduation might come. I only ask that that should be bestowed upon graduates who have taken honours, whether first or second class. I think I might with perfect propriety and consistency have insisted that all graduates should be allowed to give such teaching as would qualify for degrees, for if men are able to obtain degrees themselves, they are surely able to direct others to the same goal of success. The meaning of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy is simply teacher in the faculty with which they are connected. My Amendment does not necessarily imply that one graduate should be considered sufficiently qualified for giving preliminary instruction

  953
  in all the branches to be examined upon for any degree, because I provide that the arrangement for giving this power to graduates should be subject to such regulations as have already been agreed upon by the Committee. Further, I do not think that such an arrangement would necessarily compete with University teaching. I am not one of those who undervalue the teaching function of the Universities. I would put that entirely under the regulation of the University Authorities, and by exercising a very little ingenuity they might contrive to prevent any discouragement being given to attendance in University classes and teachers. They might arrange that 'University-taught candidates should be able to get through in a shorter time than would be allowed to those who had attended the teaching of persons who, as far as might be known, might be considered second-rate teachers. Accordingly, I do not see why such an arrangement would compete with the University teaching or do any real harm to the functions of the Universities. You will as a result have all the advantages of the stimulus given to the University teachers by competition with possible rivals outside. I would suggest that there will be this other element of advantage in the arrangement I propose, and that is that it will develop what I may call local scholarship as contrasted with central and Metropolitan scholarship, and it will raise up a class of University teachers all over the country composed of men in different positions and in possession of degrees; schoolmasters and others in similar positions, who will consider it a privilege and advantage to be engaged in the task of preparing, under proper authority, students for graduation. I venture to think that in this way it will save the expenditure of a good deal of public money in the way of philanthropic contributions for the erection of colleges. If the teaching were done by private enterprise I have no doubt that it would be done efficiently, so that then there would be no necessity fur equipping college institutions, except possibly in connection with those classes which require a large amount of scientific apparatus. Then, I venture to think, another advantage would be that it would give a great stimulus to higher education, and
  954
  it would be an object for intending graduates to endeavour to secure honours in connection with the different degrees. I would suggest it is possible that the University Court may, by-and-by, not think it necessary that honours should be confined to the art course, but that it might become desirable that honours should be attached to scientific degrees, and also to those in law and medicine, and if that were so, I think it is perfectly certain that honours would be much more in request than they are at the present moment, because not only would it be the aim and ambition of students to obtain them, but it would also be the desire of prudent men to secure them, for they would be anxious to acquire the honours along with the degree in order that they might engage in an occupation that would be to many of them a means of support. I feel satisfied that a proposal of this kind is not merely visionary. I contend that it is fraught with advantages of a practical nature, both in the way of stimulus and of economy; and believing this to be substantially the character of the Amendment that I have ventured to frame, I now put it before the Committee and will, if necessary, take a division upon it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 17 and 18, and insert "Provided always, that every holder of the highest degree with honours in any faculty shall, subject to such regulation as aforesaid, be a recognised teacher for the purposes of graduation in such faculty."
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: My hon. Friend has truly said that this was one of the old traditions of the University, for a magister was by right a teacher. But that was the case two centuries ago, and the practice was abandoned in all Universities because it was found quite impossible as the degrees were multiplied to maintain it. Men were bound to remain for two years at the University after taking the degree of magister in order to get experience in teaching under qualified regents, and they were not only permitted, but they were bound to teach. But all that was abandoned two centuries ago, and men now take degrees without any intention of teaching, and, indeed, without any experience of it. The proposal actually is that every man who takes the highest degree is therefore supposed

  955
  to be qualified to be a teacher, whereas he has had no experience whatever in teaching. This is an attempt to apply to modern conditions a system which broke down under ancient conditions. It would, if it were adopted, convert Scotch Universities into mere examining bodies, and deprive them of the distinctive character they now possess. Every graduate of the highest degree would, if the Amendment were carried, have to prepare persons for graduation without any experience of teaching, and I venture to suggest that this is not compatible with the modern idea of a University. It was the ancient practice, because the magisters were bound to remain in the Universities for several years in order to gain experience in teaching; but all that has now passed away, and therefore it would not be wise to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. HALDANE: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment to a division, because it is an Amendment which practically proposes what is equivalent to open teaching in the Universities. I do not think myself that open teaching in the Universities is desirable in the sense in which teachers are to be unqualified. We want to see as large a scope for teaching as possible, and for extra-mural teaching, but we do not want to have incompetent teachers. We must be thankful for small mercies. My hon. and learned Friend expressed an opinion that it was right that every graduate, whether in honours or not, should have the power of teaching in the University. Now, we are not all Admirable Crichtons, even if they were years since. And even if this is to be limited to holders of the highest degree with honours, I am not sure that including, as it does, persons who graduated years ago, it would be altogether satisfactory. I believe my hon. Friend and myself would come within the category. I am perfectly confident my hon. and learned Friend would be able to go back and teach divinity with the greatest efficiency in the Scotch Universities; but I do not think that I am not competent to go back and teach Arts. Holding these opinions, I think it would be in the highest degree disastrous if people who took their degree years ago, and have, perhaps, forgotten
  956
  the most of what they once knew, were to be at liberty to teach on any subject they please. I shall feel compelled to vote against the Amendment.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  MR. HUNTER: As the clause now stands, it gives power to the University Court to delegate the transaction of certain business, such as the appointment of officers, instead of the Committee having merely to report to the Court, leaving the final decision in its hands. Thus the Court would be able to delegate to a Committee of five the power to appoint professors. I do not think this is desirable, and I therefore desire to move my Amendment, which will modify that proposition.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 7, line 2, to leave out all after "powers," and insert—
  "To report on any business that may be entrusted to them by the University Court, or to carry out special instructions ordered by the University Court."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I agree with the hon. and learned Member that there should be no absolute or general power of devolution, but merely a power to refer certain work to a Committee appointed for that purpose. I rather think, on the whole, that the words of the Amendment are better adapted for that purpose than the clause as it now stands, and accordingly I propose to accept it.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  MR. HUNTER: My next Amendment proposes after Sub-section 1 to insert the words "(2) To initiate changes in all educational matters." But I think that in view of the possible amendment of Clause 7 that will not be necessary, and I, therefore, do not propose to move it. I think it will be necessary, however, to add words to the clause authorizing the University Court to make provision for certain expenditure, and I will move my Amendment dealing with that.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 7, at end, to add "(2) to provide for the expenses incurred by the General Council in exercising the powers conferred by this Act."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There is a subsequent Amendment which deals with this matter in a more comprehen-

  957
  sive form, and which will effect the object the hon. Member has in view.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 7, at end of clause, add—
  "(9.) After the expiration of the powers of the Commission to found new professorships with the consent of the Chancellor and the approval of the Universities Committee, and after such expiration no new professorship shall be founded except as herein provided."(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. HUNTER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this clause on the House. If there is one thing more desirable than another to encourage in Scotch Universities it is to have new professorships instead of imposing all sorts of restrictions on their foundation. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that no new professorships can be founded unless come one comes forward with the necessary funds, and I should like to ask why should not the money be accepted?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The words of my Amendment are founded on the Universities Commission Report of 1878. In some Universities the question has arisen as to what authority there is for the foundation of a new Chair, and it was found there was scarcely limitation. We all desire that every now Chair which is likely to be useful should be founded; but it is most undesirable that the Universities should be cumbered with Chairs which are useless. It is desirable there should be some check upon the foundation of such Chairs. While the Commission lasts we have the check in the Commission; but after the Commission expires I think that check is one of its functions which should be continued in the University Court.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Cannot the Lord Advocate remove somewhat the restrictions in the way of founding professorships?
  MR. HUNTER: I do not think that the Lord Advocate can have seriously considered what will be the result of carrying this Amendment. I think if any person is found, of a liberal turn of mind, disposed to endow a Chair, instead of throwing obstacles in the way of accepting that endowment we should receive it with open arms. I shall move to omit the words after "pro-
  958
  fessorships" in the Lord Advocate's Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to omit the words after "professorships."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  DR. CAMERON: I think there is force in what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend. Now, some of our Universities are badly provided with professorships of research. Scientific research is of the utmost importance. It must be remembered that the foundation of new Chairs often raises a very considerable amount of jealousy among the existing professors, who fear that their classes may be endangered; and in the case of such an agitation arising it would certainly be brought under the notice of the University Committee and of the Chancellor. I believe, if we leave this question entirely in the hands of the Council, there will be a legitimate and salutary check on the foundation of professorships, while, at the same time, there need be no fear of preventing the foundation of professorships of research.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I may point out that there is an alternative to founding professorships, and that is establishing lectureships. I strongly deprecate the foundation of new professorships without vigilant and searching inquiry. Remember that professors have claims on the State in the way of pensions. I do not think it is quite fair to represent this as a question whether or not a University shall have the benefit of the foundation of a Chair on it may be an interesting and important subject. The point is, how shall the proposals to establish professorships be dealt with.
  MR. W. SINCLAIR: Speaking with some little practical experience, I may perhaps be allowed to support the views of the Lord Advocate. I happened, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire, to be one of two gentlemen who received a proposal to found in University College, Liverpool, a professorship for spiritualism. It was declined; but this affords a practical instance of the necessity for providing a safeguard against the desires of persons to uphold their views on particular subjects. The amount

  959
  offered on that occasion was large —I believe as much as £5,000. I therefore venture to think the views of the Lord Advocate should prevail.
  MR. HUNTER: The hon. Member is under an entire delusion. I maintain that if the clause is passed in the form in which it is now proposed to amend it, no person will be able to found a professorship. I therefore beg leave to press the Amendment which stands in my name.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I quite sympathize with the view of my hon. Friend that there should not be unreasonable obstacles in the way of the foundation of professorships. I agree with the Lord Advocate that the State has some interest in the matter, for all professors are entitled to pensions given by the State; and under these circumstances a Committee of the Privy Council is not a bad body to be consulted as to whether proposed professorships are right or not.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think we have already had a practical example of the necessity of caution in founding professorships. I notice that one of the Universities has recently founded a professorship of natural religion, and I think it was exceedingly ill-advised in accepting that endowment. Therefore, I am inclined to adopt the Lord Advocate's words, with a view to securing full consideration of these proposals.
  DR. CAMERON: In regard to the suggestion that lectureships might be established instead of professorships, may I point out that the most honour attaches to a professorship.
  MR. HUNTER: I am unable to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment, because the latter exhibits a spirit of opposition on the part of monopolist teachers to the introduction of fresh subjects, and it is most important that Scotch Universities should not be controlled by monopolists.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Aberdeen will withdraw his Amendment he will be in a position to move it again presently; otherwise, it will be impossible to put it.
  MR. HUNTER: Then I will withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to leave out the words
  960
  "the consent of the Chancellor and."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment proposed to omit the words "and after such expiration no new professorships shall be founded as herein provided."
  Amendment put, and negatived. Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I beg to move, Clause 7, page 7, line 9, leave out "conferred on it," and insert "hitherto possessed by it, so far as they are not modified or altered." As the Bill is drawn, it would seem to affirm that the powers of the Senatus Academicus were conferred on it by the Act of 1858. This, however, is not the case. The most important powers of the Senatus are those which it holds by the original Charter of the University. I had drawn my Amendment in terms which would also have recognized the powers hitherto "exercised" by the Senatus, but I understand there is objection to this, as it might be held to legalize all that the Senatus has done even if it has in any respect exceeded its legitimate powers, and therefore I confine myself to the words now moved.
  MR. CALDWELL: I maintain that under this clause there should be no power conferred upon the Senatus Academicus beyond what it possesses under the Act of 1858. The object of the Amendment is that certain powers which have been exercised in a particular way should be recognized. The words "so far as they are not modified or altered" by this Act make an important change, because the powers hitherto possessed by the Seuatus Academicus are to be affected to a certain extent by the provisions of this Act, and the Amendment suggests that they should remain intact.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is an Amendment of a clause drawn up by the Government, and I think the suggestion is an entirely right one. My hon. Friend proposes that we should not merely limit the powers of the Senatus Academicus, but those conferred upon it by the Act of 1850 should be held as extending to those lawfully possessed previously thereto. I think it

  961
  was an error in the Bill as it stood, and I am confirmed in that opinion by seeing that in the Act of 1858 it is expressly provided that the powers conferred by that Act shall be in addition to those heretofore belonging to the Senatus Academicus.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: This clause is brought forward for the purpose of enabling the General Council to contribute its experience and knowledge to the work of University Reform. Now, the General Council, as far as I have been able to learn, hold strong opinions on the methods which will have to be adopted to make its interference effective. I think the methods preferred by the majority are embodied in this Amendment; they wish to be enabled to have a special meeting on application to the Chancellor, and they wish to have somewhat more power, including that, I believe, of sending deputations either to the Commissioners or to the Lord Advocate.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 7, line 28, leave out the word "Commissioners."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think there is much harm in the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment proposed, to insert the words,
  "At the instance of the Chancellor, who shall convene such meeting on a requisition from a quorum of members and a Council."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUNTER: The provision I propose in respect to the statutory half-yearly meeting does not apply to the decisions arrived at by a quorum; but inasmuch as the University Committee cannot do anything but talk and pass resolutions, I think the right hon. Gentleman might give the members the comfort of passing resolutions and going home, instead of compelling them to disperse disconsolately.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am rather surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman should attach importance to the privilege of talking. We must deal with the functions of this
  962
  statutory body; and I think the ground on which the hon. Gentleman proceeds is materially weakened by the Amendment which has been agreed to at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division If the meeting turns out to be in such a depleted condition that it is under a quorum it can be adjourned; but it is most undesirable that discussion should continue with a very small attendance.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  DR. CAMERON: Probably the Lord Advocate will accept my Amendment, and I need only move it. My proposal is that as the Chancellor is to be when a Privy Councillor a member of the Committee, so also the Lord Rector if a Privy Councillor should be a member of the Committee. The Lord Rector is generally a statesman of Privy Councillor rank, I think.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 9, page 8, line 1, after "council," insert "the Lord Rector of each of the Universities if a member of the Privy Council."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: My proposal is one I do not press very much, it is only a suggestion. What strikes me is the excessive preponderance of the legal element. We are governed in Scotland a great deal too much by lawyers, and all our Bills are drawn by lawyers. I have not been able to detect anything in the questions with which the Committee will have to deal that makes it necessary that it should consist for the most part of lawyers. It seems to me an administrative body exercising certain discretionary functions. To raise the question I will move the omission of the Lord Justice Clerk, for in the Lord President of the Court of Session we have that element sufficiently represented.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move that. That point is passed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I will raise the point by moving the omission of the words after "Committee."
  Amendment proposed, in line 8, leave out all after "Committee," to end of Clause.

  963
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING: I should have thought this would be considered a very harmless provision, for it only requires that one of the quorum should be one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in Scotland. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can urge anything against Scottish Judges, who undoubtedly command general confidence.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: All I meant was to express a doubt as to the expediency of having the legal element so largely represented. But I do not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRYCE: I take no exception to the constitution of the Committee on the ground urged by the hon. Member. All I propose is that the Committee should have the means of availing themselves of special knowledge on matters upon which they give their decision. The Committee will have rather important functions to discharge; but there is no security that any of the members will have special knowledge upon University matters, distinguished as they may be in other respects. But University questions are largely connected with subjects requiring an intimate knowledge of University methods and arrangements, organization of study chairs, and degress, matters not within the knowledge of every eminent lawyer. I therefore suggest that the Committee should have the power to call in assessors to advise them on special educational questions. As the Lord Advocate knows, there are many precedents for this, not perhaps in precisely such a case but in regard to similar matters. I do not think it can do any harm to give the Committee this power to use if they think fit, and I can conceive that in many instances it might prove very useful. Experience in regard to Oxford justifies my proposal.
  Amendment proposed, at end of Clause, add—
  "The Universities Committee shall have power to request the attendance at the hearing of any matter which may come before them of two or more persons of special knowledge and experience in questions of University teaching, management, or organization to act as assessors at such hearing."
  Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The objections to this are rather in regard to procedure than as to result. Of course it is most important that in matters of technique detailed information should be at hand; but, at the same time, I do not think it is possible to engraft a system of assessors or sittings of a Committee of the Privy Council. The whole theory of the duty of the Committee is antagonistic to that, and I am afraid this would be introducing an anomaly that could not work well.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: My hon. Friend has pointed out a blot in the constitution of the University Committee that they may be without special knowledge. He proposes this method of assessors to meet the difficulty, but the proposal I shall have to submit in. relation to Clause 14, seems to be a better way of meeting the difficulty.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It may be to the purpose if I add that I propose to accept the Amendment to Clause 14 referred to.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not feel quite satisfied with the objection of the Lord Advocate. He assumes that any proposal would be an interference with the purely judicial character of the Committee; but that would not he so. The assessors would not be concerned with the judicial decision. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that a lay visitor to a college has an assessor to advise him on matters of law. Though the Committee would have the advice of the assessors, the decision would be, the decision of the Committee. The only function of the assessors would be to discuss the matter with the members of the Committee present; the decision would emanate from the Committee itself. I confess I do not see the difficulty on the ground of procedure that weighs with the Lord Advocate, that the assessors should discuss the matter with the Committee after the witnesses have withdrawn, giving the benefit of their advice upon which the Committee may act. I am not wedded to this particular form of words in the Amendment, but I think the Committee will be defective if, in some form, my suggestion is not adopted. I do not think the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon

  965
  Playfair) quite meets the case. His proposal is that there shall be a consultative body only acting upon a remit from the Secretary of State, but not to be present to give the benefit of their special knowledge of the circumstances when the question is before the Committee. It is a useful provision in itself, but it is not identical in purpose with what I propose. But I do not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CAMERON: Before the clause is disposed of I should like to mention a matter that may cause some slight difficulty. The Committee is to include among other officials the Secretary of State for Scotland. Now, he is not necessarily a Privy Councillor, and I should like to know whether a person who is not a Privy Councillor can act on a Committee of the Privy Council. Of course the difficulty can be got over by making the Secretary for Scotland a Privy Councillor whenever he is not one.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think the Secretary for Scotland is necessarily a Privy Councillor.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I was under that impression myself.—Yes, that is so.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: We have now reached one of the most debateable clauses of the Bill, and I trust I may be allowed to express the hope that the wise concession made by the Government at the beginning of the Sitting will be repeated in reference to the clause now under our attention. My Amendment has no reference to the personnel but only to the number of the Commission. I have to move that seven be the number of Commissioners. In the constitution of the University Court both sides were engaged in endeavouring to limit the number, and I think the same principle should apply to the Commission. I may say there are precedents for the course I recommend. In an Oxford Commission, some years ago, the number of Commissioners was seven, and again in a Cambridge Commission. I am also informed, though I have not verified the fact, that the Commission under the Endowments (Scotland) Act consisted of seven Mem-
  966
  bers. I think there will be general agreement that a Commission with powers and duties such as are proposed here should not be very large, and I think that there will be a general opinion that seven, the number on former occasions, will be sufficient for these purposes. I am afraid my Amendment will not have the concurrence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, because I propose to leave two lawyers, who, with five Members, would, I think, discharge the duties of the Commission in a manner worthy of their judicial position. On the other hand, the five Members of Parliament would more or less—rather more than less probably—be amenable to the influences of public opinion, and so I think we shall have a hotter Commission than is proposed in the Bill. I am not now dealing with names, I merely deal with the number of Commissioners, and I propose that number should be seven as on previous similar occasions.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 14, after "following," to insert "seven."
  Questiod proposed, "That 'seven' be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member has advanced his view in a very fair way. I am well aware a great deal of criticism has been directed against the large number of Members whom it is proposed to appoint on the Commission. Much must, of course, necessarily depend upon whether it is possible to obtain the services of a small number of highly qualified persons, all of whom would be certain to attend constantly to the work, so that it might be continuously administered from the be ginning to the end. The hon. and learned Member has cited precedents for the smaller number he recommends, but I cannot say that those precedents apply. The Commissioners will have to deal here with an extensive scope of alterations and administration, and it is also a very important factor in the question that there are four Universities to deal with. The precedent of the Oxford and Cambridge Commissions breaks down at this stage of the argument. They are not precedents that can be applied in a case where four Universities have to be dealt with, the circumstances of each being of the most varied kind, and requiring an amount of continuous atten-

  967
  tion which is beyond the attainment of so small a number of members as seven. I quite agree that if you could secure six or seven men with high special qualifications and the opportunities of continuous application to the work they have to address themselves to, then the smaller number would be preferable, but unless you can have these combined advantages, I think it is idle to think of the smaller number. As this question has been raised it may be conducive to a settlement in a calm spirit, if I say a few words on the constitution of the Commission. I am sure everyone who has held office, and I am fortunate in having opposite to me several right hon. Gentlemen of that position—will support me when I say that it is a most difficult duty to get together a number of men you think desirable to associate together on a Commission. There are the qualifications of each member, his acquaintance with public affairs, the extent to which he may have committed himself by an expression of opinion, his fairness in the discharge of public duty, and his willingness to serve, all these matters have to be considered. We have been assailed, though not by any considerable section of the House, on account of the selections we have made for this Commission. If the Commission does not contain some of the elements which might have been desired, it is not the fault of the Government. I am at liberty to mention names, because the information is in the possession of the public. It is well known that Lord Rosebery was asked serve. It ought to be known too, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) was invited to accept the position of Commissioner for what he is pre-eminently qualified, and also the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) a political opponent of the Government and a pronounced adherent of progress in University matters. These gentlemen were asked, and it is clearly understood that even now, should they find it compatible with their duties to accept the position, they would be seated on the Board of Commissioners. I only mention these names to show that there has not been the smallest disposition on the part of the Government to confine their selection to one party, either with regard to politics or the question of University reform. No doubt there are adequate reasons for
  968
  the gentlemen I have just named declining to accept a responsibility which would involve a long and detailed inquiry. If we cannot obtain the services of seven or eight highly qualified persons, the next best thing is to appoint a larger number of gentlemen who are known to the people of Scotland to be fair-minded and to possess a knowledge of the currents of Scotch thought, which are likely to be moving on such subjects. I shall follow the example of the hon. and learned Gentleman and not now discuss names. I will only say that we have nominated a number of experienced and accomplished public servants, some well-known to the House of Commons and all well-known to the people of Scotland interested in University affairs. I defy any Cabinet to get together a body of men for such a purpose, some of whom would not be open to criticism. No doubt if there is a disposition to enter upon the task of discussing individual qualifications there will be a number of things to say, a number of sarcasms to fire off in reference to each, but I venture to say that we have recommended a Commission which the House of Commons may accept as likely to impartially discharge the important duties entrusted to them.
  MR. CHILDERS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has appealed specially to those who have had some experience of the appointment of Commissions, and perhaps I have had a longer experience of that kind than any who now happen to be present. Happily, we are not now entering upon any personal question, and I pass by, as not in point, the merits of this or that nomination when I give, as the result of my experience, the opinion that it is desirable to appoint to an administrative Commission of this character no more members than are necessary to discharge in a satisfactory manner the duties entrusted to them. I have had considerable experience both in the appointment of Commissions and as a member, and I have invariably found that the work is better and more continuously done by small than by large administrative Commissions. It is said that the small Oxford and Cambridge Commissions afford no analogy, because the Commissioners under this

  969
  Bill will deal with four Universities instead of one, which the Oxford and Cambridge Commissioners each dealt with. But I would remind the Committee, in reference to the Cambridge Commission, that the inquiry related to between 20 and 30 colleges, and each of them had to be dealt with separately. Yet the small Commission which conducted the investigation was a most effective one, and certainly had the approval of the great body of those who were interested in Cambridge. Therefore, the analogy of the Cambridge Commission is distinctly in favour of the present one, being a small instead of a large Commission. My own experience as a member of a good many Commissions tells me that in a small Commission every one feels it to be his duty to attend regularly. If, on the other hand, you have a large Commission, the feeling on the part of every member is, if it be inconvenient to him to attend on any day, that there are sure to be others who will attend, and hence the natural inclination is to be careless as to daily attendance, in the confidence that others will, on the whole, put in a reasonable number of attendances. One day there will be, perhaps, not more than half a Commission present, and on the next day, when the same subject is being discussed, the other half of the members will attend. The work of a small Commission is, therefore, always better done than that of a large Commission. I think seven members is about the best number of which to form a Commission, and I am confident that the work will be better done—more steadily and continuously done—by a Commission of seven members than by the large body proposed in the Bill.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The Lord Advocate alluded just now to the names of those who have been asked to serve upon this Commission. Amongst others he mentioned Lord Rosebery. I can state that Lord Rosebery, when invited to serve, said he must first be made aware of the names of those who would be his colleagues, and that on being informed of the names he stated that they would not be satisfactory to the people of Scotland.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am very anxious that we should not make the
  970
  number of the Commission so narrow as to exclude a class which I think it is absolutely necessary to have represented if the Bill is to be efficiently carried out. We need on the Commission some pronounced educational reformer. I find that among 15 members on the proposed Commission, there is only one to whom that title can be properly applied, and that is the Member for Manchester, who is no doubt a scientific man, and, I believe, an educational reformer. It seems that as public opinion is constituted in this country, you must have a great many classes represented on the Commission. You must have one or two Lords, some lawyers, some gentlemen of the othodox educational school, and some representatives of the medical profession. The result seems to be that the pronounced educational reformers, and the scientific men are crowded out altogether, and you are only able to find place for one of them on a Commission of 15. For how many, then, would be found room among seven? I am not inclined to reduce the number to that extent. I would add some pronounced educational reformers to the Commission, and I think there would be no room for them if we reduced the number to seven.
  MR. HUNTER: It is most invidious to make any remarks on the names of gentlemen who have spontaneously offered to render arduous and important public services without any remuneration, and therefore I think it desirable that we should discuss the merits of the clause upon the present Motion. I think it was hardly right of the Lord Advocate to tell us that Lord Rosebery had declined to join the Commission without adding the reason for his conduct. The reason just stated throws considerable light on the spirit in which the Commission has been formed, and no one who looks at the list can doubt that this is not a successful effort to obtain a bonâ fide selection of men from Scotland. The Government have themselves to blame for the predicament in which the Committee is put. Substantially the same Commission was proposed last year, and I think there was not a single organ of public opinion in Scotland, including those organs which habitually support the Government through thick and thin, right or wrong, that did not condemn this Commission. After that warning

  971
  the Government have persisted in putting forward, practically, the same list on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman tells us they were anxious to constitute as fair a Commission as possible. If so, how does this extraordinary result happen that, whereas the question of tests is going to be referred to the Commission, that body is full of Established Churchmen and Episcopalians, and even of Roman Catholics; but there is not a single Presbyterian outside the establishment upon the list? There is another coincidence. The enormous majority of the people of Scotland differ in political opinion from Her Majesty's Government, but the only persons the Government can find in all Scotland suitable for the work of the Commission are persons of the political colour of right hon. Gentlemen opposite or Liberal Unionists. I should be very sorry to object to a single name on the list upon the merits of that particular name, but I do object to the tout ensemble being all of one colour. I trust the Government will avail themselves of the time that will remain over between this evening and to-morrow to re-consider the question, and that they will agree to reduce the number of the Commission and somewhat modify its colour and composition so as to spare us the very invidious proceeding of having to omit the names one by one.
  The Committee divided.—Ayes 86; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I now beg leave to move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: After what has occurred this afternoon, and as reasonable progress has been made, I shall not oppose the Motion.
  MR. HUNTER: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would not be advisable that the next stage of the Bill should be deferred until Monday. We have arrived at a point when, by negotiations, I think we might come to an understanding by which very rapid progress could be made in the future. I think that after the 10th Clause is disposed of, there will be only one important subject left—namely, the retention of seats.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I agree that very satisfactory progress has been made
  972
  by the Committee in considering this measure, and I wish to acknowledge the exceedingly fair spirit in which the Bill has been dealt with on both sides of the House, and especially by the hon. and learned Member himself. But I think that, having made such progress, we may hope to continue it at 2 o'clock to-morrow. I am not without hope that an understanding may be arrived at very early in the course of the afternoon, which will afford a satisfactory solution of the question; and really I think it would be a great misfortune if now we were to interfere with the consideration of the Bill. The House always desires to proceed from day to day with a Bill of this kind, and, indeed, I am under an obligation with the House that this shall be done.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as as I am acquainted with the opinion of my hon. Friends, I may say I think that once the question of the Commission is disposed of, except as to the very large question of tests, there will be very little contentious matter. That makes it all the more desirable we should come to some understanding as to the constitution of the Commission; and if the Government could meet our wishes to some extent, we shall be glad to facilitate the progress of the Bill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL.
  As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
MOTION.

  COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir William Houldsworth, Bill to make further provision for the regulation of Cotton Cloth Factories, ordered to be brough in by Sir William Houldsworth, Viscount Cranborne, Sir Henry James, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Hoyle, and Mr. Sidebottom.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 294.]
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.