Commons Sitting of 28 June 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. (By Order).
  Order for Consideration, read.
  MR. BROADHURST MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham) moved to add to Clause 31 the words—
  "That if any such Pension Fund be formed it shall not be made obligatory upon any person to join it, nor shall joining it be a condition of employment, nor a condition on which the rate of wages to be paid to any person shall be fixed on."
  The hon. Member said: It will be noted that my objection is limited to Clause 31 of this Bill, which enables the North-Eastern Railway Company, under certain circumstances, to establish a Pension Fund, and the fear the railway servants have in regard to this clause is that if such a Pension Fund is established it must, by a system of coercion—of mild coercion—on the part of the permanent officials, lead to the compulsory membership of the railway servants in this institution. Recent experience has proved that railway servants, as a rule, would much rather be left with perfect freedom of action as to what societies or institutions they may join for the purpose of securing themselves against sickness, accident, or death. Hence, the Railway Servants Society desire that an Amendment should be inserted in this clause for the purpose of safe-guarding them against any force, however mild, that may possibly be used to compel those in the employ of the railway company to join any such fund that may be established. I am aware that in another place the actual power
  998
  of compulsion has been struck out of this clause. At the same time, in the opinion of those concerned, the clause, if left in its present shape, would practically give the company the power of compulsion, which the workmen desire that the company should not possess. I need not express my confidence in the directors of the North-Eastern Company so far as we know them in this House, nor in the absolute bona fides of their declaration that no force or compulsion will be used in any such undertaking; but unfortunately, if this Bill is passed without a statement to the contrary or without an addition to the clause such as I have placed upon the Paper, the work would pass out of the hands of the directors into that of the managers, foremen, and superintendents of one class or another, who might successfully evade the wishes of the directors to comply with the spirit of the clause, and might use it in a way which might be objectionable. Under the circumstances I would ask the House to agree to this Amendment, unless those in charge of the Bill have some statement to make showing the House that the fears I have expressed are entirely groundless. Unless the hon. Gentlemen who are here as the promoters of the Bill will make such a declaration as can be quoted in the future in favour of my contention for the freedom of the men in these matters I shall certainly carry the Amendment to a Division.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to second the Amendment, and in doing so I wish to call the attention of the House to this one fact, which I think the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) has overlooked—namely, that whatever may he at present the intention of the directors—and I am quite ready to accept any assurance they may give—we must not ignore the fact that in the Bill as originally brought into Parliament the directors took powers of the most stringent character to enforce this provision upon their workmen. The clause as originally drawn by them was to the effect that the directors should have power to determine what class of servants of the Company should be required to contribute to the fund. Although they have abandoned these powers, still we have this evidence of their primary desire to possess them. However that may be, I

  999
  think, considering that we now know what was the original intention of the Company, we are perfectly justified in asking that this Amendment shall be accepted. We know also that pension funds are not popular with the workmen; and in the case of another Company where these powers were compulsory and the men were compelled to join the Society, they have recently, after five years' experience, abolished them by a vote of 12,000 to 900. That is ample evidence that these funds are not desired by the workmen themselves. I should have been glad if the whole of this clause had been struck out of the Bill, because I disapprove of it entirely, on principle; but I shall feel satisfied if the Amendment of my hon. Friend is passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, Clause 31, page 19, line 20, after "provided," insert—
  "That if any such pension fond be formed it shall not be made obligatory upon any person to join it, nor shall joining it be a condition of employment, nor a condition on which the rate of wages to be paid to any person shall be fixed on."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: As one of the Members in charge of the Bill, and having had a good deal to do with the clause itself, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in explanation. I desire to oppose the introduction of the words proposed in the Amendment, because I think they are not at all required. If anybody else but my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham had suggested the Amendment I should have thought that we were being rather badly treated in the matter, because the Bill is now in its last stage. Yet at this point it is proposed to introduce these words. But knowing the warm interest which my hon. Friend has always taken in these matters, I do not blame him for his action. It is perfectly true, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren), that when the Bill was introduced the clause was of a compulsory character. He and the hon. Member for Nottingham were good enough to call my attention to it, and I told them both frankly that I was quite certain the words had crept in from some other Act of Parliament, and that it was not the intention of the
  1000
  Board to make it a condition of hiring or a condition of dismissal. In framing the clause as it stands to day, we have some important precedents before us of such subscriptions. There is the precedent of the Northumberland and Durham Miners' Association, which now numbers 95,000. These men are all enrolled of their own accord, and the colliery owners contribute various sums of money to the funds of the Association. The idea of the North Eastern Board was that such a society must be necessarily voluntary on the part of the men. They knew sufficient to tell them that working men would not be drummed into provident societies; but that such organizations must come from the spontaneous action of the men themselves. The House will see at once that the clause as it stands is simply a permissive clause, allowing the Company to contribute to any pension fund for the payment of pensions and retiring allowances. It goes no further. If the words in the Amendment are inserted, think we should have some right of complaint, because if they are wanted with regard to the North Eastern Company, they are wanted in the case of every other company. All that is intended by the Amendment is, however, met by the Truck Act. Under the provisions of that Act, no employer can make it a condition of time that a man shall join a Provident Society, or become a member of a Provident Society, because that would imply that he must subscribe to that society and that would be the "manner in which part of his wages were to be spent." Therefore, I submitted to my hon. Friend and to the House, that the Truck Act perfectly meets the point If the assurances of myself and my Colleagues in this House who are on the North Eastern Board are of any service, I can inform the House that that Board has not the slightest desire to force any man into thrift or habits of economy, but if a man can be helped into them it is entirely another matter. I hope this explanation will satisfy my hon. Friends, the mover and seconder of the Amendment.
  MR. BROADHURST: After the emphatic declaration of the hon. Baronet, which I understand is entirely acquiesced in by his colleagues in the directorate of the North Eastern Rail-

  1001
  way, and after his acceptation of the terms of Section 6 of the Truck Act, 1887, I do not think I should be well advised in putting the House to the trouble of a division on the subject, and I will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Question proposed, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn."
  MR. STOREY: I do not think that the Truck Act in the slightest degree covers the concluding words of the Amendment—
  "Nor a condition in which the rate of wages to be paid to any person shall be fixed nor"
  Without the insertion in the clause of the words of the Amendment, it would be perfectly competent for the Directors of the North Eastern Railway to fix their rate of wages for certain classes of their servants upon the conditions that they should join this fund. I do not say that they would, and as long as my hon. Friend (Sir J. Pease) in any way controls the affairs of the Company, I do not think they will do so. But I make these observations corning from a part of the country in which the North Eastern Company are all powerful—not because I believe the present Directors are desirous of initiating any such policy, but because I think the men who are concerned are perfectly right in taking advantage of the present occasion to have it set out on the face of the Bill that such a thing as that shall not be done. I would urge my hon. Friend to insist upon his Amendment, unless we have some better explanation and better proof afforded that by the Truck Act the Company cannot do this.
  SIR J. PEASE: I have had the best legal opinion on the subject that could be obtained, and I have been told that the Truck Act covers every point in the hon. Member's Amendment. I object to the Amendment because, as I have already said, I object to impose restrictions upon the North Eastern Railway Company, which do not apply to other Companies. If the House thinks it desirable that no contribution should be made by the directors to these funds, I shall be quite willing to withdraw the clause altogether.
  MR. JOICEY: I cannot agree with the state-
  1002
  ment which has been put before the House by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). Whatever may be expressed by the clause in the Truck Act, I feel sure that the spirit of the clause is intended to prevent any such use being made of it as the hon. Member has suggested. I am perfectly certain that the Directors of the North Eastern Railway Company would never utilize the clause of the Truck Act in the way which the Member for Sunderland imagines. Unless the Company have a clause of this sort they would be unable to contribute as the mine owners in Northumberland and Durham contribute to the provident funds set on foot by their workpeople. When the Employers' Liability Act was passed some of the cold owners took advantage of that Act to cease the contributions they had been making to the miners' permanent relief fund, and great dissatisfaction arose in consequence throughout the counties of Durham and Northumberland. So far as I am concerned I should be only too glad to see some Bill passed by the Legislature to compel the mine owners in Northumberland and Durham to contribute their fair proportion to the workmen's fund. I certainly think it a very desirable thing to give the power to the railway company to contribute a voluntary sum to any pension fund which may be established by their workmen.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Bill ordered to be read a third time.

QUESTIONS

  THE CONVEYANCE OF MAILS.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to-ask the Postmaster General if, at the selection of tenders for the conveyance of mails between Castleblaney and Newry, the tender of a Mr. Hawthorn was accepted; was his the lowest tender; and, if so, what was the amount; and, has Mr. Hawthorn been reported for negligence since his tender was accepted; and, if so, what was the decision of the Postal Department?
  POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The tender of Mr. Hawthorn was

  1003
  accepted for the service to which the hon. Member refers. It was the lowest tender, and at the rate of £80 a year. Mr. Hawthorn has not been reported to the Department for negligence since the service was placed in his hands.

  LIGHT GOLD COINS.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any, and if so what, steps this year with reference to the withdrawal of the light gold coins now in circulation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSOHEN,): It would be impossible to introduce this Session a Bill for carrying out a complete scheme; but I am anxious to make a beginning, and I should like to pass a measure during the present Session, withdrawing light sovereigns issued previous to the present reign, which, I hope, will arouse no controversy. Of course, if it met with any opposition the Bill could not be proceeded with.

  THE ROCK OF CASHEL.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen in the Freeman's Journal of the 21st June an account headed "Religious Ceremony on the Rock of Cashel," stating that
  "to-day, for the first time since the Reformation, there was a solemn procession of the Blessed Sacrament through the 'City of the Kings,' and, for the second time, Solemn Benediction on the famous Rock";
  whether permission was given by the Board of Works hold a religious service inside the pre ts of the rock; and, whether the service, as reported, was a violation of the ?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): No procession, or other ceremony, has taken place on that part of the Rock of Cashel under the control of the Office of Works.

  INDIAN FAMINE RELIEF—CONTRIBUTION OF THE MAHARAJAH OF DARBHANGA.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government
  1004
  has been drawn to the munificent contribution made by the Maharajah of Darbhanga towards the initial expenses of famine relief in the district of Darbhanga and the province of Behar; and, whether the Government of India will sanction the construction of a railway, as a famine relief work, from the town of Darbhanga to Sitamarhi?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): No official Report of the munificent contribution by the Maharajah of Darbhanga has been made to the Secretary of State. The railway in the direction indicated in the question has for some time been in contemplation, but nothing has been definitely settled.

  THE DRAINAGE OF THE SHANNON.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the Shannon Drainage Scheme contemplated by the Government it is intended to include the widening and deepening of the Lower Inny (one of the principal tributaries of the Shannon) between Ballinalack and the point where it enters the Shannon below Ballymahon; and, whether representations have reached him that, since the execution of certain drainage works on the Upper Inny some 15 years ago, at a cost of £58,000, the suggested works on the Lower Inny have become absolutely necessary, in consequence of the vast quantity of water discharged into Lough Iron from the Upper Inny, which the Lower Inny, owing to the existing shallows and other impediments, is unable to carry off, whereby the surrounding districts are flooded for miles in the winter and spring months?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No works on the Lower Inny are included in the estimate for the Shannon works. I am unable to say whether at some future time the improvement of this tributary may be undertaken; but before it can be dealt with it is advisable that the improvement of the Shannon itself should be carried out.
  MR. TUITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct an inspection of the river to take place?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there is any necessity for the inspection of the river.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state when the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will take evidence with regard to the Post Office?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed that the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments have decided to make the Foreign Office the next subject of their inquiry; but they are unable to state whether or when they will take any evidence with regard to the Post Office.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the case that compensation for slaughter in cattle plague is paid out of a central fund; and whether, if so, it would obviate some of the difficulties alluded to by him, in dealing in the same way with pleuro-pneumonia?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is true that in 1878 compensation for slaughter was to be paid out of public funds in the case of cattle plague; but a sharp distinction was drawn in the course of the debate, even by Gentlemen of high—very high—agricultural authority, between cattle plague and pleuro-pneumonia. In fact, the House was partly persuaded to agree to national compensation for cattle slaughtered for cattle plague, on the ground that the case of cattle plague was entirely different from that of pleuro-pneumonia and foot and-mouth disease. I have only hastily read the debate, but this is the impression I have derived. No money has actually been paid out of public funds under the Act of 1878 so far as I have been able to discover.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he can state what progress is being made in carrying out the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, in connection with the Local Government Act of 1888; and, can he also state if any steps are being taken, and if so by whom, in order that all alterations in Census areas, caused by
  1006
  this Act, may be amended before the forthcoming Census is taken?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): The Reports of the Boundary Commissioners refer chiefly to the boundaries of counties and of unions which overlap counties, and the boundaries of those boroughs which are not urban sanitary districts. As regards the latter, the Local Government Board have in each case caused a local inquiry to be held, and Provisional Orders dealing with all the cases except one have been submitted to Parliament for confirmation. With respect to other alterations, the Board have recently received several applications from the Councils of counties and county burghs, and in these cases the Board are in communication with the Local Authorities interested as a preliminary step to the holding of local inquiries. The alterations of areas which have been made by the Local Government Act, and further alterations which may be made in pursuance of its provisions in the coming year, will be recognized in connection with the next Census.
  MR. COSSHAM: May I ask whether all the arrangements made by the County Councils must be brought before this House before being confirmed?
  MR. LONG: No, Sir; certainly not. The alterations which will have to come before the House are alterations of county and borough boundaries. Alterations of union boundaries may be made after an inquiry by the County Council, without reference to this House.

  COST OF COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether, for the guidance of the Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bills, he will lay on the Table of the House a Return of the costs of the elections for County Councillors in the various counties of England and Wales?
  MR. LONG: A Return has been ordered by the House of the costs of the elections of County Councillors chargeable on the county rate in England and Wales. The Return is not yet complete, in consequence of the costs in some in-

  1007
  stances not having as yet been taxed. Immediately the Return is complete it will be laid on the Table of the House.

  THE ALLOTMENTS ACT.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of cases in which Sanitary Authorities have petitioned the Local Government Board for powers of compulsory purchase of land, under the Allotments Act of 1887, and the number of cases (if any) in which the compulsory powers of purchasing land have been put in force, or money borrowed for the purpose of purchasing land for allotments by agreement?
  MR. LONG: In no case have powers for the compulsory purchase of land, for the purpose of the Allotments Act, been conferred on Sanitary Authorities. In two instances Petitions for such powers were received by the Local Government Board. In one of these cases the Order was declined after local inquiry, and in the other the Board would have been prepared to issue the necessary. Order if they could have done so prior to the date when their powers in this matter passed to the County Council. In five cases loans for the purchase of lands have been sanctioned, and there are now two further cases under the consideration of the Board. Of course, the Act contemplated the hiring of lands by Sanitary Authorities as well as the purchase, and there have been a number of cases where such arrangements have been made. I must, at the same time, observe that one of the results of the Act which it was hoped would be attained was that voluntary arrangements for the provision of allotments would be made by landowners, so as to avoid the necessity of the intervention of Sanitary Authorities; and I am glad to be able to state that the Act has to a large extent had satisfactory results in this respect.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the names of the localities from which applications had been made?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman give the one case in which the Local Government Board were willing to act?
  MR. LONG: I am afraid that I cannot give the name at this moment; but I will furnish it if the hon. Member desires to have it. The reason the application was declined was that the result of an inquiry showed that the land could only be obtained at such a great cost that it would be impossible to sub let it.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I did not mean that case; but the one in which the hon. Gentleman said the Local Government Board would have been willing to accede to the application.
  MR. LONG: I will give the hon. Member the name. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Sir W. Foster) asks me to state the names of the localities from which applications have been received. I believe there will be no objection to furnish them; but in the absence of the President of the Local Government Board I am unable to give them now.
  MR. COSSHAM: Have the expenses to which the hon. Member referred been created by the expensive mode of procedure under the Allotments Act?
  MR. LONG: Decidedly not; but they are due to the value of the land and the rents which are paid in the district, together with the cost of rendering the land suitable to be laid out in allotments.

  IRELAND—THE IRISH LAND PURCHASE AND SETTLEMENT COMPANY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an association calling itself the "Irish Land Purchase and Settlement Company, Limited," and owning lands in county Galway, has recently sold a portion of its property to the tenants under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts; if so, whether he can state (a) the number of holdings sold; (b) the Poor Law valuation and the rental thereof; (c) the number of years' purchase paid by the tenants, and its relation to the rents previously paid by the tenants; and, whether this property was purchased chiefly by means of a Government loan; and, if so, can he state how the account stands, and who are the directors of the company?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question, as I am not prepared to give the particulars to-day.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I will repeat the question on Monday.

  THE OATH AND COERCION.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen a paragraph in the Wicklow People newspaper, of 22nd June, headed "The Oath and Coercion," referring to a mission held by the Redemptionist Fathers in Ramsgrange; whether his attention has been called to a sermon of a priest, named O'Brien, in which, after begging the people to be
  "as quiet as possible under the very severe trial which their beloved clergy were undergoing,"
  he added,
  "that, from a Catholic point of view, the oath,"
  under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act,
  "was an unjust and unnecessary one, and, consequently, should not be taken by Catholics,"
  and counselled the people
  "to go to prison before taking the oath,"
  and, whether such recommendation to break the law can be dealt with under existing statutes?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not true that the persons addressed had been threatened by the police with imprisonment if they refrained from giving evidence, and is it not also true that there are a number of persons actually in prison because they refused to acknowledge that they were in a position to give evidence? I would further ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers that it is conducive to the ends of justice to threaten people with imprisonment who know nothing about the matter inquired into for refusing to give evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the reverend gentleman was incorrectly reported with reference to the words he is alleged to have used in regard to the oath. Therefore no consideration as to the leg question arises.
  MR W. REDMOND: Did he not counsel the persons he addressed to remain free from crime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that ho did not use the words he is reported to have used in regard to the oath. I know nothing more.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not the fact that he strongly urged and coun-
  1010
  selled the people to remain calm under any provocation that might be given to them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is very likely, but if the hon. Gentleman desires further information on the subject he had better give notice.

  ARMY GAS STOKERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has made inquiries into the fact of the granting of an eight-hours day by the Gas Companies of London, as stated in the public prints; and if he is now prepared to grant similar privileges to the gas stokers employed in Government workshops?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): No, Sir; I have not made inquiry.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: As the matter is of considerable importance to those employed, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not aware that it is the fact that the Gas Companies of London have granted an eight hours' day. If it is necessary I will be glad to make inquiry.

  MR. JOBSON'S "TIME FUSE."
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that several Commissions have already favourably reported on Mr. Jobson's claims for compensation for advantage having been taken of his invention of a "Time Fuse;" and, if so, whether it is possible to grant some compensation to Mr. Jobson for this invention, which is now extensively used at Elswick and Woolwich?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Mr. Jobson's claim to compensation for the invention of a "Time Fuse" was reported on by a Special Committee appointed for the investigation, by the Ordnance Committee, and by the Ordnance Council, and all reported against the admissibility of the claim.

  THE RECENT SALVATION ARMY DISTURBANCES.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the secretary of State for the Home Department whether

  1011
  it is the case, as reported, that the City Police protected to the boundary of their jurisdiction the Salvation Army procession which was prevented by the Metropolitan Police from passing along the Strand; and, whether he has any information as to the action of the police in the City towards the Salvation Army procession being different from that of the Metropolitan Police in the Strand?
  MR. COSSHAM: May I ask whether the law relating to these processions applies to military processions and to the Lord Mayor's show?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of the City Police that the procession started from Broad Street Railway Station with the intention of passing down Broad Street to its destination. This was not permitted, owing to the probability of obstruction in that thoroughfare, and a circuitous route by Eldon Street and Moorgate Street was accordingly taken. About half-a-dozen men of the City Police accompanied the procession, not for the purpose of protecting it, but in order to prevent as far as possible any serious obstruction to the traffic, and for the convenience of the public generally.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Has any procession other than that of the Salvation Army been allowed to proceed along the Strand, and in the future will all processions be forbidden the use of that thoroughfare?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask for notice of this question, and also of that put by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham).
  MR. JAMES STUART: Did the Salvation Army express any wish or intention to go down Broad Street?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given the substance of the statement that has been made to me; but if it is wished I will make further inquiry.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiry.

  MOZAMBIQUE.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will immediately communicate by cable with Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique, and ascertain whether it is the case that
  1012
  arms and ammunition are being landed at Mozambique, or in the Colony of Mozambique, in considerable quantities, with the permission or connivance of the Portuguese Authorities at that place?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Our information is that the Portuguese Authorities have been using their best endeavours to carry out the prohibition of the import of arms and ammunition declared by their Government, and have generally been successful in doing so. If such articles should nevertheless he landed within the knowledge of Her Majesty's Consul he will, of course, report the matter to Her Majesty's Government. If Her Majesty's Government had reason to believe that the Portuguese Government are not carrying out their engagement to the other Powers interested, inquiries would be addressed to them.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique to the rumours which are rife in regard to the importation of arms and ammunition?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: If communications were addressed to Her Majesty's Representatives in consequence of every newspaper rumour it would cause a great deal of inconvenience and strengthen idle reports. Her Majesty's Consuls would naturally report any such facts without requiring fresh instructions.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Is the Consul referred to the Vice Consul, and is that gentleman still a free agent? Has he not been sent to prison at the instance at the Portuguese Authorities?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should like to have notice of that question. The Vice Consul referred to is simply a trading consul acting under the Consul at Mozambique.

  THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state whether the Report of the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1888 will be laid upon the Table of the House before

  1013
  the Vote in Supply for the Metropolitan Police is taken?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope to lay this Report on the Table in the course of a few days, and probably it will be in the hands of Members before the Police Vote is taken; but as to this I can give no definite pledge.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a few days' notice of the day on which it will be taken?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is a question for the Leader of the House.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Then I will ask the Leader of the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): No, Sir. I am afraid it will not be in my power to do that. The Votes will be taken in order, as they are reached.

  JAMAICA GOVERNMENT RAILWAY.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the following passage, in a despatch from the Secretary of State for the 'Colonies, dated 3rd April, 1889, with reference to the sale of the Jamaica Government Railway:—
  "It should, however, be distinctly understood that I do not accept any responsibility for the scheme, nor do I press its acceptance upon the Council. The experience of other Colonies points to the conclusion that it is generally more advantageous for a Government to construct railways than to grant concessions to Companies for that purpose, even where the concession does not, as in this case, include the parting with a flourishing railway in exchange for a security which must be more or less of a speculative character. The scheme of constructing a railway entirely with borrowed money, without any subscribed share capital, is a novel experiment in a British Colony, &c."
  Under these circumstances, will the Government take steps to submit this experiment to experts in this country before sanctioning its commencement; and, will the Government lay upon the 'Table of the House the despatch referred to, and a copy of the agreement between the Government of Jamaica and the American Syndicate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The question practically before the Secretary of State was whether there was any-
  1014
  thing in this scheme which rendered it incumbent upon him to interfere with the decision in regard to it of the Legislative Council, which, under the new constitution has, with few exceptions, the control of all financial measures; and after very full examination of the scheme and making considerable modifications in it, he considered that it was one which might be submitted to the Legislative Council for their decision; Her Majesty's Government, therefore, do not intend to submit the scheme to any further examination in this country. Papers will be presented to Parliament when they are more complete than at present.

  THE CAPE COAST.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies why necessary public works for the sanitary improvement of Cape Coast have been suspended for the last nine months, and what has become of the sum set apart for such works in the Estimates; whether, as the objections to the Municipal Ordinance for the Gold Coast on the part of the Hon. John Sarbah were put in writing at the request of the governor, Sir W. B. Griffiths, and were fully considered, as well as the Amendments which were made by the community of Cape Coast, he would explain on what grounds the wishes of the people were so set aside; and, what steps the Government of the Gold Coast took to prevent the civil fight and great loss of life which recently took place at Morer near to Cape Coast?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone that question until Monday. It only appeared on the Paper this morning, and I have not had time to obtain the information.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS AND THE DOCKYARDS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many millions sterling the Government have already ordered to be expended in new naval armaments during the ensuing 12 months; what proportion of the sum is to be spent in the Devonport, Keyham, Portsmouth, and Sheerness Dockyards respectively; what proportion is to be spent in private yards; what is the actual number of dockyards-

  1015
  men of all classes who have been discharged during the past eight months from the Devonport and Keyham Yards, and out of what total of men employed; and, whether he can state what is the relative cost of supervision by salaried officials in the Government Dockyards in proportion to the actual cost of production, as compared with that required in the private yards of the firms having Government contracts in hand? I also wish to ask how many more dockyardsmen are to be discharged on Saturday; whether they are all smiths, and, if so, how many of them have been trained as apprentices in the Dockyard; whether it is the fact that the engines for the vessels now building at Devon-port are being built in the Keyham Yard; whether the engine smiths' work is now being done in the boiler-makers' shop instead of as hitherto in the engine. smiths' shop; whether it is the fact that a large number of labourers are to be removed from the smiths' shop and placed under the boatswain; and, whether those who are thus removed have to submit to their pay being reduced from 3s. to 4s. per week?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FOR WOOD,): I have to state in reply to the 14 queries included in the hon. Member's questions that he will find in the Estimates or in Returns furnished to Parliament, and in answers given by my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to the hon. Member's previous questions in the House, much of the information which he now seeks. To re-compile the figures so as to answer the inquiries of the hon. Member in their present form would involve time and expense, besides diverting the attention of the officials from the pressing work required in pushing on with the new naval programme. Some of the queries also relate to matters connected with the discipline and executive administration of the Yards, which I submit cannot be discussed in the House without detriment to the public interest. I may, however, say generally, in reply to the questions, that no naval armaments except torpedo carriages and gun mountings, are made in any of the Dockyards; that the discharge of men from Dockyards has been caused by no reduction in the extent of work to be under-
  1016
  taken, but is due to a necessary readjustment in the number of the several trades required in connection with the economical and efficient construction of a modern man of war; and that engines are being made at Keyham, as shown in the Navy Estimates. The establishment and incidental charges, including supervision in private building yards, according to accounts submitted to the Admiralty, amounted to over 20 per cent upon the cost of the work, as against about 10 per cent, which, after careful examination, was considered as fairly chargeable to new work in our Dockyards, particulars of which are given in page 159 and following pages of the Navy Estimates. The work at the Yards is performed by the branch or department in which the executive officers consider it can be most economically carried out, and the men employed are those most suitable for the purpose, having regard to the nature of the work required.

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS —INSPECTION OF MARKED REGISTERS.
  MR. ALLISON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in refer—once to the election for the electoral division of Hesket, in the county of Cumberland, what steps are necessary to be taken to allow inspection of the marked registers, after the County Council had formed its regulations, seeing that the marked registers and the counterfoil voting papers have been included in the same sealed packets contrary to the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am advised that, inasmuch as the marked register has, in fact, been enclosed in the same sealed packet as the counterfoils of the voting papers, this packet cannot be opened even for the purpose of taking out the marked register without the order of the County Court Judge, to whom application should be made for that purpose. I beg to refer the hon. Member to the case of "Stowe v. Jolliffe" (9 L. R., C. P. 446).

  GUNS FOR THE NAVY
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether out of the guns, 100 in number,

  1017
  for which (according to a Return of 18th June 1889) nine of Her Majesty's ships were still waiting, 40 at least were ordered without any promise to complete them at any definite date; how many of the guns, about which no information on this point is afforded in the above Return, were similarly ordered either from the ordnance factories or private firms; who was the person responsible for giving such orders, and when were they given; whether the same practice now prevails; and, whether, in giving orders for guns to private firms, any priority is claimed by the Government for national orders over those given to the same firms by other persons or Governments?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: This question assumes that in a Return dated the 18th of June it is shown that nine of Her Majesty's ships are waiting for 100 guns, but if the hon. Member will look at the Return he will see that 100 is the complete armament of the ships; and the Return further shows that from 60 to 70 of these were actually on board ship, or could be put there at any moment, or had passed proof and were practically ready; seven were stated to be at proof, of which up to this date six have passed; four were to be delivered by contractors at various dates during this month, all of which have been received. The armament of two ships will be completed, as the Return states, by putting on board seven guns of the same calibre, which are now ready. The block in the supply of guns, therefore, has been almost surmounted. No guns whatever have been ordered by contract without a promise to complete them by a definite date. As a rule guns are not ordered for particular ships, but for Navy service generally. Therefore the column in the Return which states the dates when outstanding guns were promised does not relate to the dates at which contractors of the ordnance factories have undertaken to supply them. To avoid complication the Return was originally moved in this form. The delays which have taken place either from change of pattern or by neglect of contractors are notorious. I have no doubt that the person responsible for the orders given is the Secretary of State for War for the time being Contractors are now required to give precedence to orders from our own Govern-
  1018
  ment, and our resident Inspectors will take care to insure this being done.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now give any indication when or in what order with regard to other Bills he proposes to proceed with the Local Government (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. COSSHAM: May I ask when the Drainage Bills are likely to be effectively put down?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In all probability the Irish Bills will be taken on Monday. I am not able to give an answer with regard to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. It is my desire to meet the wishes of the House as far as I can, and the Bills will ho proceeded with as early as possible.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any assurance that these Bills will be proceeded with, and that there is no truth in the rumour that the Government intend to shunt them on account of the objection of some of their supporters to free education?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I really do not wish to waste the time of the House by discussing rumours, or by even satisfying the alarms of the hon. Gentleman. Surely the hon. Gentleman has been long enough in Parliament to know what value to put upon such rumours.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that these Bills are to be pushed through this Session?
  No answer was given.
  MR. CHILDERS: Are we to understand that the Tithes Bill is to be taken before the Local Government (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No. Sir; I cannot give that assurance. Further progress must be made with the Bills now before the House before I can say precisely what course will be taken.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Is it still the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with the Committee on Royal Grants?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone that question until Monday.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Is it the intention of the Government to discharge the Order for the Sugar Convention Bill on Thursday?
  MR. H. SMITH: It is not very important whether I deal with that Bill next Thursday or on any other Thursday. It will be taken in the usual Course.

  THE SHERIFF CLERK OF LANARKSHIRE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the gentleman who is Accountant Statistician and Inspector of District Offices in the Sheriffdom of Lanark is a brother of the Sheriff Clerk of Lanarkshire who created the office and made the appointment; when that gentleman made his last inspection of the district offices, and how often since his appointment he has inspected those offices; what experience, knowledge, or training in Sheriff Court work that gentleman has had to enable him efficiently to perform the duties of his present position; and, what was that gentleman's calling prior to his appointment six years ago lo the office he now holds?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): My answer to the first question is in the affirmative; the last inspection at Hamilton was made in the end of 1886. He has been twice at Hamilton, once at Airdrie, and once at Lanark. The duties of this office are altogether connected with the accounting department of the Sheriff Clerk's office, and prior to his appointment he had thirty years' experience as cashier, accountant, and ultimately partner in a large commercial house.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what additional sum was granted to the Sheriff Clerk of Lanarkshire, on the death of Mr. Donald, the Commissary, in consequence of the commissary work being then added to the Sheriff Clerk's duties, and what proportions of that sum were allotted to the Sheriff Clerk deputes at Hamilton, Airdrie, and Lanark, who now require to take charge of the commissary work falling under their respective districts?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: When these two offices were amalgamated the sum of £850 was added to the sheriff
  1020
  clerk's salary in respect of this work and the increase in his ordinary duties, £400 of which was allotted to the Sheriff Clerk himself and £450 for the clerks and deputes. The bulk of the commissary work is done in Glasgow, and in respect of what is done in the districts £45 was allotted to the deputes at Lanark, Airdrie, and Hamilton respectively. An additional clerk has since been sent to Hamilton at a salary of £60.

  IRELAND—PRISON TREATMENT OF THE REV. D. STEPHENS.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Rev. Daniel Stephens, at present in Londonderry Prison, would be allowed the use of books from his own library by the authorities; and if this were disallowed, would the Government permit him the free use of the prison library, allowing him to have the books changed as wanted, and not restrict him to a few during his imprisonment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the Rev. Mr. Stephens being now an ordinary convicted prisoner, his case differs in no respect from that of any other prisoner of the same class. No ordinary prisoner is allowed the use of private books, and the use of prison books is governed by certain general regulations applicable to all prisoners alike, and which the governor has no power to alter in the case of any particular prisoner.

  MR. CONYBEARE AND THE SPEAKER.
  SIR. W. BARTTELOT: I am not in the habit generally of bringing questions of Order before the House; but I must ask to-day for the kind indulgence of the House while I ask the Speaker questions on points of Order with regard to a Notice of Motion which appears on the Paper for this day in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybearo). I think, Sir, that I am only expressing the general opinion of the House when I say, as an independent Member, that in most trying and difficult circumstances you have discharged your duties with a fairness and impartiality and a firmness which must commend

  1021
  themselves to every right-feeling mar in the House. Part of the following Notice has been on the Order Book for some time; but my attention was not specially called to it until today, for which day I find that it has been put down as an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, with a recent addition relating to an incident of the present Session:—
  "Mr. Conybeare,—To move that the application of the Closure on the 19th of July, 1888, to the Motion that the Bann Drainage Bill be now read a second time, without any debate having taken place thereupon, and the refusal by Mr. Speaker to permit an Amendment to such Motion standing in the name of the Member for Camborne to be moved, and the application of the Closure on the 16th of May, 1889, to the Motion relating to perpetual pensions and the refusal by Mr. Speaker to permit an Amendment, proposed by the Member for Caithness, to be moved, constituted a very gross abuse of the Rules of this House, which, by Standing Order 25, require Mr. Speaker to use his discretion for the protection of the rights of the minority."
  I wish to ask the Speaker whether such expressions ought to appear on the Notice Paper of the House? By the Standing Order Mr. Speaker is required to use his discretion for the protection of the rights of the minority; and I appeal to the House whether Mr. Speaker has not invariably used his discretion with judgment and with justice? I wish, therefore, to ask whether it is in order that this Notice should appear on the Order Book; secondly, whether any Amendment can be moved to it to-day; and, thirdly, whether, if it be not disposed of to-day, such a Notice impugning the character of the Speaker ought to be allowed to remain on the Order Book of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet informed me a few minutes ago that he was about to ask this question of me. I may say that I had noticed the Motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Camborne, the first part of it, I believe, has been on the Paper for nearly a year, but it was not until lately that the hon. Member fixed to-day for the Motion, in which he has included a further and recent application of the closure, in addition to the terms of his original Motion. The hon. Member has not only questioned the exercise of the discretion with which I am invested by the House, but he has
  1022
  done more—he has questioned the Votes of the House, because the exercise of my discretion was ratified by the House on both occasions. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly within his right in questioning the exercise of discretion by the Speaker, but he clearly cannot do so by an Amendment to the Motion "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair," because, as I have already pointed out on a previous occasion, that would give no opportunity to any hon. Member if he thought fit to move an Amendment traversing the Motion of the hon. Member for Camborne. If the hon. Member objects to a Vote of the House, it is not competent for him to call it in question by an Amendment to the Motion that I do leave the Chair, but he must move a substantive Motion asking that the Vote of the House shall be specifically and distinctly cancelled. On both occasions, as I say, the House by a Vote ratified the exercise of my discretion. I only point out—I do not wish to argue the question—that whether the discretion vested in me was rightly or wrongly exercised, the House on both occasions thought it right not to refuse the application of the closure. I only acted in the exercise of the discretion specifically vested in me when I thought it right—and I do not think I was wrong—not to withhold the question of the application of the closure from the judgment of the House; and the House on both occasions ratified my judgment by a large majority. It was a matter entirely for the opinion of the House to sanction or refuse the application of the closure. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to question my conduct or to question the conduct of this House in a particular Vote he must submit a substantive Resolution to the judgment of the House. If he were to raise a debate upon the Notice now on the Paper, the issue would not be fairly presented to the House. Perhaps I ought to have dealt with the matter before, but as the Notice had relation to myself as well as to the House, the House will understand that I felt some delicacy in moving in the matter.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I had not the slightest idea of transgressing the Rules and Orders of the House by putting the Motion down for Friday evening, and I have not received any intimation that I was out of order in so doing. I had no desire to question the ruling of the

  1023
  Speaker or his action in connection with the two Votes or the decision of the House. If it is not competent for me to bring on the Motion in this form on a Friday evening, I will take the earliest opportunity of submitting it as an independent Motion either this Session or next.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Upon the point of order may I ask if it is in your discretion, Sir, to allow the closure to be moved when there has been no debate, as in the case of the Bann Drainage Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: My discretion is unlimited to submit to or to withhold from the judgment of the House to determine whether the question shall be put or not. I am vested by the Standing Orders with absolute discretion to permit the closure to be moved unless I think that the debate ought to be allowed to go on in the interests of fair debate and in the interests of the minority, whatever that may mean. If I think the matter is not properly before the House I do not intervene but allow the debate to go on.

MOTIONS.

  INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jesse Collings, Bill for Industrial Agricultural Education in public Elementary Schools in Rural Districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Howell, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. George Dixon, Mr. Robert Reid, and Major Rasch.
  Bill presented, and read first time [Bill 295.]

  RAILWAY STATIONS (NAMES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Swetenham, Bill to provide for the better advertising by Railway Companies the names of Stations within the limits of Railway Stations in Great Britain, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Swetenham, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, and Mr. Seager Hunt.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 290.]

  DOGS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Henry Roscoe' Bill to amend "The Dogs Act, 1871," and to amend the law as to the rights and liabilities of owners of dogs, ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Smith Wright, Mr. Norris, and Dr. Farquharson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 297.]

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (THEATRES) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to confer powers on the London County Council for
  1024
  inspecting Theatres, Music Halls, and other places of entertainment, and granting certificates, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Beaufoy. Earl Compton, Mr. Firth, Colonel Hughes, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Howard Vincent.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 288.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 10.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name and which limits the number of the Commissioners to ten. The preponderance of Scotch opinion is in favour of a smaller Commission than that proposed by the Bill. I quite appreciate the well-timed remark which was made last night that we ought to discuss this somewhat delicate subject with as little reference to individuals as possible, but after all the learned Lord Advocate had to confess that he bad given quantity for quality. If my Amendment be adopted, the Government can take time to consider the names of the Commissioners, and then I hope that such names will be proposed as will meet the general views of the House and of the Scotch Members. The Government have made fair concessions in regard to the constitution of the Universities Courts, and they now have an opportunity of making similar concessions in regard to the Commission, which the Scotch Members desire should be a most efficient body, and one in which those who are interested in education would have the greatest possible confidence. I now submit the Amendment, hoping that the Government will see their way to accept it.
  Amendment moved, Clause 10, page 8, line 14, after "following" insert "ten."—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ten' be there inserted."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Upon this question I must confess that I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment. I voted last night for reducing the number of Commissioners to seven, rather by way

  1025
  of showing that I was in favour of a somewhat smaller Commission than that proposed by the Government than because I thought there was any particular virtue in the number seven. I think that the figure named by the mover of the present Amendment pretty accurately expresses what might be accepted by the Committee and the Government. At the same time, I am well aware of the difficulty the Government might have, at this stage of the proceedings, in reducing the number of Commissioners to that point. We are not now engaged in creating an absolutely new Commission, but in the, perhaps more difficult task of endeavouring to make an old Commission better than it is; and I appeal to the Government to state, if they can, how far they are disposed to meet the views of Scotch Members on this side as to the constitution of this executive Commission. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Lord Advocate last night indicated a desire to meet our views in this matter, and I think it might contribute materially to the progress of the Bill if we could now come to some understanding on the subject. This is an executive Commission of the utmost importance in the interests of the Universities; it is to carry out and apply the provisions of this measure; and I cannot forget that this Bill and the general line of reform which it embodies are really the offspring of certain active Members of the councils of the Universities who have agitated for and advocated some alteration of this sort for many years. It is surprising to find among the Commissioners a most inadequate representation of that particular class of persons among those interested in University matters. Again, the House has not yet decided what is to be done in the important matter of tests and Theological Faculties; but assuming that the Government have their way in that matter, then the great question of tests and theological faculties will be remitted to a Commission on which there is not a single member connected with any of the great Presbyterian bodies of Scotland outside the Established Church. Now, with a view to strengthen the Commission in these respects, I have ventured to put upon the Paper the names of two men, Dr. Heron Watson, a distinguished medical practi-
  1026
  tioner in Edinburgh, and Dr. Blackie, a well known citizen of Glasgow, both of whom have taken a leading part in the movement which has led to the introduction of this measure. They have also, I believe, the qualification of being members of one or other of the Dissenting churches. There is also another name proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter)—the name of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart), who is a Scotchman—very much a Scotchman—and a graduate of St. Andrew's, and who has had a large experience of educational matters in the University of Cambridge, and especially in the popular development of University education. These are three names which I should say would certainly give strength to the Commission, and would, to a great extent, meet the feeling of which I am the mouthpiece. But if the advocates of change are thus represented, it is also desirable that the teaching body should be directly represented upon the Commission. Indeed, every aspect of the question of Scotch University education ought to be adequately represented even if some of the members of the Commission should be regarded by their colleagues as advocati diaboli because they represent an unpopular cause. The professors and the teaching body should also have their due representation. I ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government will be willing to add for these purposes four members to the Commission—two out of the three whom I have named, and also two members of the Senatus of one or other of the Universities. I would suggest as one of these Sir William Thomson, as being not only a Scotchman, but head and shoulders above all his contemporaries in scientific matters. He is, moreover, a man of equable temperament, who would probably take moderate views in this matter, and another qualification is that he is President of the Royal Society of Scotland. I now come to the rather delicate question as to what names are to be taken off in order to make room for these new members. I should be glad if the Government could see their way to take off a great many, but on the assumption that the Government mean to adhere to the number which they propose, how can we proceed in the least invidious way to select the victims

  1027
  for sacrifice? Let us begin at the bottom of the list. If the Government took off the three members at the foot of the list, room would be made for my suggestion, and, as we require one other vacancy, I would say that if in these discussions there is one name more than another which has been alluded to as being somewhat superfluous it is that of Sir James Crichton Browne. It has been pointed out, in the course of the debate, that he is one of two medical men on the list, belonging to a particular branch of the medical profession, which is thus over-represented, and that, if in Scotland, he is not resident in Edinburgh. I think I was bound in suggesting that now names should be adopted to indicate the way in which they could be added, and I shall be glad to know whether the Government can accept the proposals I have made. We, on this side of the House, are all agreed that the Commission proposed is too large, and if it could be reduced in number I should be very pleased. I have, however, made my suggestions on the supposition that the Government intend to adhere to the full number of the Commission, and I believe if the changes I have suggested were introduced, they would not only tend to make the Commission a more satisfactory one, but would also very materially assist the passing of the Bill through the House.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART: I earnestly hope that the Government will take advantage of the suggestion which has been so well put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. 'They may, by a timely concession, save considerable discussion on this point now, and the question may be settled on Report so as to please both sides of the House.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I voted last night for the Motion to reduce the number of Commissioners to seven, but at the same time I could not help feeling the great force of the remarks made by the Lord Advocate against running down the Commission to such a small number, inasmuch as it has to do such varied work. I am bound to say, however, that the proposal of my hon. Friend to reduce the number of 10, seems to me to be thoroughly practicable. We can have
  1028
  three lawyers, three doctors, three educationalists, and last but not least one of those ornamental personages of whom we have heard, and who are to a certain extent worthy of being put on the Commission. I quite recognise the difficulties the Lord Advocate had to contend with in forming the Commission especially in the selection of the doctors. It is hopeless to expect medical men of large practice in London to take journeys to Edinburgh to carry on the work of the Commission. Gentlemen who are connected with lunacy practice have, however, a certain amount of intermittent leisure, and would be able to go to Edinburgh occasionally to do the work. I am bound to say that the medical men se-looted are gentlemen of ability and public spirit, and I think they might very fairly be left on the Commission as representing the medical interests. I think my right hon. Friend wanted to take too many doctors off the Commission and to leave on too many lawyers.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs has very fairly recognized the difficulties of a Government which, having framed a Commission, is asked to dismiss some of the members and to add new names. I stated last night that while very careful consideration had been given to the selection of names, and while we are prepared to support every name we have put forward, we must necessarily have regard to the confidence which the Commission should inspire in the public mind. When I hear my hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw-Stewart) on this side support the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite it becomes very difficult to insist upon our present list. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed to two interests which he considers inadequately represented on that Commission. The first is described as the body of academic reformers, and the other as the body of Presbyterian dissenters. As to the first point, an effort has been made to place on the Commission names that have been prominent in academic discussion. As to the second, if the House should decide, as I hope it will, to defer for Report the question of tests, I think it is very desirable that there should be some member on the Commission who is personally identified with the body of

  1029
  Presbyterian dissenters. The two first names which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned are those of men of position, ability, and note. What, however, strikes me with regard to both is that each is personally identified with teaching, and is therefore to some extent in competition with the Universities. That is a point which requires very careful consideration. He has also suggested the eminent name of Sir William Thomson, who will represent the professorial body. Turning to the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to obtain vacancies, I will at once say that I notice with great regret the names which would be removed from the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted a very uninvidious method of reducing the number; but when I look at the three names I observe with great regret that we shall lose Mr. Erichsen, a valued public servant; Mr. Richard Varny Campbell, a capable lawyer; and Mr. McGregor, a Glasgow citizen of high repute. I also see with great regret that Sir J. Crichton Browne would disappear from the Commission. If, however, some process of excision has to be gone through, I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman has not hit upon a method as appropriate as any that could be suggested. I take the three last names because they were the last, and for the removal of Sir J. Crichton Browne's name he urges the reason that if it were retained a comparatively small section would be doubly represented in the Commission. I will merely observe that if the Committee should see fit to delete these four names, they may leave them blank in the meantime, trusting to the spirit of conciliation and the good understanding which at present exists, and which I believe will be carried out in the selection of the four names to fill the blanks. I cannot say I regard with complete satisfaction the suggestion for the representation of contending interests. The suggestion is that an extramural teacher should be put in, and that on the other hand there must be found a representative of the intramural or professorial element. I hope it is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to reconsider that matter. I think we shall best arrive at a harmonious settlement of this question by consenting to the deletion of the four
  1030
  names and leaving them blank until the stage of Report.
  MR. HUNTER: With reference to the very satisfactory statement we have just heard from the two front Benches, I rejoice that means have been found to avoid an unpleasant discussion. With regard to admitting one or two professors into the Commission, I would urge the absolute necessity of Aberdeen being represented. There are at Aberdeen an enormous number of bursaries, and I think some professor of the Arts section conversant with the details of the system should be on the Commission.
  SIR B. W. FOSTER: Whilst recognizing the very liberal spirit in which the suggestions of my right hon. Friend have been met by the Lord Advocate, I am still inclined to support the Amendment reducing the number of the Commission to ten. I should like to see the Commission completely reconstituted. I do not think it would be fair, as my right hon. Friend proposes, to strike two medical men off the list without replacing them by other medical representatives. These Universities are great centres of medical teaching, and we send from England a large number of students on account of the excellence of that teaching. They compete with our English Universities, and I think we have a right to demand that as regards the granting of degrees they should be administered in the most liberal spirit, and that we should not pay them to compete with ourselves, and, at the same time to exclude our students from their degrees unless they spend a certain time north of the Tweed. If there is one medical man who should have a place on the Commission it is Dr. Bruce, who has been chosen by the whole medical profession of Scotland to represent them on the General Council, and whose academic position and general culture would eminently fit him to discharge the duties of a Commissioner. I shall support the Amendment with the view of having the constitution of the Commission remodelled.
  MR. WALLACE: I am strongly in favour of a reduction in the number of members of this Commission, and for several reasons I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have suggested the

  1031
  omission of four names, and I propose to state my reasons for so doing, in order that my motives may not be misconstrued. The members of the Commission include representatives of four classes—Educationalists, Members of Parliament, lawyers, and medical men. Now, in the first place, it seemed to me possible to omit some of the gentlemen named as members without the slightest disrespect for them. For instance, among the Educationalists I think the name of Sir Francis Sandford might be left out, because we have on the Commission another gentleman, a well-known Scotch Educationalist, the Member for the Glasgow University, and however much we may differ from him, not only on general, but on University and Educational questions, I think he is entitled to be considered an eminent Scotch University Educationalist. The gentleman whose name I suggest for omission is certainly not as great a specialist on these questions as the hon. Member. Then I come to the Members of Parliament, of whom there are five. I do not wish to make any personal contrast or reflection whatsoever, and I do not think I am doing wrong when I say that of the five Members, four of them, at all events, are more or less prominently identified with University educational matters. The hon. Member for Manchester, for instance, has a peculiar eminence of his own in regard to science as connected with the Universities, while the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanarkshire necessarily and naturally commands the highest respect, for he is an accomplished scholar, who has a unique experience in Scotch, English, and Continental University Education. He is, therefore, peculiarly fitted to do valuable service on this Commission. Then, again, the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Glasgow has long interested himself in educational questions, and occupies a certain position of pre-eminence in connection with University matters. I cannot, therefore, feel justified in moving the omission of either of these gentlemen. But I do not think I am saying anything derogatory to the hon. Member for Ipswich when I suggest he is not a specialist, and ought not to be put in competition with the hon. Members I have named. No doubt, in
  1032
  a certain department of public usefulness the hon. Member has distinguished himself in a manner that is suitable to his qualifications, but I do not think I am saying anything disrespectful to him when I suggest that his name might be omitted from the list. Now, there are a considerable number of lawyers on the Commission—men in high positions, and others in positions not so high. Some of them have claims on grounds to which I have already referred. Of the others there are two Senators of the College of Justice, and one member of the junior branch of the profession. I think that one Senator of the College of Justice would be sufficient, and it seems hardly right that two thirds of the representation of the profession should be given to what is numerically the very much smaller body, while the ordinary Bar of Scotland has no representation at all—for that would be the effect of adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs in proceeding by the haphazard method of striking out the latter, a proceeding which is evidently in obedience to the precept which commits the hindmost to a patronage which is not always safe. With respect to the medical profession I think there need be very little difficulty indeed. The proposal of the Lord Advocate is to give two thirds of the representation of the medical profession on the Commission to gentlemen who are versed in lunacy. I think one of these gentlemen might safely be spared, and if there is a representative of what I may call sane, as distinguished from insane medicine, I think the matter might be safely left in the hands of Mr. Erichsen. I have made these suggestions in the hope that they will prove helpful in showing how still further to reduce the size of the Commission without doing anything indelicate or invidious, and I have also given my reasons in order to defend myself from suspicions of unworthy motives. The Lord Advocate yesterday said it was easy to invent and to utter sarcasm in connection with personal names. That is a facility of which the Lord Advocate does not too abundantly avail himself, but if he was indicating a reference to any Members on this side I will venture to assure him that he was mistaken, for we desire to say nothing undeservedly offensive to any individual, while we are nut indis-

  1033
  posed to fire a broadside into the general mass.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: The question before us is whether the Government are disposed to agree to a compromise which involves the acceptance of my right hon. Friend's suggestions, with a view to securing the representation of certain interests, while leaving out the names of some proposed members of the Commission who could be spared because they have no special qualifications. If the Government are willing to adopt this course I do not think that we can go any further with the matter at present, seeing that the Government cannot say who will be put forward to supply the vacancies. I am glad that the Government have indicated that the teaching staff of the Universities will be represented. I find on the Commission a gentleman with whom I have served on several Commissions, and who will give a judicial mind to the work—I mean the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. Campbell). But I also want to see a real academical reformer appointed. One name suggested is that of a very advanced politician, but a moderate academical reformer. I have never found him to he more advanced than myself on these matters, although we have served together on Academical Commissions; and as the Lord Advocate has been pleased to acknowledge me as a moderate reformer, I think he can have no objection to the hon. and learned Member for Shore-ditch (Professor Stuart), whom he will find has thoroughly at heart the interest of the English as well as Scotch Universities. I do not think it wise now to discuss individual names; if necessary that must be done on the Report stage.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope, now that the Government have accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs, this discussion will not be further prolonged. In the appointment of the four gentlemen who are to be placed on the Commission Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to give complete effect to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Possibly, this compromise does not give entire satisfaction to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is as far as Her Majesty's Government can go.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I understand the arrangement arrived at
  1034
  is that four names shall be deleted from the present list, and four new names proposed on the Report stage. I think that that is a very curious result to have been brought about by a discussion on a Motion to reduce the number of Commissioners to ten. Still, if my hon. Friend thinks it right to press his Amendment to a Division, I shall vote with him. I will not discuss that Amendment now, but in regard to the four new names to be chosen, I trust I am within my rights in expressing a hope that these nominations will not be understood to be a matter of private arrangement between the two Front Benches in this House, because I think on this subject private Members ought to be consulted. There is one other point on which I should like to touch. I do not like the argument which has been advanced for the selection of two names—namely, that the question of tests might have to be referred to this Commission, and that persons supposed to be specially competent to deal with it should therefore be elected on the Commission. I think, in the first place, it is pre-judging the question whether the matter should or should not be referred to the Commission; and, in the second place, if you make provision now for Commissioners specially qualified to deal with it, then you, to some extent, pre-judge the decision of the House on the important point whether or not the tests should be abolished by a vote of this House, or whether the point should be referred by the Bill to the Commission. Then, again, the suggestion that persons specially selected by the Presbyterian bodies should be specially selected for that purpose seems to be one of a suspicious character. I do not admit that such persons are specially qualified to deal with the question of tests on that ground, and I think the House should secure a more judicial, a more neutral, and a more independent opinion on the Commission.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: As I wish to facilitate the progress of the Bill, I will withdraw my Amendment, although I may point out to the First Lord of the Treasury that the question is a most important one, and he ought not to begrudge a little time for discussing it. It is understood that the matter will be brought up on the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 10, page 8, lines 21 and 22, leave out "William Mackintosh, Esquire, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates." (The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments proposed, Clause 10, page 8, lines 20 and 21, leave out "Sir James Crichton Browne"; Clause 10, page 8, lines 24 and 25, leave out "Richard Varny Campbell, Esquire, and Alexander Bennet M'Gregor, Esquire."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BRYCE: As this is the last opportunity we shall have of pressing observations on the Government with regard to the filling up of vacancies, I should like to point out that on the Commission, as it now stands, there is no one who has anything like a substantial knowledge of the requirements of Aberdeen University, and I hope that an attempt will be made to secure a place on the Commission for someone with special knowledge of that University. I have endeavoured to obtain consent to serve from Dr. Baines and Professor Robertson Smith, two graduates of the University, but owing to the pressure of other engagements they have declined. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government may be able to overcome their reluctance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13, agreed to.
  Motion made, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HUNTER: I hope that the Government will not object to the insertion of the words "and students" after "teachers."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not see any objection to that.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 14, page 9, line 29, insert after "teachers" "and students."
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I thought it better to honestly and clearly indicate the particular form in which I think inquiry should be made, and therefore my Amendment is divided into two parts—first, in general terms, to inquire
  1036
  into the expediency of abolishing any college which may no longer be required, or to alter its functions; and then, in particular, I direct inquiry into the maintenance of St. Mary's College, St. Andrew's, as a School of Divinity. I wish to say at once that this has no connection with the question of Disestablishment. I bring this proposal forward in no spirit of hostility to the Established Church. I have my own opinion as to Disestablishment; but so long as the Established Church exists and Divinity Schools are required as part of the system, I do not wish to raise that question. But the question I do want to raise is—whether it is desirable that this particular Divinity College should he maintained as such, or whether the funds required for its maintenance might not, with advantage to the University of St. Andrew's, be devoted to other purposes, making that University what we all desire to see it. So long as it exists, the Established Church of Scotland is entitled to Divinity Schools in connection with the Universities. Provision is made for divinity students in each of the four Universities; but the number of students never exceeds 270 or 280, and the number has fallen so low as 200. Now, at the first blurt, I say, taking the maximum number 280, that four colleges for the education of these students are too many; but when we come to the Colleges of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, we find the number of students is ridiculously small. Within the last few years the number of scholars in each has fallen below 20; in one case 18, in the other 19. Then a proposal was mooted to abolish these Divinity Halls, and an effort was made, and the attendance in the two rose to 70. But are 70 students sufficient to keep up these two well-equipped Divinity Schools? I do not think the necessity can be shown. Aberdeen, perhaps, may establish a claim; but as regards St. Andrew's, I think there is a consensus of opinion that the Divinity School is not required. There are fully - equipped Divinity Schools at Edinburgh and Glasgow, both places as near to St. Andrew's as Cambridge and Oxford to London, and a large proportion of the students at St. Andrews come from places much nearer to Glasgow or Edinburgh than to St. Andrew's. There is no necessity for keeping up this Divinity School, while

  1037
  by making use of the funds-for the equipment rind building of St. Mary's, and for the general purposes of the University, you might make St. Andrew's an ideal place of education. I admit that St. Andrew's has done its best with very limited funds at its disposal. Its income is small, and has diminished of late years, for no county has suffered more from agricultural and commercial depression than Fife. Adding, however, the building and equipment of St. Mary's to St. Andrew's, for general purposes, you might have a modern school of the very best class. An opportunity offers for carrying out the work now, for recently two of the most highly-paid professors have died. I am satisfied the changes might be made without doing any harm to the Church of Scotland and with immense advantage to St. Andrew's. The salaries paid to professors at St. Mary's are high, and the income is derived from what are for Scotland considerable endowments. Putting the matter on the ground of utility, I may say with confidence there cannot be two opinions. Everybody must allow that St. Mary's is superfluous, and with immense advantage to St. Andrew's University might be abolished as a divinity college. I can see no ground for resisting my proposal but the mere ground of conservatism, the determination to keep it as it is simply because it is, not justifying it or considering how best to benefit the cause of education.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 14, page 9, line 30, after "expedient," insert—
  "(1) To abolish any college which may no longer be required, or to alter its functions. And in particular to inquire whether the present demand for theological instruction in the Universities of Scotland and at St. Andrew's is such as to require the maintenance of St. Mary's College, St, Andrew's, as a school for divinity students, in addition to the divinity schools of the other Universities, or whether the funds might more advantageously be devoted to other purposes in the University of St. Andrew's.''—(Sir G. Campbell.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): I cannot accept this Amendment. With regard to the first branch of it, I will simply say it is altogether inconsistent with the general spirit of the Bill, which is rather to multi-
  1038
  ply than to diminish the number of colleges. The number of colleges is not so great as to make this Amendment desirable. The hon. Member proceeds to point specifically to the College of St. Mary's, and says it is not justified because of the small number of students. But the Theological College of St. Mary's is not the smallest in Scotland, it has the attendance of about 50 students. When the hon. Member talks of 18 students, he does not refer to the existing state of things with which we have to deal. I am not ashamed to say, in reply to the hon. Member's remarks, that we do on Conservative grounds desire to maintain the college. We have some regard for the feelings of reverence and affection that have gathered round an institution which has existed for four centuries. St. Mary's has a distinguished past, and deserves the veneration which it enjoys from those who have studied within its walls. I do not think the hon. Member has stated anything to justify its destruction; and I answer his challenge by saying that it is entirely in accordance with principles we are not ashamed to hold that we stand by this ancient institution and defend it against this attempt at abolition.
  MR. HUNTER: I do not rise to continue the discussion, but to make a suggestion to my hon. Friend. In principle I support his proposal, but it is expressed in a somewhat inconvenient form. It is confined to St. Andrew's, and it proposes the abolition of colleges that may no longer be required, or to alter their functions, and there may be a doubt whether the Commissioners would not be obliged to deal with the whole of a college or not at all, not dealing with one Chair only for instance. The question my hon. Friend desires to raise could be disposed of in a more satisfactory manner in connection with Sub-section 8, which gives power to found new professorships, and to which I have put down an Amendment which would, subject to compensation herein provided, enable the Commissioners to deal with individual Theological Chairs, and abolish existing professorship. This would cover the case of St. Andrew's, and would, I think, se rye my hon. Friend's purpose.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like to say, in reply to the remarks of the

  1039
  Solicitor General, that I quite agree in the desirability to multiply rather than to diminish the number of colleges, and I confess that I have some share in those sentimental feelings to which he alludes in regard to St. Mary's. It is a charming little college, and I should be sorry to see it abolished. I only wish to alter its functions, to change it from a School of Divinity to a school for some other purpose more required. I do not say it is the smallest of Divinity colleges, and within the last few years its attendance has equalled that of Aberdeen. The Solicitor General has frankly told us that he does not defend St. Mary's on the ground of utility, but on Conservative grounds—its age and history.
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: No, I did not say that. I said its history entitled it to respect, and its present condition did not justify abolition.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I did not gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks that he showed the College as a School of Divinity was a very useful institution. My Amendment only gives expression to an opinion shared by many. Sentimental feelings on such subjects have their value, but in public institutions we must consult purposes of utility before we indulge in sentiment. But as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen thinks my point can be more broadly raised on a later proposal for the abolition of professorships, I will not press this Amendment now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: This section gives power to the Commissioners to rearrange foundations and endowments that have been in active operation for 20 years, before the passing of this Act, and I propose to extend the period to 30 years. I happen to know of one important endowment which under the clause as it stands would be brought under the purview and revision of the Commissioners to the considerable disappointment of the family of the founder. Twenty years is a very short period, and I think 30 years is a reasonable time within which a foundation should be exempt from disturbance.
  Amendment proposed, line 3, to leave out "twenty" and insert "thirty."
  SIR ARCHIBALD ORR-EWING: I think my hon. Friend might have gone a little further and have adopted the principle of the Bill of 1882 making the period 50 years. I am quite sure it would be an advantage as regards future bequests to have a longer period before any fund left for educational purposes should be subject to alteration.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I think my hon. Friend is referring to a different subject. I think his mind is running on the Educational Endowments Act. This subject of University endowments has never before been under the consideration of the House.
  MR. BUCHANAN: No doubt the hon. Member for Dumbarton was thinking of the Education Endowments Act. I should like to know what is the amount of the endowments to be dealt with and the difference between the amount in the two periods of 20 and 30 years. The hon. Gentleman spoke of one large endowment he desires to have excluded, no doubt for very good reasons, but I should like to have some idea of the amount that would be excluded by his Amendment. I may point out that the period of 30 years would in effect exclude from the operations of the Commission all endowments dating from the time of the last University Commission, and that would mean a serious limitation in the powers of the Commissioners to make alterations in endowments.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I hope the Committee will adhere to the figure we have in the Bill. The world is moving very fast, and even now 20 years is a long period considering the progress in science and other subjects for an endowment scheme to remain without revision. I have at the request of the University of Edinburgh, placed an Amendment on the Paper asking that schemes may be subject to revision during the lifetime of the donor when he shall desire the revision. This is because they have found the inconvenience of there being no such power even when a donor himself desires to make his endowment more useful and in accordance with modern requirements.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to support the Amendment. It is pretty well known that a provision such as that in the Bill

  1041
  would have a restrictive effect on bequests. The case to which the hon. Member (Mr. J. A. Campbell) refers is one with which I am perfectly familiar, and I am aware that the legislation which permits the disturbance of the terms under which bursaries have been founded has deterred persons from carrying out their inclinations. It is a well known fact that in Glasgow there have been many instances in which people have changed their deeds of settlement on this account. Thirty years is certainly not an unreasonable time within which a foundation should remain undisturbed. As to the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), I do not see that there will be any difficulty in providing that if the founder desires to make some change in the terms of his bequest to meet altered circumstances, he shall, with the consent of the college or University, have the means of making the change.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I admit the force of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds as to allowing donors power to revise their bequests, and when we reach his Amendment I shall be quite prepared to accept it. As to the subject immediately under consideration, I admit that there is much to be said in its support. Perhaps it would be preferable to adopt the period of a quarter of a century. I am prepared to alter 20 years to 25 years.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I regret this change. We hear much of people not leaving money for educational purposes because the terms of their bequest may be subject to change. On the other hand, there are persons who object to foundations because they must tie up the fund in terms which change of circumstances may render quite inadequate for the carrying out of the founder's intention. I do not think we ought to limit the discretion of the Commissioners beyond 20 years.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "20" and insert "25."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment in line 4 agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, line 5, after "dormant" insert—
  "Or which they may be asked to revise and regulate by the Senatus Academicus and the founder of the trust conjointly, with the approval of the University Court."—(Sir Lyon Playfair.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BRYCEThe Amendment I have to propose contains practically two propositions, and will, perhaps, be best to separate them. I believe it is pretty well known that bursaries under private patronage are not exercised to very much advantage. They do not do so much good when conferred as a favour as when bursaries are made the subject of competition, and they do not carry out the intentions of the founder. The results show a remarkable difference between the holders of bursaries given by private patronage and those not in competition; few of the former rise to eminence in the University. In the first place, I move the first part of my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, page 10, leave out Sub-section (c), and insert—
  "(c) To transfer the patronage of bursaries now vested in private individuals to the Senatus Academicus."—(MR. Bryce.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It would be well to avoid interference with private patronage, so as not to deter what may be called public beneficence. At the same time, it is most desirable that the patrons of private bursaries should be put under such limitations as would conduce to benefit of education. I venture to think that what we propose is going far enough, and accordingly I deprecate the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: Will the word "individuals" include such bursaries as are held by private trusts?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That will come on later.
  Question, "That these words stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I now move to insert after the word "individuals" the words "or corporate or other bodies." The object is not to interfere with the patronage of bursaries by individuals or corporate or other bodies, but to give the Commissioners power to make

  1043
  regulations so as to secure that these bursaries will be usefully employed. This subject was under the consideration of the last Universities Commission, and they expressed the opinion that there should be some regulations to guide the application of the bursaries.
  Amendment moved, Clause 14, page 10, line 16, "after 'individuals' to insert 'or corporate or other bodies.'"—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The method of dealing with the matter proposed by the hon. Gentleman seems to me to be the right one. I do not think it is possible to distinguish between the case of individuals and corporate bodies.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not know how far the proposal of the hon. Gentleman will go. So far as Edinburgh is concerned, a good many bursaries are left for the benefit both of the University and the Town Council. The Town Council have a great variety of them, and they impose the regulations. For instance, in some cases they provide that the bursaries shall be given amongst poor students, only so that before a student can obtain one of them he must prove his poverty. I quite see that the Commission ought to be empowered to make regulations, but I should deprecate the Commissioners having power to step in between a body like the Town Council and these trust funds in order to vary the conditions under which those funds are dispensed. They should not have power to vary them, so to speak, away from the poor.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The case the hon. Member refers to is, no doubt, one where the judicious administration of the patrons would render interference unnecessary or, at all events, make the regulation of an extremely slight character. I do not for a moment believe that regulations would be imposed which would upset the purposes of the trust so as to transfer to one particular class that which was meant for another. The matter is one that I am certain the Commissioners would examine into very carefully by framing any general regulations, and in regard to which, if they erred at all, it would
  1044
  be on the side of abstaining from interference.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: On this matter I would vote for the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. I have had large experience of the administration of these bursaries by corporate bodies, and I agree that it is not at all in the interest of education that that administration should be left unrestricted. It often happens that bursaries administered by a town become useless, and that it is necessary in such cases that regulations should be laid down so as to make them beneficial.
  MR. CALDWELL: In the case of "individuals" you may be dealing with a bursary left by a man who has been dead 25 or 30 years, whereas in the case of a corporate body you are dealing with an existing patron, and that is the reason why, in former Acts, these words "and corporate or other bodies" were not inserted. If you add these words it will be inconsistent later, or to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir A. Orr-Ewing).
  DR. CLARK: Corporate bodies are often bound by wills and by conditions which they themselves would like to see done away with, so as to give them more liberty and freedom. Moreover, the Commission which will be established will be a Conservative body, which will not deal remorselessly with these bursaries.
  MR. WALLACE: I do not understand the argument of the Lord Advocate that corporate bodies and individuals stand on the same footing in this connection, and that if the clause is necessary in the case of individuals it is also necessary in the case of corporate bodies. That seems to me to boa denial on the maxim that "two heads are better than one." We may take it that the fact of the patrons being corporate bodies will be greater security for judicious dealing than if they were fortuitous individuals. In 1870 the principal of the University of Edinburgh, reporting on the mode in which the Municipality of Edinburgh had dealt with the large revenue, which they have on trust, in the form of bursaries, acknowledged in the strongest terms, on behalf of the Senatus, the admirable management of the Town Council and the business-like way in which the

  1045
  records of the management were kept. He also stated that the students holding the Town Council bursaries were always well selected and superior, owing to the pains taken by the Municipal Education Committee. There is an element of public opinion necessarily developed on a large body, and a salutary effect in the way of mutual criticism, which cannot be found in the case of an individual. Accordingly, I am not at all satisfied that it will be advantageous to put public bodies and semi-public bodies on the same footing in these respects as individuals.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: The last Commission reported that no bursar should hold his bursary for more than one year unless he passed a satisfactory examination, and it is with the view of introducing such a regulation as that, and to secure that bursaries shall not continue to be held from year to year by young men who are not profiting by them, that I move this Amendment.
  MR. CHILDERS: I think the remarks of the hon. Member are much to the point. His Amendment, however, if engrafted on the clause, would go too far, as it would do more than restrain an error of the kind he mentions. It would give power to frame regulations as to the way in which appointments to bursaries should be made, but not as to the tenure of bursaries only. I would suggest that an Amendment to carry out the intention of the hon. Member should be framed and considered on the Report stage.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: All this will be qualified by words in the Bill, which provide that the attention of the Commissioners must be arrested by something wrong before they proceed to frame regulations.
  MR. CHILDERS: That is clear and proper; but the present Amendment goes not so much to the conditions under which a bursary should be held as to the conditions under which the patronage should be exercised. I do not, therefore, think the Amendment should be pressed now.
  MR. HUNTER: I hope it will be pressed, as it is a most salutary and useful Amendment.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member; but I will undertake to recon-
  1046
  sider the matter before the Report stage to see what can be done.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. HALDANE: I beg to move, with regard to paragraph (d), which gives the Commissioners power to transfer the patronage of professorships now vested in individuals or bodies "other than the curators of the University of Edinburgh" to the University Court, to omit the words excepting the curators of the University of Edinburgh. This Amendment will, if accepted, place the curators of the University of Edinburgh on the same footing as everybody else in the matter of the patronage of professorships. The Lord Advocate on the last Amendment said the powers of the Commissioners were powers which were to be exercised only after due inquiry and consideration of all the circumstances. I desire emphatically to say that in moving the Amendment I make no charge against the curators or the council of the University of Edinburgh, who constitute the majority of that body; but I wish to point out that it is remarkable that in this Bill there should be in the case of the curators of the University of Edinburgh, and of Edinburgh only, this anomaly—that the exercise of this patronage is not to be subjected to scrutiny. Many people believe that if the patronage is looked into it will be found that it is exercised properly. In that case the Commissioners would not interfere. If, on the other hand, it was found that in the 20 years that have elapsed since the last Scotch University Act was passed the patronage has become an anomaly and ought to be dealt with, they would deal with it. It is said that some sort of bargain was entered into on the passing of the last University Act; but though I have looked into the matter I do not find evidence of that bargain. I find that the Town Council of Edinburgh opposed the clause that transferred the patronage to the curators. The Government of that day proposed this Amendment as a kind of compromise, with a view to getting rid of that opposition; and, really, I think after 20 years the time has come for com witting the matter to so eminently a Conservative body as this Commission will be. The University Court for Edinburgh

  1047
  University has exclusive patronage of one chair and partial patronage of another, while the curators have the exclusive patronage of 16 chairs and the partial patronage of eight.
  Amendment moved, Clause 14, page 10, line 18, leave out from "bodies" to "to" in line 19.—(Mr. Haldane.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: While I am bound to admit that the hon. Member has pointed to a very singular anomaly in the patronage of the Edinburgh University, I must point out that he seems to disregard the fact that the Town Council of Edinburgh held that faculty for a very long time before the Act of 1858 was passed, and I am not prepared to upset the arrangement then made. It must have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it is matter for consideration whether the curatorial body should not be allowed to remain with other elements in it. At present the curators consist of seven persons, of whom four are nominated by the Town Council and three by the University Court. The duty of the Town Council and the University Court is to put aside all idea of competing influences and select the persons best qualified to act. That is the policy of the Act of 1858.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. BRYCE: I have an Amendment here, the object of which is to enable the Commissioners to transfer the patronage vested in the Crown to the University Courts. My Amendment is not a direction to the Commissioners, but merely gives them a power, and the Commissioners will not be obliged to take any patronage out of the Crown unless they are clearly satisfied it will be better vested in the University Courts. I think the new Courts will be better able to exercise the extensive patronage now vested in the Crown than the Crown itself. There are at least primâ facie reasons for allowing the Commissioners to consider the question.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 20, at end of Sub-section (d), to insert the words—
  "(e) To transfer (with the consent of the Crown) to the University Court the patronage
  1048
  of professorships now vested in the Crown."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not prepared to accept the Amendment now before the Committee, but I am prepared to accept that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds. The Amendment I refer to is this—
  "Clause 14, page 10, line 20, after 'Court,' insert the following sub-section:—(e.) To prepare a scheme by which a detailed and reasoned report on the qualifications of candidates for chairs may be submitted to the patrons so as to assist them in the discharge of their patronage."
  This announcement will, I hope, induce the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) to consider whether he ought to go on with this Amendment.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am on the whole somewhat disappointed by the concession the Lord Advocate proposes to make, because I think it will not meet the views put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) in such a way as to command my warm sympathy as an ex-Secretary for Scotland. Although there is a certain value attaching to the Report of an academical body that Report is very different from their decision as to what professor should be selected. We all know that when a number of men have to make a Report as to the qualifications of a person in their own profession they will doubtless make a very practical one up to a certain point, but they will stop short just at that point where they ought to be most pronounced. I consider the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Sir L. Playfair) is quite inadequate as a substitute for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, and as one who has had experience in making such an appointment I think it most important that in such matters patronage should be taken out of the hands of the Crown. In my own time as Secretary for Scotland, the appointment to a Chair, in regard to which if I were competent to form an opinion on such a matter at all, I ought to have been able to exercise some judgment, fell vacant. I fancied I had some knowledge of the special branch of learning to which the professorship related, but when I looked into the matter

  1049
  I found that my experiences was sadly rusty—as rusty, indeed, as my recollection of what was taught in that particular department of knowledge, because I had not followed the careers of the men eligible for the appointment. I believe there was no complaint when the appointment was conferred—far from it—but the trouble it gave me was enormous, as I had to create the best substitute for a University Court I could devise by applying for competent advice in many quarters. I had, by way of comparison with my own case, the opportunity of observing the action of the Committee of the Council of a great Scotch University in a similar appointment some time before, and I do not particularize, because I do not wish to praise two members of that Committee (Mr. J. A. Campbell and Mr. Orr Ewing) to their faces. The contrast between the advantages possessed by the Committee, who made that appointment, and the means of knowledge which I possessed as Secretary for Scotland was very great, because, in the first place, they had much more ample time on their hands, and in the next they had much fuller and more complete information than I had to draw upon. I must own that I was never more impressed with the excellence of the process by which such an appointment was made than on that occasion. Now, if, instead of being called on to make one appointment in the course of the few months I held that office, I had had to make five or six, or even more, the difficulties I then expressed would have been largely increased.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think we have all had some opportunity of observing the way in which Crown patronage is exercised in these professional appointments, and for my own part having for several years had an opportunity of observing the process from an inside point of view, I can fully confirm the remarks of my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Trevelyan) and my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I am not without some experience of how very great is the ignorance of the Departments as to who is the best person to receive a particular appointment. Often with the best intentions in the world the more they try to
  1050
  realise this desideratum the more they find how impossible it is to get correct information on which to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. This being so, it follows that other considerations and influences are too apt to creep in; and looking at the matter as a whole it is impossible for anyone who knows enough about it to say that the administration of Crown patronage, though I have no doubt it is always performed with perfect integrity, is really satisfactory. The only real doubt is as to whether the University Court will discharge this function any better. I am inclined to think it will. I do not say this with perfect confidence; but at any rate we are already committed to the policy of this clause whereby the patronage of all University professorships is to be entrusted to the University Court, and what we have now to do is to try and make that Court as good an instrument for the exercise of that patronage as possible. I therefore venture to support the Amendment now before the Committee.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I wish to point out that the Amendment I have put on the Paper was not placed there as a substitute for that of my hon. Friend; it is directed against both Government and private patronage. I must confess that when I sat here as Member for a Scotch constituency, one of the most disagreeable portions of my duties, in consequence of my long connection with the Universities of Scotland, was when I was pressed to use my influence in regard to the patronage of the University Chairs. It was an excessively disagreeable thing to be called on to make a selection. I remember the ease of one of the most enlightened of our Scotch University men—one who has lately died, and whose correspond once was recently published — Principal Tulloch. I see that in one of his letters he shows that he was exceedingly disappointed and angry because I would not support the claim to patronage in his own case. Now, I did not know that I had anything to do with the matter. It was not an appointment to a Professorial Chair; but he, no doubt, thought that as a Scotch Member I was bound to have supported his claims, and felt aggrieved that I did not support them. Now, I think that this is a position in

  1051
  which the Scotch Members ought not to be placed. This exercise of patronage or influence is exceedingly disagreeable to those who are called upon to use it, especially when it is attempted to import political considerations into the endeavour to move Scotch Members to the support of particular candidates. The Government, I think, would do an immense amount of good if they would transfer this patronage from the Crown and place it in the hands of the University Court, and so divest it of any association with political influence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely concur with the general tenour of the remarks just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. I think the very nature of the case with regard to the patronage exercised in these cases shows that it is one from which politics should be absolutely excluded, and if the question before the Committee were simply whether we should retain or abandon Crown patronage, I should be inclined to give my vote for its abandonment. But we have to consider the question whether Crown patronage does not afford a better machinery than is obtainable in the case of mere University control. It is my belief that it does. I think there can be no doubt that if the Crown patronage be abolished it may not be so well administered in certain cases. In the case of the University Court there are two qualifications—namely, information and leisure, and if with their knowledge of the case they are obliged to bring before the bar of public opinion the reasons inducing them to prefer this or that candidate they will be precluded from any suspicion of jobbery, and the Minister who for the time being has the disposal of the Crown patronage will have no difficulty in making a proper selection. In these matters it is a very delicate matter to make the selection, and it is not easy openly to discuss the different considerations that arise without offending various susceptibilities and prejudices. And, moreover, it is probable that the University Court may be apt to select not the best man, but the man who is the best known to them. If there be two candidates, and one of them has only a University reputation, while the other is
  1052
  a man of European repute, the first of these, of course, being extremely competent, and with the additional advantage of being thoroughly known as one who has worked in the University itself, the Court would be apt to say, "That is a man who has done good work among us; here is an opportunity of giving him promotion," and the consequence would be that they would appoint him and reject the one who was really the better man. It would, however, be impossible to do this if the Court be called on to make public the grounds of the selection. The reason I desire to retain the Crown Patronage is not that I think it the best thing we could have taken by itself, but I think that the University having practically all the knowledge, and being obliged to lay before the Minister of the Crown their reasons for the selection, the Crown will be justified in making the appointment without being open to the charge—I will not say of jobbery—but of being influenced by political considerations or any other kind of objectionable machinery.
  MR. HUNTER: I am glad that for once I am able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but I would point out that in the debate on this subject no reference has been made to the fact that this question was thoroughly threshed out before the Royal Commission of 1878. That Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds was an influential member, examined the subject with the greatest care and dealt with all the difficulties surrounding the problem. What were those difficulties? In the first place, it is most important in a Scotch University to get the best man we can because the appointment is for life, and he is charged with functions of great moment to the University. Next in importance is the desirability of having some mode of selecting professors which would ensure public confidence. Young men who have the necessary attributes for developing into good professors will not devote the time and attention necessary to qualify them for professorships, because under the existing system there is no certainty of their being appointed. Then there is always the difficulty of finding who is the best man, and then comes the difficulty of finding a dis-

  1053
  interested authority who would appoint the best man. In the existing University Courts this difficulty is partly overcome by a method which has been in use for many years, the principle adopted being the division of labour between two bodies—one body having the selection of the professor, and the other having the election, there being, first of all, the sifting of the claims on the part of the candidates by the Senatus, and then the election by the Council, so that while the election, if left to the Senatus, might be made a matter of jobbery, and, if left to the Council, want of special knowledge might lead to the appointment of a man not properly qualified, the result is that, on the whole, the matter being left to the two great authorities of the Universities, a very distinguished class of men has received the available professorships. What the Royal Commission of 1878 did was to recommend that patronage in England should be extended to Scotland, and, perhaps, under the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds being accepted by the Government, the best thing that could be done would be for my hon. Friend to take the course I propose to adopt in regard to some Amendments I have put down, and withdraw it in favour of that of the right hon. Gentleman. On the question of University experience, I may state that there is abundant evidence in the Report of the Commission of 1878 showing that the University Courts were influenced by political, social, religious, and other considerations which ought not to be introduced into matters of this kind.
  MR. BRYCE: I regret that I cannot see my way to the withdrawal of my Amendment. It seems to me a matter of great importance that we should take beyond the range of political influence every piece of patronage that can be so removed. With regard to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, the Report that would be required would not necessarily be a public document. In fact, it could not be a document of such a character, otherwise the Committee could not state all the reasons by which their action might be influenced. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for
  1054
  Aberdeen as to double action by the authorities, that is a plan which combines selection and election in an admirable manner, and if my Amendment be carried, I shall propose in a subsequent Amendment to adopt that principle by providing for Reports by the Senatus Academicus being laid before the University Court. As it is, I am unable to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. CRAIG SELLAR: It seems to me that whether you exercise patronage by the Court or by the Crown, there must be some difficulty. If you leave it with the Court you will have pressure put upon that body, by friends of the Candidate in the locality, and if you leave it to the Crown you will have a continuance of the political pressure which has been referred to. The Crown, however, is responsible to this House and can be called to account in this House, while the University Court is responsible to nobody. I should advise the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen to withdraw his Amendment.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 93.—(Div. List, No. 162.)
  MR. BRYCE: With regard to the second part of my Amendment, I may say that as I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, and my hon. Friend the member for Lanarkshire, have both put down Amendments to the same effect, and as the wording of those Amendments follows more exactly than mine the recommendation of the Commission of 1878, I will not persist in my Amendment, but will withdraw it in favour of that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, which I understand the Government are willing to accept.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HUNTER: I have now to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, and Question put, Clause 14, page 10, line 20, after "court," insert—
  "Provided also, that where a professorship, the patronage of which is so transferred, shall have been maintained, or partially maintained, by funds provided annually or periodically by any corporate or other body, in which, or in the governing body of which, such patronage shall, in consideration of such annual or other periodical payment have been vested, it shall upon such transfer be in the option of such

  1055
  corporate or other body to cease making such annual or other periodical payments."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR A. ORR-EWING: I beg to move the Amendment, which stands in my name as additional to Sub-section (d)—namely, Clause 14, page 10, line 20, after "Court," add—
  "But nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any bursary or endowment granted by any incorporation or society whose funds, capital, or revenue have been and are contributed and paid by the members of such incorporation or society by way of entry moneys or other fixed or stated contributions."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am glad to say that I accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to move an Amendment, the object of which is to protect poor scholars against the danger of their being sacrificed to what I consider the moloch of scholarship. This Amendment is called for in the circumstances of Sub-section (a), I would here ask the Committee to consider the wording of that sub-section. It provides that the Commissioners shall have power
  "To alter the conditions or directions affecting the same."
  That is the foundations, mortifications, gifts, endowments, and bursaries—
  "If it shall appear to the Commissioners that the interests of learning and the main design of the donor, so far as is consistent with the promotion of such interests, may be better advanced by such alteration."
  Now the words
  "So far as is consistent with the promotion of such interests,"
  seem to me to be very significant. The main design of the donor, whatever it may be, is thereby to be sacrificed to the interests of learning, and the interests of learning cannot be effectively secured otherwise. Now, if the main design of the donor is simply to have certain poor scholars educated, the effect of this will be that the interests of learning are to be paramount to their interests and prospects. And the effect of the clause as it stands will be that such scholarships or bursaries will necessarily go to that class of persons who have been rich enough or fortunate enough to procure some high preliminary training. In another part of the clause it is provided that the Commissioners are,
  1056
  "Where it shall seem requisite, to frame regulations under which the patronage of existing bursaries vested in private individuals shall be exercised."
  Then under Sub-section 5 the Commissioners are
  "To regulate the management and ordering of the Universities, and the manner and conditions in and under which the students shall be admitted thereto and in particular (a). The amount, manner of payment, and appropriation of fees, and other payments made by students."
  In the Report of the Royal Commission of 1878 it is recommended that the Commissioners might be authorized to make regulations for raising the fees in most of the colleges, and under those circumstances it seems to me that there is a danger that the rights of the poor scholars may be overlooked, and that the main or only thing in the eyes of the Commissioners will be how they can most successfully secure the existence of a learned class. I do not at all deprecate that object, but I think there are two points in connection with the provision of learning that must be kept in view in considering these things—namely, that we have not only to consider the elevation of national learning, but also its equal diffusion. In my opinion the horizontal movement of learning is just as important as its vertical movement, and I am not at all certain that there is no danger of the diffusion of learning being forgotten in the endeavour to elevate the standard of it. in a petition presented to this House by a convention of the Royal burghs and signed in their name by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, who has been accepted by this Committee as a member of the University Court for the Edinburgh University, the petitioners express their opinion that the proposal to alter the conditions on which the endowments, foundations, and bursaries have been based by private donors of upwards of 20 years ago, is unjust both to the donors and to the humbler classes of the people, and they go on to show the danger thereby created with regard to the prosperity of the Universities. My own fear is that in the desire to ensure a more highly learned class than that which now exists in Scotland, sacrifice will be made of the interests of the aspiring poor, and of the kindly intentions of the donors. It is not right to leave out of acc mat the prospects,

  1057
  hopes, and ambitions of the moderately intelligent portion of the poorer class. We ought not to lay down a hard and fast rule that good can only be done by finding out who are the absolute geniuses among the meritorious poor and encouraging them to the detriment of the rest; and I do not think there need be any controversy as to the fact that the diffusion of the higher learning, even among the moderately gifted poor, must prove a good and useful thing in all respects in which University education is of advantage to the country. I hold that the objects to be gained by securing that the moderately gifted among the intellectual poor shall have the opportunities afforded by the Universities are of a high order; that it is important to secure the happiness of a considerable portion of the community in whatever way that can be done, and that it is quite certain that the intellectual class among the poor will be made happier if they are assisted in attaining positions in which their learning may be made useful than if they are left to the prosecution if those duties and occupations which are beneath their natural endowments. It is one of the great ends of all Government to promote the well-being and happiness of the substantially largest class of the community; and I may say that while one of the considerations I have in view in this Amendment is that of helping the intellectual class of the poor to a position in which they can use their gifts appropriately, another object is to advance the capabilities and efficiency of the public service. With these views of the possible danger to which the poor scholar may otherwise be exposed and of the necessity of safeguarding the interests of this particular class, I hope the Amendment I now move will meet the acceptance of the Government.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 14, page 10, line 20, after "Court," insert—
  "Provided always, that no such alterations or regulations made or framed as in this subsection provided shall have the effect of diminishing the advantages provided for poor students by such foundations, mortifications, gifts, endowments, or bursaries aforesaid."—(Mr. Wallace.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am sorry to say I am unable to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman in the form in which it now stands, although I fully concur in the object he has in contemplation which is the benefit of that class of bursaries, which by the direction of the donors are destined for the poor. I would point out that one of the powers already conferred on the Commissioners in Committee on this Bill is
  "To alter the conditions or directions affecting the same if it shall appear to the Commissioners that the interests of learning and the main design of the donor so far as is consistent with the promotion of such interests, may be better advanced by such alteration."
  I am prepared to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman as far as I can, but I do not think his Amendment would be very effectual for the purpose he has in view, and I would therefore suggest that the Amendment should read—
  "Provided always, in framing such regulations, and making such alterations, the Commissioners shall take care not to diminish the advantages provided for poor students by such foundations, mortifications, gifts, endowments, or bursaries aforesaid."
  MR. CALDWELL: I would point out that this is provided for in Section 15 of the Act of 1882.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; I think we are all of us familiar with that, and with the satisfactory results that have flowed from it.
  MR. WALLACE: I am glad the learned Lord Advocate has taken so, favourable a view of this matter, and I shall be happy to accept his proposal, and withdraw my Amendment in its favour.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 14, page 10, line 20, after "Court," insert—
  "Provided always, in framing such regulations and making such alterations, the Commissioners shall take care not to diminish the advantages provided for poor students by such foundations, mortifications, gifts, endowments, or bursaries aforesaid."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 14, page 10, line 20, insert the following sub-section—
  "(e) To prepare a scheme by which a detailed and reasoned report on the qualifications of candidates for chairs may be submitted to

  1059
  the patrons so as to assist them in the discharge of their patronage."—(Sir Lyon Playfair.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have next to propose Clause 14, page 10, line 26, insert—
  "And to abolish the Faculty of Theology, and transfer to the Faculty of Arts such professorships of the Faculty of Theology as they think fit."
  I may point out that this Amendment does not in any way anticipate the Amendment to be moved later on on the question of tests. This deals with an entirely separate subject, and one of considerable importance; but I shall not be misunderstood when I say I propose to deal with it in the shortest possible way, in order to save the time of the House. The proposal I make is that theology in the Scottish Universities should cease to exist as a separate faculty. I will not now enter into the question at large. I will not ask whether theology is a philosophy or a science, but I may point out that the subject of philosophy has this peculiarity—that there is a total absence of that common ground of admitted facts which we have in other sciences. There is, on the other hand, the presence throughout the entire field of the subject called theology the most vital and fundamental controversy, and, therefore, the State should not interfere with it in its University institutions. The Faculty of Theology, considered as a group of teaching Chairs, is not entirely open to that remark. There is nothing in the study of Hebrew to raise irritating questions. The same may be said of ecclesiastical history; and I am not sure whether it may not be said about the Chair of Biblical Criticism. I am perfectly willing to leave that to the Commission. I propose that the Commissioners should have power first to abolish theology as a separate faculty, and then take such Chairs as in their opinion may not be teaching Chairs, and transfer them to another faculty. I and my Liberal Friends hold that the Faculty of Theology, so far as it is engaged in dogmatic and creed teaching, ought not to be recognized by the State at all; and in so far as it does not attempt to teach creeds, I am perfectly willing that the Chairs should continue to exist. I believe this Motion wilt have the warm and universal sympathy of those in Scotland who are sincere in their demand
  1060
  for religious equality, and with reference to the line taken by the United Presbyterian Church, in my opinion the courage, consistency, and fearless logic with which that section of the Presbyterian Church has carried out its views in all branches entitles it to the warmest admiration of the Liberal Members of this House. It is not merely in connection with the Universities and the Church Establishment, but in every Department in which the State interference thrust into the field, this large body has acted in a manner which commands the warmest approval. They wish to abolish denominational teaching everywhere.
  An hon. MEMBER: Not in schools.
  MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, in schools; they are disestablishers everywhere.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 36, after the word "faculties," to insert the words—
  "And to abolish the Faculty of Theology, transferring to the Faculty of Arts such professorships of the Faculty of Theology as they may think fit."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
  Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not press this Amendment. It seems to me a little strange and remarkable that a proposal of this kind should come from one who is so admirable a representative of a Scottish constituency, because I think that if there was one Faculty in the world which is congenial to the genius of the Scottish people it is the Faculty of Theology, and also in Scotland, of all countries of the world, it is very suitable to have that Faculty, because between 80 and 90 per cent of the people think exactly the same way, and hold substantially the same creed, though divided into a great number of bodies. But the proposal has a practical side. These are general considerations which should influence the counties. It is the business of the Universities to give that teaching for which there is a general demand, and so long as the Presbyterian Churches exist in Scotland there will, I suppose, be a certain demand for the particular teaching they require. It may be urged that it is not necessary for this purpose to have Universities in the different parts of the country, but I may remind the House that Divinity students are

  1061
  very commonly drawn from classes of the population which are not rich, and thus it is a great advantage to them to be able to pursue their studies close by their own homes, and the adoption of the Amendment will therefore simply handicap them. With reference to the proposal to transfer certain Chairs, as I read the Bill, power is given already to the Commissioners by this very subsection to do so.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I shall support my hon. Friend if he takes a Division on the Amendment. It is a fact, I believe, that at the present time we have in the Free Church 310 Divinity students studying Theology; in the United Presbyterian Church 114, and 18 belonging to other denominations, making those who are prohibited by principle from attending the Chairs of Divinity at the Universities 442. There are attending the Established Church only 240 who can receive theological instruction from the University, and we have therefore got a majority of 202 students who are prohibited from taking their theological education through the Universities. It is notorious that the Church established by law is the richest in the country, and has within its membership the largest amount of wealth proportionately to its numbers; yet the dissenting bodies are educating at their own expense 202 more students in Theology than the wealthier Church. What we claim is that those who undoubtedly teach denominational Theology should pay for their own specific dogma, and that we should not have these richly endowed Chairs restricted as they now are. Believing that it is no part of the duty of the State to provide specific Theology for any part of the community, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: As it is now a quarter to seven, and as an opportunity for discussing this question will arise on the Amendment as to religious tests, I would suggest that a Division may now be taken.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland a question. Do I understand him to say that in the opinion of the Government the Bill as it at present stands the Commissioners would have the power to transfer say the
  1062
  Chair for Hebrew to one of the other Faculties?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: What is to become of my Amendment? I wish to vest power in an University to abolish the Faculty of Theology or of Medicine.
  DR. CLARK: I should like to know is this a farce. Such an important question of abolishing the Faculty of Theology is worth more than 10 minutes' discussion. I think we ought to discuss the principle once and not on three or four occasions. I, therefore, move to report Progress, as there is no time to proceed with the discussion to-night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Member will agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee.
  DR. CLARK: No; I do not think it is right to allow this question to be hurried through without discussion. I am in favour of the Amendment, which contains a simple practical question, whether the Established Church of Scotland should have its Divinity Faculty subsidized by the State.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is wandering from the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 1st July.

  SANITARY ACTS (METROPOLIS) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 246).
  Order for Second Reading on Monday 1st July read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL. (No. 10)
  Order for Second Reading this day read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Attention called to the number of Members present. House counted, and 40 Members found in their places.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SALES OF IRISH ESTATES BY LONDON COMPANIES.
  MR. LEA: I beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the circumstances attending the acquisition and sale of the Salters' Estate, and of such other London Companies as have sold, or are in treaty to sell, their Trish estates. When the renewal of the Ashbourne Act was under discussion last December, a good deal of indignation was expressed in the House that London Companies should sell their estates and take away the proceeds without any consideration of the objects for which these estates were granted, and I then gave notice to move for a Committee of Inquiry into the subject. I should have been glad if I could have brought on this Motion at an earlier period of the Session, when the subject would have received a more exhaustive inquiry than it can now receive. I am not aware of any reasonable opposition to my Motion, and I cannot imagine why this inquiry should be refused, and it seems to me that the London Companies above all people, should court inquiry after the charges made against them, if they have no reason to be ashamed of the action they have taken. But I am afraid they do fear that the inquiry would show that they have not held to the conditions under which the estates in the North of Ireland were granted. It appears from the terms of my Motion that a double view may be taken of the Committee for which I move, and that double view arises from one and the same cause. I wish for inquiry, firstly, into the treatment the agricultural tenants have received at the hands of the London Companies, but there is a larger question behind, because the tenants also include clergy of all denominations, shopkeepers, tradesmen, and labourers. From all of these come complaints that the Companies have not complied with the conditions upon which these estates were granted. I am bound to say that from the facts that have come to light, it seems to me a policy of "grab all" has taken possession of a certain number of the London Companies, they seem to wish to take everything they can get and to give nothing in return. They seem to me to have acted in a manner unworthy of that liberality for
  1064
  which the City is famous, and unworthy of the reputation of Englishmen. It would be discreditable to the House not to attempt to stop this action, which, I think, is doing great injury to Ireland. I am informed that a good many members of the City Guilds are in favour of the course I am taking; that the Courts do not represent the feeling of the Liverymen, and that these would rejoice if some measures were taken to remedy the grievances complained of. I have put the Salters' Company in the forefront of my Motion, and my reason for this is that the Salters' Company were the last to sell their estate, and their action was made the subject of much discussion last year, and is the subject of much indignation in the north of Ireland. Some questions have been asked in the House in respect to the action of the Salters' Company before the Land Commission and in a Court of Law. It appears that this Company did not, when selling their estate, consider the spirit of the Ashbourne Act, but they took from their tenants promissory notes for the amount of arrears due and tried to enforce payment of these notes in a Court of Law, thereby endangering, as I think, the payment of instalments under the Ashbourne Act. We who believe in the importance of this Act for the welfare of the whole of Ireland, are bound to take care that the operation of the Act is not endangered by the action of any selfish London Company. The Salters' Company brought an action against one of their tenants, named McKee, for the recovery of arrears after he had bought his holding under the Ashbourne Act. This action was thrown out of Court on a technical objection; but the Company, not satisfied without their "pound of flesh," brought an action against another of their tenants, named Badger, and they not only tried to get their arrears but they tried to enforce payment of the previous and higher rent than the judicial rent. Judgment was given in this action for the Salters' Company; but, as showing the spirit of the action, the jury recommended the Company to take a lenient view of their rights against the tenant, and the remarks of the Judge tended in the same direction. I am not aware that any private landlord has ever attempted

  1065
  to enforce such an unworthy claim; but the bad example was followed by another London Company—the Drapers' Company. They, during the last three years, have tried to sell their estate, and they came to an arrangement with the great bulk of their tenants. Now, I cannot understand the policy pursued by the Drapers' Company. They have not been illiberal landlords in the past. I find from the Report of a Committee of the Company, issued in 1817, that fair consideration was shown to their tenants, and witnesses before the Royal Commission in 1882 stated that the Drapers' Company had given very reasonable reductions of rent. Before the Land Act of two years ago had passed enforcing a percentage of reduction on judicial rents the Drapers' Company had made a reduction of 15 per cent in their rents, and 30 or 40 years ago, in famine time, they made liberal advances and grants to their tenants for seeds. It is the more to be regretted that after a record of liberality towards their tenants they should now adopt a directly opposite course, opposing grants for churches, chapels, and schools, such as were given in the past, and trying to enforce the uttermost farthing from their tenants in the sale of their estate. The Land Commissioners have refused to sanction the sale of the estate on the terms offered by the Drapers' Company; and I think the Company should welcome an inquiry which would give them the opportunity of setting themselves right before public opinion. I do not propose to deal with this case in detail; it does not seem to be necessary. The Land Commissioners have refused to sanction the sale; and not only that, the Chief Secretary has, in answer to a question, stated the action of the Drapers' Company to be extremely discreditable. I have heard Members of the House, and not only those who sit on this side, describe the conduct of the Company as scandalous. I need not lengthen my speech with details, only this I will mention—that since the refusal of the Land Commission the Company have issued notices to their tenants of the most stringent kind in regard to arrears, creating the greatest indignation throughout all the district whore the estate is situated. Their action is entirely opposed to the spirit in which the Ashbourne Act has generally been understood and administered. But
  1066
  I am not asking for a condemnation of any of the City Companies. I am only asking for a full and fair investigation into all the charges and allegations made. Having made this brief reference to what I may call the greedy policy of the London Companies, I now come to the complaint made by the people of the North of Ireland of the abstraction of large sums of money from the country. There is general indignation on this account throughout the whole of Ulster, that the Companies pay no heed to the conditions upon which the lands were granted in selling their estates. I do not pretend to maintain that these Companies should not sell their estates. It is desirable that the property of absentee landlords—and these Companies are absentee landlords—should be sold to the occupying tenants; that is carrying out the principle we so much wish to encourage, that the tillers of the soil should own the soil they till; but, at the same time, we do complain that the money should all go to London, where it certainly was not earned, and devoted to purposes for which it was never intended. Inquiry should be made into all the surroundings of the case. I remember the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) expressing a very strong opinion in this House last December—I am sorry he is not now here to back up his opinion—that the general surroundings of the case form a sufficient basis for inquiry of this sort; but I am prepared to prove that the Companies have no right to withdraw all this money—to prove it from the records of the Companies, from legal judgments, from the Reports of Royal Commissions. I can show, not by general assertion, but by documentary evidence, that we have a sufficient basis to justify inquiry, if not to justify the result we hope may be attained by that inquiry. It is necessary to go somewhat into the history of these companies estates. I will give documentary proof of facts rather than my own impression. A good deal of misrepresentation arises in Ireland from people giving their own impressions. I will rely on facts and legal documents to support my assertions; and if I appear to trench unduly on the time of the House, I hope I may be excused.

  1067
  When an hon. Friend of mine asked that the two charters upon which the London Companies profess to hold their Irish property might be presented to the House, the First Lord of the Treasury said he was not aware of those charters. Well, I have seen those charters, not the originals, but what must be correct copies taken from the originals, as they appear in the records of the Irish Society. If the House will allow me, I will, as giving the basis of what I have to say, read a few extracts as showing the motives and reasons that induced King James to escheat the lands of Ulster, and for what purpose they were so treated. The charter of King James runs as follows:—
  "James, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.; To all to whom these present Letters shall come, greeting. Whereas there can be nothing more worthy of a King to perform, than to establish the true religion of Christ, among men hitherto depraved and almost lost in superstition, to improve and cultivate by art and industry countries and lands uncultivated and almost desert; and not only to stock them with honest citizens and inhabitants, but also to strengthen them with good institutions and ordinances, whereby they might be more safely defended, not only from the corruption of their morals but from their intestine and domestic plots and conspiracies, and also from foreign violence; and whereas the Province of Ulster, in our realm of Ireland for many years past, hath grossly erred from the true religion of Christ and Divine Grace, and bath abounded with superstition, insomuch that for a long time it bath not only been harassed, torn, and wasted by private and domestic broils but also by foreign arms: We therefore deeply and heartily commiserating the wretched state of the said Province, have esteemed it to be a work worthy of a Christian Prince and of our Royal office, to stir up and recall the same Province from superstition, rebellion, calamity, and poverty, which heretofore have horribly raged therein, to religion, obedience, strength, and prosperity: And whereas our beloved and faithful subjects, the Mayor and commonalty and citizens of our City of London, burning with a flagrant zeal to promote such our pious intention in this behalf, have undertaken a considerable part of the said plantation in Ulster, and are making progress therein."
  Then follows, in long legal language, directions as to the appointment of Mayors of Londonderry and Coleraine and other officials, and as to how lands are to be laid out, into which it is unnecessary for me to enter. If hon. Members wish to see the document in its entirety, it appears in the Report or the Records of the Irish Society; or I hope
  1068
  it may be laid before the House by the Committee I trust the House will grant. It may be said that the Charter of King James was superseded by that of Charles II. Now, Charles II. did grant a charter, and it is to that, perhaps, hon. Gentlemen may refer as not stating so clearly the opinions expressed in that of King James. I have extracts here. It is an extremely long document, and I need not trouble the House with much of it. It is only necessary to say that it recapitulates and recites a great deal of what is expressed in the Charter of King James. It begins thus—
  "Whereas our illustrious grandfather James, late King of England, by his Letters Patent under his Great Seal of England bearing date at Westminster 29th day of March in the 11th year of his reign for the considerations therein expressed."
  Then the charter goes on to say—
  "And for that it doth manifestly appear to us that the said Society of the New Plantation and other Companies of our City of London have expended very great sums of money."
  Then after reference to the revoking refers again—
  "The said several grants of the New Plantation and other Companies respectively theretofore, made as fully and beneficially to all intents and purposes, as they might have had and enjoyed the same if no repeal of the said Letters Patent had ever been had or made."
  I ought to have said that before the second charter was granted there was a rebellion in Ulster, and there had been great Complaints of the negligence of the City Companies, and the King refers to these matters. By a Star Chamber Order he had revoked the first charter. That revocation is said to be illegal; but, however, the second charter recited the reasons for which King James granted these lands, and this is made doubly sure at all events, and if there was any illegality, we have the fact that King Charles did recite and recapitulate the reasons, or some of the reasons, that induced King James to grant the first charter. I refer to this as proving clearly that the City Companies only held the land or trust under charter and I go further, and say all history goes Clearly to prove that not only was this intended by the King, but every act of detail of Kings James and Charles goes to prove that it formed the basis of a very important policy. I say this is confirmed by history, and I would quote the records of the Irish Society. The Irish

  1069
  Society, in 1822, appointed a Committee to inquire into their records. There had been a serious fire which had damaged some of the records, and thereupon the inquiry was ordered, and the Report of the Committee was printed. I may also mention that in 1864 Mr. Charles Reed, afterwards, I believe, Sir Charles Reed, and Chairman of the London School Board, and then Deputy Governor of the Society, was requested to prepare a record of the deeds of the Irish Society, and he did so. I have this record, and it fully confirms all that is set out in the Report of the Committee of 1822. There were conditions and orders made in respect to the charter, which are stated in this Report of the Irish Society in clear language. In King James' time, after the first charter had been granted there was a rebellion in Ulster—unfortunately there had been a good many rebellions there—and King James sought by this method to restore peace to the province. He escheated the lands in six counties, but the escheat was carried out in one county only, Londonderry. Now, there is clear evidence that those lands were given to the London Companies as well as to the Irish Society. I will give the conditions referred to, which were to be observed by those who undertook the work of civilization and restoration of peace to the province of Ulster.
  "Whereas the greatest part of six counties being escheated and come to the Crown hath lately been surveyed, and the survey thereof transmitted and presented unto His Majesty; upon view whereof His Majesty of his princely bounty, not respecting his own profit, but the public peace and welfare of that Kingdom, by the civil plantation of those unreformed and waste countries, is graciously pleased to distribute the said lands to such of his subjects, as well of Great Britain as of Ireland, as being of merit and ability, shall seek the same with a mind not only to benefit themselves but to do service to the Crown and Commonwealth."
  These are orders and conditions given to the undertakers who were to occupy the lands in Ulster, which lands had been taken from the rebels under King James, and were to be occupied by the tenants of the London Companies. After an interval of some years, complaints reached the King that the province was not so well ordered and governed as it ought to have been; charges of neglect were made, and complaints made to the King of the conduct of the companies, and the King wrote
  1070
  in great indignation to Sir Arthur Chichester, the Deputy Governor, com plaining that those grants so liberally' made for the popular welfare of the whole Kingdom and not only for the province had not been properly administered by the London Companies. These' are the terms of the letter of King James to Sir Arthur Chichester:—
  "It is well known unto you how great a revenue we might have raised to our Crown by our escheated lands in the province of Ulster, if we had not preferred the reformation of that disordered country by a civil plantation to be made therein before the private profit which we might have reaped by it. For the more steady effecting whereof we made liberal donations of great proportions of those lands, so escheated unto us, to divers British undertakers and servitors with favourable terms and reservations for their better encouragement, and enabling' them, in their estates, to expedite the work of their plantation, according to those articles which they voluntary bound themselves; but as we are informed they have made so slow progression therein, hitherto, that neither the safety of that country, nor the planting of religion and civility amongst those rude and barbarious people, which were the principal motives of that project, and which we expected as the only fruits and returns to us of our bounty from them, are any whit, as yet, materially affected by them. We are not ignorant how much the real accomplishment of that. plantation concerns the future peace and safety of that kingdom; but if there were no reason of State to press it forward, yet we would pursue and effect that work, with the same earnestness as we now do, merely for the goodness and morality of it; esteeming the settling of religion, the introducing of civility, order, and government among a barbarious and un-subjected people, to be the acts of piety and glory, and worthy also a Christian power to endeavour."
  The date of this is December 21, 1612. But it seems the effect produced on the London companies was not all that was' desired, for two years afterwards the King requested information from the next Deputy Governor, Sir Julius Bodley, and Sir Julius Bodley made a Report in which he complained in strong terms of the City's negligence in the Plantation. This is an extract from the King's' reply:—
  "It is well known to you that if we had intended only (as it seems most of them over-greedily have done) our present profit, we might have converted those large territories, our escheated lands to the great improvement of, the revenue of our Crown there; but we chose rather for the safety of that country and the civilizing of that people, to depart with the inheritance of them at extreme undervalues,' and to make a plantation of them."
  Now, that is further evidence, if any

  1071
  were really wanted, of the King's intention when he handed over this land to tie Irish Society. The King gave theca a certain time—what he called days of grace. I have a letter in which he told the said companies he would assign them further time in which to perform their undertaking to Ulster, and if they failed in the performance of their duty he would seize the land. King Charles, when he came to the throne, said the City companies seemed to think more of their private lucre than anything else. That, I am afraid, is a charge that not only could be made of the City companies in the days of King Charles. What followed? The City companies did not take the steps the King considered necessary for the performance of their duty, and so the whole of the property was confiscated. The King resumed possession, and a Star Chamber order was made by which the patents which had been given to the City companies were revoked and cancelled. Now it may be said that that cancelling did away with the Charter of King James, but that cancelling was said to be illegal. A. resolution was passed in the British Parliament to say that that Star Chamber order was not legal, and I believe if the question came before a Court of Law it could clearly be proved that King James's Charter was just as binding as it ever had been. But if the legality be questioned, at all events it is quite clear that Charles the Second's Charter renewed the grant to the City Companies. Therefore it is quite immaterial whether that revocation was legal or not. Then occurred another rebellion in Ulster, and a matter of great importance. The citizens of London asked King Charles to dinner. I have often heard of the importance of London dinners, and it seems to me that the London dinner to King Charles was just as important as any of the dinners of the present day. In a speech after dinner—I presume it was an after-dinner speech, judging from its character—King Charles regretted greatly that the lands had ever been taken away from the City Companies, and he promised that the Companies should have the same granted again; and a petition was presented to the King from the City Companies asking him again to restore these lands to the Irish Society and also the City Companies. The rebellion
  1072
  in Ulster prevented that being done in King Charles's day, but it so happened that the City Companies did their best to defend the 'city of Derry and to defeat the rebels in Ulster at that time. The rebellion was quelled, and King Charles was more than ever wishful to restore the lands to the City Companies. In the time of Cromwell letters patent were given to the City Companies for the possession of these lands, but otherwise they remained as they had been in the time of King Charles; but in the time of King Charles the Second the citizens of London petitioned again, and obtained a second Charter reciting the previous Charter of King James, part of which I have read to the House. That Charter would, of course, come before the Committee, and I think it clearly proves that the lands of Ulster were given to the City Companies upon trust for the education and the support of the religion and education of the people of that province. The matter does not only rest upon Charter and the history of the time, but there are legal Judgments connected with the case. The Skinners' Company, apparently not satisfied with the amount they were getting out of the land in Ulster, commenced an action against the Irish Society to get some of the proceeds of the fisheries of which the Irish Society were possessed. The case came before, I think, three Courts in this country. I have not got the Judgment of the first Court, but I have extracts from the Judgments of the Master of the Rolls, and of the Lord Chancellor upon the appeal to the House of Lords, If the House will allow me I will quote only a very few words from these Judgments. Giving Judgment on the 19th November, 1838, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, said:—
  "I am of opinion that the powers granted to the Society and the Trusts reposed in them were of a general and public nature, independent of the private benefit of the Companies of London."
  That clearly proves that in the eyes of the Master of the Rolls these lands are held in trust. However, an appeal was made to the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst), said—
  "The result of all these observations is this—that the objects are public and important; that they were constituted for the purpose of carrying those objects into effect; that those objects are still in existence; that the funds of this

  1073
  district are applicable to those purposes; that they have a discretion to exercise as to what extent they will apply those funds and to what objects. If that be so, my Lords, they are public officers invested with a public trust, having a right to apply those funds in discharge of that public trust."
  Lord Campbell expressed his opinion in language of equal strength and force. Now, Sir, this is a decision of the House of Lords, the highest Court of Appeal in this country, clearly stating that the Irish Society hold their land in trust, and I do not think it would be possible to dispute that statement. It may be said that that is only the trust of the Irish Society, and that the City Companies hold their lands on a different basis. That, I take it, is the contention of the right hon. Baronet; but, in reply, I maintain that all through these Records the City Companies and the Irish Society are to be taken as one and the same. That they are constantly referred to as the Society for the Plantation of Ulster, and that the companies clearly hold their right to any land under, and subject to, the Irish Society. I will not quote all the extracts, but I will give one or two here and there which all tend to show what these companies hold under the Irish Society. The Irish Society divided the lands in the county of Derry amongst the 12 London Companies. The lands were divided by lot. Twelve portions were marked out, and 12 pieces of paper put in a box. Each company put £3,333 6s. 8d. in one box, drew a piece of paper out of the other box, and thus obtained a piece of the county of Londonderry. That must have been a rather amusing scene. It is well worth reading about in the history of our country. The Records of the Irish Society wind up by saying—
  "The whole of the estate so divided had been estimated to be worth only £1,800 a year. In letting their lands the companies stipulated with the persons proposing to become tenants, that they should perform the original articles and conditions of the plantation."
  Frequent references are made after that to the connection of the Irish Society and the 12 companies. It is said that on the 9th of November, 1862,
  "Precepts were issued to twelve companies for certificates of their works, and the companies made their return pursuant to the Society's requisitions."
  It is stated that in July, 1714,
  1074
  "The companies were ready to enter info measures thought advisable by the Society for the preservation of the woods."
  It appears that a Committee had been over in Ulster and had found there was very little timber and that something needed doing, and so the Irish Society requisitioned the 12 companies to take measures for the planting of woods in Ulster. This was done. Then on the 4th of June, 1741,
  "The Society agreed to execute a disclaimer to the chief companies of all their right to the timber."
  There is another statement, which to my mind is a complete answer to anything the right hon. Baronet may say as to the companies having nothing to do with the Irish Society, because it reads as follows:—
  "It will no doubt be obvious to the reader of the preceding pages that a main object for incorporating the Irish Society, independently of the pecuniary benefit to arise to the original planters and their successors, was to ameliorate the condition of the inhabitants on their plantation by enabling the Society to exercise their discretion in adopting such measures as might appear to them most conducive to the happiness and prosperity of the community under their jurisdiction."
  And then comes this important paragraph:—
  "The power of the Irish Society were therefore necessarily co-extensive with the possession of the entire estate, and such powers could neither be alienated, nor discontinued."
  And then it is said:—
  "The Crown invested the Society with the most ample authority to enforce their own regulations for the general objects of the plantation, and notwithstanding the division of the estates amongst the twelve chief companies, such estates are to be considered still under the paramount jurisdiction of the Irish Society:"
  and then follows a good deal more in the same strain, winding up with these words—
  "repairing, Protestant churches and chapels; establishing schools throughout the whole population; and generally for the execution of such measures as tend to promote and improve the civil and religious interests of the country."
  I do not see under such circumstances how the 12 companies can contend they hold independently of the Irish Society: it is contrary to all records, contrary to the evident intention with which the charters were given, and contrary to my mind, to all common sense in the matter. But, Sir, there is one other point, and perhaps the right hon.

  1075
  Baronet will give me a little light upon it. I read in the Records of the Irish Society that the Haberdashers' Company sold their estate. I forget the date. [Sir R. FOWLER: 1687.] The date, however, is not of very great importance. The records state that at the time it was arranged that whenever a Company sold their property, the Irish Society should receive an indemnity against any loss. If that is so, is it not completely and clearly shown that the Irish Society hold entirely, and that the Irish Society's views is that these London companies have no right to sell their property, otherwise they would not take themselves an indemnity against harm which may follow? I trust the matter, at all events, will come before the Committee. I cannot state it as an absolute fact, I merely give it as what I gather from the records of the Irish Society, and from what I am informed as to the practice when companies sell their estates. That brings me to the Royal Commission of 1880, and I wish to make a few references to that Commission. With regard to the constitution of that Commission I should like to say I do not know what hon. Members below the Gangway were about at that time. I was in the House, but I must say I knew nothing about the way the Commission was formed. It is a positive fact that the Commission which was to inquire into the Lively Companies had not upon it a single Irishman of any kind—no Peer or Member of Parliament or Commoner of any kind. That Commission was formed with an entire disregard of' the Irish part of the question. I think that was a grievous mistake. I find from the records of that Commission that it entirely fulfilled the object for which it was formed; it ignored the Irish part of the question. The Report of the Commission was issued in 1884, and I find that in the first 15 pages Ireland was not mentioned at all. I find that in only 28 lines of the 44 pages over which the Report extended, was there any reference whatever to Ireland. Therefore I say that the Report of the Royal Commission had really not very much to do with the question of the Irish estates. That is another reason why we should have a Committee. The Royal Commissioners said the Irish part of the question did not come before them at all, and there-
  1076
  fore they had no suggestion to make to the House in regard to it. But they had some very valuable suggestions to make: they reported, for instance, that the property of the London companies was property held in trust. I will not trouble the House with many quotations from the Report, but there are just one or two I must make. Apparently the Companies protested against giving evidence before the Commission, because they disputed—
  "The legality of that portion of the inquiry which related to property of the Companies not proved to be subject to any trust."
  However, in reply to that, the majority of the Commissioners reported,—
  "Those of your Majesty's Commissioners who sign this Report are unable to acquiesce in this view. It appears to us obvious that the State has a right at any time to disestablish and disendow the Companies of London, providing the just claims of existing members to compensation being allowed."
  Then they go on to say—
  "We do not, however, recommend this-course to your Majesty's Government. We are of opinion that the State should intervene, but only for the purposes of the preventing the alienation of the property of the Companies of London securing the permanent applications of a considerable portion of the corporate income thence arising to useful purposes."
  They wind up the paragraph by saying the London Companies
  "Are, therefore, trustees of their corporate estate for public purposes."
  There is also reference to the word London and to the increase of prosperity. I will not give any quotation about that, but the Report says that the bulk of the property had increased in value owing to the prosperity of London, therefore London should receive the greatest advantage from the property of the London companies. That is an argument for us in Ireland. We hold and say that these companies increased there property and increased their income very much, through the prosperity of Ulster, and therefore Ulster ought to receive its share of that improvement. That is, no doubt, the point at issue between us and the hon. Baronet opposite, and I trust it is one I am quite right in leaving to the decision of any Committee of this House. There was a minority Report published by the Commission, but I will not go into that; but I will remind the House that the Commission consulted two eminent barristers, Sir

  1077
  Horace Davey and Mr. Vaughan Hawkins. Sir Horace Davey said—
  "I think the companies should be restrained from alienating their property without the consent of the Home Office."
  That opinion is a very good one, but I do not wish to detain the House by referring to it further. But I must quote the opinion of Mr. Vaughan Hawkins, because it bears on the Irish part of the question. He says—
  "As to the large Crown grants by Edward VI. and James to the companies, it may be true that, taken alone, they do not impose trusts which the Court could enforce; but looking to the recitals of the Act of 4 James I., and the return to Edward VI. Commissioners, it seems not too much to say that these grants were made upon the representation that the income of the lands granted had been in the past wholly applied to charitable uses, and in the expectation that it would in the future be so applied."
  It is there clearly proved that the property of the London companies is trust property which is available for the public welfare, and I maintain that to a share of the good the people of Ulster, who contribute so much to the property, have a claim. Now I said it might be argued by the right hon. Baronet that these companies paid for their lauds. I grant that they did pay £40,000. That £40,000 was raised from 12 of the large companies, with whom are associated a number of smaller companies. The right hon. Baronet represents the Salters' Company. With that company there are four or five smaller companies, and the Salters' Company did not pay £3,333 6s. 8d., but only £1,954 for their land. Now, Sir, the Salters' Company sold their estate under the Ashbourne Act. The purchase money was obtained from the public. From a Return granted to the House, I find that the Salters' Company received £240,000. That, of course, includes the amounts for the smaller companies. Then there is the case of the rental. I read just now from the records of the Irish Society that the lands which were given over to the London companies were estimated to be of the value of £1,800 a year. An estimate of the value was given by a witness before the Royal Commission, he estimated that now the rentals amounted to no less than £160,000 a year. Well, it may now be said that these companies have spent money on their lands. They have no
  1078
  doubt spent money on churches and schools. They have recognized the object with which they were given these estates, and they have supported churches and chapels and schools, but certainly not to the extent they ought to have done. This fact is additional proof, to my mind, that the Salters' Company should not take the whole of the money from Ulster and leave none of it for churches and chapels and schools. The enormous increase of rent has been chiefly duo to the labour of the tenants under the Ulster Custom. The Ulster farmers have built their houses and reclaimed land under the custom. In 1717 the Drapers' Company sent an influential Committee of their body to investigate the state of their property in Ulster and they reported that vast improvements had been made by the tenants. That is no tenants' or one-sided report, and I am sure it cannot be disputed by the hon. Baronet that it is through the reclamation of land and other improvements by the tenants that this largo increase of rent has arisen. I do not say altogether, but very largely. Now, the Salters' Company has not been ono of the most liberal companies in Ireland. A memorial was presented to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) in 1841 which embodied the gravest charge against the Salters' Company for their constant and frequent increases of rent and for increase of the sufferings of the tenants thereby. I am told by a very trustworthy tenant of the Salters' Company, or rather a late tenant of the Salters' Company, that he held land the rent of which had been raised in 109 years from 3s. 6d. an acre to 20s. an acre. The other day the Drapers' Company received a letter of thanks for giving £60,030 to the Beaumont Institute in the East-end of London. It was a noble gift; but about the same time I had written to the Drapers' Company to know if it was a fact that they were refusing to give £10 a year to the struggling Presbyterian churches at Drapers-town and Tobermore, and I was informed that as they intended to sell their estate they did not mean to continue the grants beyond the lifetime of the persons now receiving them. When the Salters' Company sold their estate Presbyterian schoolmasters, who had been in

  1079
  the habit of receiving £5 a year from the Company ceased to receive it. Is it not paltry and mean in the extreme for these great wealthy companies, who are able to give £60,000 to objects in London, to refuse to continue their grants of £5 and £10 to struggling schools and churches in Ulster? I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but there are many other institutions that suffer. Not long ago I was reading the Report of the Londonderry Orphan Asylum. One would have thought that that was an institution that anybody would be glad to continue their subscriptions to, but the Report of the asylum was to the effect that since the London Companies have sold their lands, they did not receive subscriptions from those companies, and therefore they could not support the number of orphans they had hitherto done. That is another example of the noble and liberal policy pursued by the London Companies. I hope I have proved to the House, from all the surroundings of the case—from the records of the Irish Society, from the Charters of King James, from the Royal Commission and legal judgments—these companies hold their property under a public trust. We contend that under that trust they have no right to deprive the people of Ulster of the whole of this property, a good deal of which has been contributed by them, and that they ought, if not voluntarily, then under compulsion, to give a certain sum to the people of Ulster by way of compensation. Gentlemen on this side of the House often talk of justice to Ireland, and I believe that Gentlemen opposite have an equal desire to see that justice done. Well, but I hold that to bring money which really belongs to Ireland over to this, the wealthiest country in the world, is to do great injustice to the former. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: After the able and exhaustive speech we have just listened to from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Derry, I do not think it will be necessary for me to occupy the time of the House with any lengthy observations. In the first place, I would congratulate the hon. Member on having found a Motion on which Members from all parts of Ireland will be able to agree, or rather, on which—for I cannot answer
  1080
  for Irish Members below the Gangway opposite—he will have the cordial support of the Ulster Members on this side of the House. I will not go into the history of these London companies, and the manner in which they have been in the habit of managing their estates, but there is one point I should like to-impress on the House, namely, that this is not altogether, or even mainly, one as between landlords and tenants; it affects very largely the labourers in town and country and the small shopkeepers and other classes of the community. Hon. Members who have studied the workings of the Land Purchase Acts must be aware that the farmers have, as a rule, made excellent bargains for the purchase of their farms. Practically, as the result of this legislation, they have become the absolute owners of the farms, whereas the labourers and other classes of the community have derived no benefit at all from the lands. I should like to give the House an example of the operation of these Acts in the County of Londonderry, one Division of which I happen to represent. Mr. Cartwright, agent of the salters' Company, giving evidence before the Royal Commission on the Land Acts, said that the advantage derived from the purchases under Lord Ashbourne's Act were solely and wholly gained by the chief tenants. He said that whilst on the Manor of the Salters' Company there were 1,000 tenants, there were an enormous number of people who were not tenants, the population altogether being 10,000. From my own knowledge I agree with the observations of Mr. Cartwright, and I have no hesitation in saying that if this money is withdrawn from the county the condition of the labourers on the estates will be infinitely worse than it was 10 or 20 years ago. What we contend is that these estates are virtually trust estates, and it is asked that a certain part of the money from them be devoted to objects of public benefit within these districts. There is no ground for assuming, as, no doubt, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Fowler), who is about to speak, will assume, that the companies are acting within their legal rights in selling their estates, because the matter has never been made the subject of a judicial decision, and until it has been made the subject of such a decision the companies

  1081
  have no right to say that their view is the correct one. I take it that the point that the House has to determine is not that of the abstract legality or illegality of the action of the companies. I do not think we should form ourselves into a tribunal for the purpose of interpreting the law, or explaining the meaning of charters, or to say to what extent the companies are at present bound by them; but what we do say is that, having referred to the circumstances under which the estates were acquired and to the manner in which the trusts have been fulfilled, the House is asked to say that the withdrawal of the large sum which has been habitually spent on the estates is in the highest degree inexpedient and impolitic. I beg to second the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words,
  "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the circumstances attending the acquisition and sale of the Salters Estate, and of such other London Companies as have sold or are in treaty to sell their Irish estates,"—(Mr. Lea.)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR R. FOWLER: The House will not be surprised that I should wish to say something on this question, because I have had the honour of being Master of the Salters' Company in 1885–6 during an important period—so far as this subject is concerned—and because, in view of the constituency I represent, I also indirectly represent the other companies, two of whom are much more interested in this question than the Salters' Company, which has sold its Irish estate. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says there has not been a judicial decision given, and, no doubt, that is true. But though there has not exactly been a judicial decision on the question of the legality of the sale of the estates, yet that right has been accepted by the ablest lawyers in Ireland. Now, in this matter there can be no question of one Government or the other. The estate of the Salters' Company was not sold under a Conservative Government, the main portion of the transaction having taken place under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The able lawyers who advised the Go-
  1082
  vernment under Lord Ashbourne's Act would not have recommended the advance of money by the Government if they had not been sure of the right to sell the estates. The hon. Member for South Londonderry moves for an inquiry into this right. How far back is the inquiry to go, because the right has been sanctioned for the last two centuries? The Haberdashers' Company sold their estates in 1687; the Merchant Taylors in 1727; the Goldsmiths in 1728; the Vintners in 1729; the Cloth workers in 1871; the Grocers in 1874; the Salters in 1885; the Fishmongers in 1886; the Skinners have nearly completed the sale of their estates, and. the Ironmongers and the Drapers are still in process of arranging the sale of theirs. The Mercers do not wish to sell. The desirability of granting this Committee of Inquiry is a matter for the Chief Secretary. As far as the Salters are concerned, it does not matter what decision is arrived at, but with the Ironmongers and the Drapers the case is different. While the sale is being arranged, however, it is awkward to have the question of its legality raised. Therefore, in the interests of those two companies, I would ask either that the inquiry should be refused or should be granted at once. It is doubtful whether it would be possible at this period of the Session to appoint a Committee which would command the confidence of the country; for such a Committee ought to include Members of both the Front Benches and also the ablest lawyers in the House. In the Report of the Livery Companies Commission there is a memorandum stating that the Mercers' Company declare that they have always exercised their right to sell any part of their private estates, and to deal with them as they think fit; and that they protest against any interference in the matter. I mention this case of the Mercers' Company because Lord Selborne, one of the most eminent of living equity lawyers, is a member of the Court of that company. Assuming that all the views of the hon. Members opposite are borne out, what is to be the result? Are the Haberdashers' Company, the Clothworkers', and the Grocers' to be required to refund the sums which they have received at different periods? I apprehend that for that purpose an Act of Parliament

  1083
  would be necessary, and the passing of an Act would occupy a great deal of the time of the House. It is asserted that the London companies have derived great benefits from their Irish estates. I maintain, on the other hand, that it would have been a good thing for those companies if they had never had anything to do with Ireland. In point of fact our connection with Ireland has resulted in a dead loss. The origin of the thing was this: The companies originally put down 12 sums of £5,000 each, making £60,000 between them. Well, it is calculated that a sum of money put out at compound interest will double itself in 14 years. I do not take 14 years however—I take 20—and, I say, that if this £5,000 paid by the Salters' Company had been put out at interest in 1620 that sum, doubling itself every 20 years, would lave amounted to £41,360,000 in 1880. Therefore, Sir, I maintain that these Irish estates have been a dead loss to us. I certainly do not think we have made anything by our connection with Ireland. We should have been a great deal better off if we had never touched it. Well, now, the Salters' Company has been selected for some reason unknown to me as the great evil-doer among the London companies. For nearly 100 years the Salters' estate paid us nothing whatever. It was afterwards let for £500 a year to the Bateson family, the ancestors of the present Lord Deramore. It was not until the year 1853 that the company came into possession of the estates. Since that period the following sums have been laid out in improvements: on school buildings and repairs, £6,213 16s. 3d.; support of education, £16,760 15s. 8d.; church buildings, parsonages, &c., £9,3039s, 9d.; ministers of religion, and Church sustentation fund £9,212 13s. 6d.; main or 'arterial drainage, £5,019 8s. 7d.; improvement in the breed of cattle, £193 11s. 3d.; farm roads, pavements, &c., £6,589 10s. 1d.; water and gas supplies, £817 13s. 3d.; public buildings, repairs, &c., £2,827 19s. 10d.; charitable and other donations, £4,832 13s. 9d. I only joined the Company in 1880, about the time when the troubles began, but I know that those who preceded me were anxious to do their duty as good landlords and to promote the prosperity of their tenants.
  1084
  Not only that, but they had the utmost regard for the religious opinions of the people residing on their estate, and gave assistance in the building of schools and churches to the three denominations—namely, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterians, and the Roman Catholics. My hon. Friend near me (Mr. Johnston) may take exception to the latter, but it was the view of the Salters' Company, and, so far as I know, of the other companies also, that having many Roman Catholic tenants they were bound to assist them. The estate consisted of about 19,000 acres, including hogs, roads, &c., comprising some 986 agricultural and town park holdings, but in some few instances one person held two or three holdings, and, on the other hand, some holdings were held by two and even three persons as joint tenants, so that in round numbers there were about 930 tenants. In 1883 the Company made the following offer to the tenants—"with a view of arriving at some amicable and permanent arrangement without litigation" in the Land Court—namely, to reduce the rent by 10 per cent of all those tenants who would enter into judicial agreements for fair rents for 15 years from the first November, 1882, and the vast majority of the tenants voluntarily availed themselves of this offer. Meetings were held by the tenants at different places on the estate to consider the offer, and Dr. Todd, a solicitor of Londonderry, who was a strong supporter of the tenants' rights, attended some of the meetings. Dr. Todd gained the confidence of the tenants generally, and several hundreds of them signed an authority to him to negotiate with the Company for the purchase of their holdings on certain terms, and to sign the necessary contract of purchase. The price offered was 19 years' purchase of the net Government valuation of the land where the tenant paid in cash the whole of the purchase money (on balance not advanced by the Land Commission), and 20 years where balance of purchase money was left outstanding. The tenants were to be at liberty to borrow from the Land Commission three-fourths of the purchase money, and the company were (in all cases where the tenant was unable to pay the balance of one-fourth in cash) to allow such balance to remain on mortgage at

  1085
  5 per cent for 35 years to extinguish principal and interest. The terms were communicated to the company by Dr. Todd in a letter dated 24th May, 1883. The Company declined to accept the offer, and suggested other terms. A long correspondence ensued, and ultimately terms were agreed and embodied into two draft contracts which were approved by Dr. Todd at the end of the month of January, 1884. The principal terms were as follow:—The whole of the tenants of a townland were to purchase, or the company were not to be compelled to sell to any tenant in such townland. This condition was subsequently abandoned by the company. Three-fourths in number and value of holdings were to pay the whole of the purchase money in cash, and in the other cases the company were to allow the balance of the purchase money, not exceeding one-fourth thereof, to remain on mortgage at 5 per cent for 35 years, to extinguish principal and interest. The price was to be 19½ years' purchase of the net Government valuation of the land in the cases of all tenants who paid the whole purchase-money in cash, and 20 years' purchase in the cases of those who left one-fourth on mortgage. The purchases were to be completed on the 1st November, 1881, and if not completed on that day the purchasers were to pay interest on the purchase money at the rate of 5 per cent per annum until completion. All arrears of rent were to be paid up to the 1st of November, 1884, prior to completion. The company were to pay Dr. Todd 2½ per cent on the total purchase-money by way of commission. The contracts were engrossed by Dr. Todd and were signed by some 630 tenants, but the engrossments were not sent to the company until February 1885. They then had to be checked, and this took upwards of two months to do. In April 1885 the abstract of the Company's title was forwarded to the solicitor of the Land Commission, as he had to investigate the title prior to any advances being made to tenants, and the investigation of the title and the disposal of the requisitions took nearly eight months. I repeat the remark I made before that any doubt as to the desire of the Company to sell their estates, as seems to be implied in this Motion, is not so much a censure upon the Company as a censure upon the
  1086
  solicitor of the Land Commission, who is no doubt a very able lawyer and, as I have no doubt the Solicitor General for Ireland would testify, if he were in his place, a thoroughly competent man. In October 1885, after the passage of Lord Ashbourne's Act, the Salters' Company agreed to allow the sales to be carried through under the Act and to leave one-fifth of the purchase money in the hands of the Land Commission by way of guarantee deposit, and that those tenants who had agreed to give twenty years' purchase should buy out 19½ years' purchase. They did not at that time agree to any other alteration of the terms of purchase. In November 1885 it was represented to the Salters' Company that many of the tenants purchasing would be unable or unwilling at the time of completing their purchase to pay the amount of the arrears of rent to the 1st of November, 1884, and interest from that date until completion in cash, and the Company authorised their agent to take promissory notes for the amounts from such of the tenants as might plead their inability to pay such arrears and interest. As an inducement to tenants to pay the amount in cash, the Company authorized their agent to accept interest at 4 per cent instead of 5 as specified in the contracts. In January, 1886, the company, at Dr. Todd's request, agreed to charge interest on the purchase money up to November the 1st, 1885, only, and not to the actual date of completion. In March 1886, the Company agreed to have the purchase money calculated at 191 years' purchase on the net Government valuation of the land, or the rent as fixed by the Company in February 1883, whichever was the lowest. This resulted in a reduction of about £10,000 from the total purchase money, as agreed to be given by the tenants under the contracts signed by them, and at the same time the company agreed to allow to all tenants who paid their promissory notes for interest before maturity, a rebate of 3s. in the £, which really made the rate of interest 4¼ per cent only. The sales completed on these terms were:—in February, 1886, 63; March, 88; April, 75 May, 56; June, 84; July, 106; August, 64; October, 162 November, 131; December, 61, and since December, 94; making a total of 984. Tenants to the number of 147 gave promissory notes

  1087
  for arrears of rent, and 546 for interest, the total amount of such notes being £5,756. Of these 18 have paid their notes for rent, and 144 their notes for interest, the amount paid being £1,281, which leaves a balance of £1,475, still due to the Company on these promissory notes. The hon. Member contended that the Salters' Company had made a very profitable investment in regard to their Irish estates. I want to point out that we have sold the estates to the tenants at a much less sum of money than we considered they were worth some years ago. With regard to the amount of public money received from the State by the Salters' Company, grossly exaggerated statements have been made. The actual sum received from the Land Commission was, including the guarantee deposit, £230,518. From this sum must be deducted the cost of the redemption of the Tythe, £12,730, cost of sale, compensation to subordinate officials, and balance of bond debt incurred for improvement of the estate, such as building churches and schools, drainage, paving, &c., £16,400, making a total of £201,418. The Salters' Company in 1876 and 1878 bought out two of the associated companies at the rate of £285,000 for the entire estate, subject to certain charges thereon, and the sale to the tenants, after payment of the charges and the costs of sale was at the rate of £220,000. That was a loss to us of £65,000. Are we to be attacked alone, while those companies who left Ireland at a better price than we did are to go scot-free? Why are we to bear the whole loss? I do not think anybody will say that is justice. We have had the misfortune of the times going against us, but I must say that the Salters' Company—and I do not speak for myself, because at the time the company became Irish landlords I had not joined the Company's Court—acted as generous landlords. I believe the reason why they gave a high price to the two companies to whom I have referred was that they wished to behave generously to the tenants without having others to consult. But I must say that, having endeavoured to promote the prosperity of those of the people of Ireland who came under our charge, we have been met by gross ingratitude. Every complaint has been made against us, and I think the very fact of this
  1088
  charge having been brought forward to-night proves that we were right in endeavouring to get out of Ireland. Sitting here and meditating what was said in this House some years ago, I very strongly urged this view, and was supported by a colleague of mine, then a Member of the House (Mr. Eaton, now Lord Cheylesmore) that, from what we saw, an Englishman in Ireland had every man's hand against him, and we came to the conclusion that the sooner we got out of Ireland the better it would be for us. Now, I will just tell the House one instance of what I learnt, when I was driving over the estate in 1885. The agent pointed out to me a farm on the hill, and said the farmer had to drive three-quarters of a mile round to get to the road from which he was separated only by half an acre of rock land, the tenant of which would not permit him to cross to the road. The agent went to him and told him that for this piece of rock he might have an acre of good land. He asked, would it do him way good?—meaning the farmer. "Why, of course, you know it would." "Then nothing would induce me to do it." For the sake of spiting a neighbour by making him walk three-quarters of a mile round, this man refused an acre of good land for half an acre of rock. We hear a good deal about the Ulster tenant, but it certainly struck me that in a similar case in England, no landlord would have allowed a tenant to be so inconvenienced simply because some had a spite against him. Under the Ulster tenant right we had no power to do anything. It was incidents like these which caused us to avail ourselves of Lord Ashbourne's Act, and to enter into this transaction. The same thing has been done by many of the companies. I can speak for the other London companies, that they wore all anxious to do, and would have done the best they could for the Irish tenantry, but for the difficulties that were put in their way. At length they wished to live in a calmer atmosphere, and I do not think anybody can blame them for endeavouring to dispose of their estates. Lord Ashbourne's Act was passed to carry out what has always been the dream of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and many on this side of the House—namely, the establishment of a peasant proprietary. That is the great

  1089
  object Lord Ashbourne's Act has in view, and I do not see how the Salters' Company are to blame for acting on that principle. But as far as I can gather from the object of this Motion it is to convey this. We are very glad to get rid of you, at the same time now you have ceased to belong to us, we want to retain your money. They kick us out of Ireland, and wish us to continue to subscribe. I apprehend that now we have got our money, you would want an Act of Parliament to compel us to spend it in any particular manner. We have every disposition to deal fairly with everybody, but alter the way in which we have been treated, and after the attacks, it cannot be said that we have been offered any great inducement to act in that spirit. To call a man a rogue is not the way to induce him to act liberally. We can find plenty of people to receive what we have to give away in the shape of charity, and to receive it gratefully. What I wish to ask is, how are we to be compelled to take this course? I do not think you can exercise compulsion without au Act of Parliament. And let me again point out that in passing this Motion you are passing a Vote of Censure on the eminent lawyers who advised the Irish Government—and it is not one Government in particular which is concerned, because a good deal of this transaction was under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Morley)—in regard to the right of these companies to sell their estates. But the Motion is a question for Her Majesty's Government. Personally, I believe it will be found that the more the affairs of the London companies are examined the more it will be found that they have endeavoured to do their duty in the various positions in which they have been placed. At the same time, I must protest against the attacks which have been made, and I most earnestly assert in this House that I believe the course we have pursued has always been that of good landlords, and of men anxious for the prosperity of Ireland as well as of this country.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I cannot help saying that if the case of the London companies is as it has been stated by the right hon. Baronet, there is very little to be said for them. It appears to me that the sum and substance of that
  1090
  case is that the moment they scented danger in Ireland they scuttled out of it and took as much with them as possible, It may be a relief to the right hon. Baronet to know that, so far as I am aware, there is nobody on this side of the House who questions the right of the London companies to sell their estates; indeed, we think that it is to the advantage of Ireland that they should sell them. But the real point is as to the disposal of what we consider trust money. That question has been deliberately burked by the right hon. Baronet. We are not here to argue whether the London companies were in the past or are now good landlords. I frankly admit that a good deal may be said on both sides. The real question is, how did these companies become possessed of their lands in Ireland, and are they at liberty either legally or morally to carry off the money to be dispensed in charity and hospitality in this great City, where it is not nearly so much required as in Ireland? These questions involve a twofold argument of history and fact. The lands conveyed at the beginning of the 17th century constitute w hat is known historically as the plantation of Ulster. Is there any Member of this House who, having heard my hon. Friend, believed that they were given to the Irish Society, and by them to the London companies for anything like private ends? I hold that they were given for public purposes, and the original charters clearly prove it. Here are some pregnant words from the first charter:—
  "Whereas the greater part of six counties in the Province of Ulster being estreated to the Crown, have lately been surveyed, and the survey thereof transmitted and presented unto His Majesty, upon view whereof His Majesty, of his princely bounty, and not respecting his own property but the public peace and welfare of the kingdom, by the civil plantation of these unreformed and waste countries, is graciously pleased to distribute the said lands to such of his subjects, as well of Great Britain as of Ireland, as being of merit and dessert and shall cultivate the same not only to benefit themselves but to do service to the Crown and to the Commonwealth."
  I maintain that these lands were conveyed to the Irish Society and to the London companies not for private but for public purposes — the settlement of Ulster. Now, this charter, which I have quoted, was annulled in 1630 for breaches of the Articles. And if the lands were not given for public purposes, what

  1091
  right had the Crown to interfere with and annul the very charter it had created? A new charter was presented by Charles II. to the Irish Society, which granted some lands to the Livery companies thereupon, and that is the foundation under which the companies hold their lands. The case for the companies so far as I can make it out, is that they bought from the Irish Society and are absolute owners. Our answer is that the Irish Society, in conveying their lands to the 12 companies, could only convey the title they possessed. They held the land for public purposes, and they bad no right to convey them for any other purpose. The companies have sometimes recognized this themselves. I take the sale of their estate by the Cloth-workers' Company in 1871. They sold their land to Sir Hervey Bruce, who was charged with £50 a year to several churches, besides moneys for other charities which the Cloth workers had been giving. The Cloth workers had recognized their duty, and in selling to Sir Hervey Bruce they charged the estate with those responsibilities. What we are determined upon is that those companies who remain shall not get out as have the others. They are selling lands, the main value of which has been contributed by the tiller of the soil. The right hon. Baronet talks about the companies having lost by their Irish connection. In 1609 the valuation of the estates was £1,800; in 1882, the valuation was £113,000. In 1639, the rental was £2,190; in 1882 it was £160,000. Beyond all yea or nay, and making every allowance for what the companies have done, and making allowance, too, for the change in the currency, I say the increased value of these lands is mainly due to the tenants. The settlers found the place a howling wilderness, and if it now flourishes like a green bay tree the change is not due to the landlords. All that the companies have done has been to step in and raise the rents of the tenants after they had made their improvements. It is absurd for the hon. Baronet to talk of the losses which the companies have incurred in face of the enormous improvement of their estates—an improvement by which they have benefited Now, having sold those lands which, as the charter shows, they held for public
  1092
  and specific purposes, they have carried off the Irish money made out of the sweat and toil of the settlers, to this great City, and are simply leaving that religion, that education, and those public affairs for which they wore bound to have concern, to take care of themselves the best way they can. Just imagine these great corporations receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds under Lord Ashbourne's Act, calmly announcing, while they are giving their £10,000 in charity in this wealthy and rich City, that these schools and churches and charitable institutions in the County of Derry must now, since they have sold their estates, look after themselves. I say, apart from the legal question altogether, this money is Irish money which ought not to be allowed to come to London, and these great and wealthy corporations ought to be ashamed to retire from Ireland in the way they have done. We may be told that if the companies had no legal right to sell we have our remedy by going to the Court of Chancery for au injunction. Just imagine the farmers and labourers of the County of Derry being told that they must go to the House of Lords, because that would be the ultimate tribunal of these great and wealthy corporations, who would be actually fighting the farmers and labourers and tenants with their own money. It is not possible to recommend any such course. Let us have a Committee to in-quire into the title of these companies, into their right to sell, and whether if they have the right to sell, they have the right to walk off with the money. The right hon. Baronet talked about the immorality of the people. I wondered what he meant. What instance did he give? Simply one case in the County of Derry where a man owning half an acre of rock would not take in exchange an acre of arable land to oblige a neighbour. Does such a thing as that never take place in England or even in the City of London? If the man wished to keep his half acre of rock, if it was not convenient for him to part with it, he had a right to hold it. He might be wrong, very likely was, but certainly he ought not to be held up as an example of immorality. Take the case of the Drapers' estate. The Drapers' Company have been

  1093
  caught distinctly trying to defraud their tenants The Land Commissioners refused to ratify the sale of their lands. Why? Because the company inserted in the agreements the old rents, after the judicial and lower rents had been fixed. Now, when they are brought to bay, what are they doing? They are simply forcing the tenants into a position that they cannot consent to occupy. It is time this harrying should cease. These great, rich, and wealthy companies should not be harrying their tenants in Ulster, and it is time that the money they have in their coffers should be got back, or if it cannot be got back, at all events that this House should see no more of it shall go into them. I heartily support the Motion of my hon. Friend, and I hope the Government will see their way to grant this Committee, and, even though the period is late, to do something to arrest this work.
  MR. CLANCY: I have listened to the characteristic oration of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. When last autumn the Irish Members sitting in this part of the House in Committee on the Bill for the extension of Lord Ashbourne's Act, proposed certain Amendments calculated to prevent the things of which he now complains, the hon. Member and his confederates on the other side went into the Lobby against us. He opposes us on all practical occasions, and reserves his superfluous eloquence for a pointless debate on a private Member's night. He deserted us on the battlefield, and now swaggers as the true hero on parade. I must express my opinion, that this Motion and the debate to which we have listened, are as perfect a little comedy as ever has been enacted on the boards of a West End theatre. It reminds me of those little charming questions, put in the simplest manner by innocent friends of the Government, and to which the Government are always so anxious to give an answer. There is no doubt whatever after the speeches that have been made, and even for the speech of the hon. Baronet, the head Salter, that a little arrangement has been come to. This committee is going to be granted; there is no doubt about it. I thoroughly agreed with the Head Salter when he asked, supposing the Committee were granted, how are you going to get back the
  1094
  money? The money has been spent in champagne and turtle soup long ago. You may as well try to call spirits from the vasty deep as try to get back money now. I am not surprised that the Head Salter objects to this Commission. I remember that the hon. Baronet also objected to a Commission of inquiry into the works of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. My name was on the back of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington.
  MR. CLANCY: I was under the impression the hon. Baronet objected to the inquiry into the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and I now hear with astonishment that he did not. Does he deny that he opposed the inquiry?
  SIR R. FOWLER: I distinctly deny it. My name was on the back of the Bill.
  MR CLANCY: Was not the hon. Baronet opposed to the inquiry in the first instance?
  MR. FOWLER: No.
  MR. CLANCY: At all events, I think the hon. Baronet predicted a certain result for the inquiry. He was very brave, and confident that that final result which he predicted would be most satisfactory; but we know what the result has been, and that it has led to the extinction of the corrupt body which he championed. No doubt he looks forward to an equally satisfactory result on the present occasion, or he would not object to the Committee now proposed. I myself should prefer, not a Committee upstairs, but a special Commission of Judges. I do not think, in the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, that a Committee of this sort is a competent tribunal for the discussions of questions of this kind. We want a most thorough and far-reaching inquiry. There are delicate questions of a private character, of private banking accounts and various matters touching on the question of morality, and a Committee upstairs is not competent, and probably would not be induced to enter into these considerations. Therefore, if I had my choice, I should prefer a special Commission of Judges, with probably the Attorney General to conduct the prosecution. I listened, with great interest, to the speech of the Head Salter. He stated

  1095
  that these Irish estates were a dead loss to the London companies. I forget how many scores of millions he said the companies had lost, but he seemed to forget that they had been extracting rent. He spoke as if the companies had got nothing during all these centuries out of Ireland. Well, Sir, I think it did become him to make an appearance here to-night, and if he asks me why it is we select the Salters' Company, and their fellow company, the Skinners' Company, as the victims of our efforts of to-night, I beg to tell him the reasons are to be found in the records of the Land Commission, where it is clearly shown that these two companies have been amongst the greatest rack renters of the country; therefore, it is time that the Head Salter should make his appearance and deliver some apology for the robbery, which has been going on for over two hundred years of loyal Protestant tenants as well as of poor Catholics. The Head Salter said that their proceedings had been sanctioned for two hundred years, but does that make the thing any better. Sir, these transactions are not only old, but they are as infamous as they are old. There is no use in the hon. Baronet attempting here, or anywhere else, to get over the verdict of history and of historical documents, a verdict which clearly proves that a public trust has been imposed by the Crown in connection with these estates, and that the estates have been used for private and disgraceful purposes. I will not weary the House by giving particulars of this assertion. I will content myself by quoting one case contained in the Report of a Commission dated 1854. This Report states that the estates are mere trustees- for the purposes declared in the charter, and these purposes are defined as public purposes, educational and religious to be effected not in England, or Scotland or Wales, but in Ireland. Yes, these companies have been distributing their money by thousands in England and Wales, and have refused to give a few hundreds to loyal Belfast. A little while since a donation of £12,000 was given for a college in Wales; but only £300 could be obtained for a technical school in Belfast, and a subscription was refused altogether for a college in Dublin. Now I come to the sale of the Fishmongers' Company's estates in county Derry
  1096
  under the Ashbourne Act, and if the statements made to me on this subject are true; it seems to have been one on the most iniquitous plots ever conceived. I am told that the estates were sold by the Company to the tenants in April, 1885, a few months before the first Ashbourne Act became law, the tenants agreed to pay annuities for thirty years, and the annuities, strange to say, were less in amount than the annual rent. The explanation of that no doubt is to be found in the fact that the rents were raised in 1872 to an extraordinary pitch. What happened? The agreements were signed- and stamped, and so far everything appears to have been straight for ward, except that the Company, by their superior position, imposed monstrous terms on the tenants. But when the Ashbourne Act passed in August, 1885, all the solvent tenants applied to the Land Commissioners to get an advance of money for the purchase of their holdings. Now, a great many of them had deeds, signed and registered, for the purchase, but at the instance of the Fishmongers' Company they actually signed another document, agreeing to become tenants again at will under the Fishmongers' Company, for the purpose of getting the money under the Ashbourne Act, and this was the first step in a series of frauds, sanctioned by the Land Purchase Commissioners. The second fraud was in adding to the purchase money all arrears—a thing which had been forbidden by the Land Corn-mission. And so this benevolent company, by misrepresenting the amount of the purchase money, got an amount of cash which was not sanctioned by any Act of Parliament. A man who steals sixpence, or gets it by embezzlement, is sent to gaol, but the scoundrels of the Fishmongers' Company are permitted still to guzzle champagne in the City of London. Fraud No. 3 was this: the Land Commissioners would not advance the money unless the company withdrew all claims for rent awl interest against the tenants. The company did so withdraw those claims, but they actually got, at the same time, the tenants to sign promissory notes for the arrears, and this hon. Company of Fishmongers, who ought really to have been called "Salters" or "Skinners," entertained the Chief Secretary to dinner with that money. They get the tenants to sign promissory notes for these

  1097
  arrears, and, having obtained judgment against them on the promissory notes, and registered them as mortgages, and having also, as my correspondent states, obtained about £20,000 by fraud, they spent the money thus fraudulently obtained by a series of most disgraceful frauds, in guzzling in the City of London and entertaining the chief coercionist of the country. I think, if there is no other reason for demanding an inquiry into these matters, it is to be found in the transactions of the Fishmongers' Company. It is impossible, after these statements have been made, for the House to refuse an inquiry, even if an agreement has not already been come to on the subject between the confederates on both sides of the House. I only hope that the inquiry will be thorough, and that it will go back far enough to satisfy both the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the Head Salter. All I would suggest is that the Secretary for Ireland, instead of appointing a Committee of this House, which in the words of the First Lord of the Treasury "is not a competent tribunal" will agree to the appointment of a Special Commission of Judges with power, if necessary, to issue certificates of indemnity to the Salters' Representative in the House.
  MR. S. GEDGE: I have had considerable difficulty in following the drift of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Dublin. I take it he wishes a Committee to be appointed, and yet he falls foul of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who strongly supports that proposal. It is supported by the Liberal Unionists and the Irish Members; but the Party led by the hon. Member for Northampton, and that Party which is occasionally led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who might be expected to support this proposal are all strangely absent. Even the newly-formed Fourth Party—I mean the "Jacobite" Party—are not on this occasion showing much activity in support of their Irish allies. I can hardly suppose the hon. Member for North Dublin wishes for the presence to-night of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, because that right hon. Gentleman would scarcely have listened with pleasure, or without protest, to the remark that the Fishmongers are a set of scoundrels, seeing that he himself is a member of
  1098
  that Company. I fancy the object of the hon. Member for North Dublin was to be nasty all round, and I think he very well succeeded in so being. Looking at the case as a trained lawyer, I think it strange that any one should come to the House and on such a statement of facts as that presented by the Mover of the Motion ask for the appointment of a Committee. While those companies in Ireland have their duties as welt as their rights, they were undoubtedly planted in Ulster, not only to do good to the country, but to benefit themselves as well. The charters distinctly state that the estates are to be held by the companies, not only for the benefit of themselves, but in order that service might be done to the country. Now, the law in regard to trusts is that no trustee shall hold for his own benefit, he must hold for the benefit of others. But while the companies were to hold the states for their own benefit, the charters pointed out that the property had its duties as well as its rights. Complaints have been made of the conduct in particular instances of the companies towards certain of their tenants; but I think that no one will say that, during the long period they have held the property, the companies have not to a considerable extent performed services of public benefit. The real complaint now seems to be not that in the past they have failed to subscribe liberally to churches, schools, and other public institutions, but that when they sold their estates they did not take care that these good works should be carried on by their successors, or by themselves out of the purchase money. It has been pointed out that in 1650 certain charters were revoked by the King on the ground that the Companies had been guilty of breach of trust, and it was suggested that this constituted proof of the existence of trusts. But the hon. Member omitted to inform the House that not very long afterwards the revocation was declared by Parliament to be illegal, and that declaration cut the ground from under the contention that the revocation proved the existence of trusts. But even supposing there are trusts, the question arises, do they attach to the land or to the money? If they attach to the land, then the hon. Member must look to the present possessors of it, and try and make them perform the duties

  1099
  hitherto performed by the Companies. On the other hand, if the trust attaches to the proceeds of the sale of the land, then the hon. Member can file an information in the Court of Chancery, which is perfectly competent to enforce these trusts. I have no doubt the Attorney General would not refuse his name for use in such an information. Surely it is a strange thing to come and ask for a Committee of this House to inquire into the matter when they have no power whatever of enforcing the trusts if any are found to exist. Now, hitherto hon. Members opposite have expressed great anxiety that Irish land should become the property of the tenants, yet the hon. Member for South Tyrone takes up this extraordinary position, and asks that there shall he no more sales of the property of the London Companies until this question has been settled. The object of Lord Ashbourne's Act was not so much to benefit the landlords as to benefit the tenants whom it is desired to make proprietors of their holdings, and so to get rid of the dual ownership created in 1881, which has done so much mischief in Ireland. Now, what can it matter to the tenants whether they buy from the London City Companies or from individual landlords? Under all the circumstances, however, as hon. Members have pressed for the appointment of a Committee to which there is no objection in limine, I hope that the Government will not treat this as a Party matter, but will allow a Committee to be appointed which may get at the facts, and settle the question once for all. I do not think the City Companies need at all fear the result of such an inquiry.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is not necessary that I should detain the House long on this matter. It must be evident to all who have listened, as I have, with attention to this debate, that a number of entirely separate questions have been raised by it. The Mover of the Amendment dwelt, in the earlier part of his speech, on certain incidents that have occurred in respect to the character of the bargain which one or two of those companies have made with heir tenants when they took advantage of the Ashbourne Act. That is, no doubt, an important question; but it is not the most important question which
  1100
  has been raised by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The fact is that the Land Purchase Commissioners are, I believe, perfectly alive to the duties which rest upon them in this matter. I have no fear whatever that they will sanction any bargain under the Act which they administer that would be either unjust to the tenants on the estates or would imperil the interests of the British taxpayers. I shall, therefore, not enter into details on this point. But with regard to what I may call the main topic which has occupied the House during this discussion—namely, the duty of these companies, again I have to draw a distinction between two entirely different questions which arise. It is alleged that the companies are neglecting their duties. Are the duties referred to by those who attack the companies duties legally imposed on them by the terms of their charters, or are they moral obligations arising out of the general conditions under which the property is held and the terms on which it was given to to them? If the sole question is the legal question, I apprehend that the proper tribunal would not be a Committee of that House but a Court of Law.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Two Resident Magistrates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot quite make out from the speech of the Mover of the Amendment whether he thinks that the companies have legal obligations or not. The hon. Member read out to us the terms of one of the earlier charters, and if I rightly caught the sense of the passage that he gave to the House, the motives which actuated the Crown in making the grant were that the companies, or the parent company rather, were given these lands for the planting of Ulster in order to prevent and put down plots and domestic broils, the inroad of foreign arms, and superstition. If, therefore, the companies are to be kept legally to the terms of the bargain, and remembering also the religion which King James meant by "superstition," I do not think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite will have much reason to congratulate themselves upon the result. I apprehend it is not thought by my hon. Friend or others that the legally binding terms of the charter are to be considered in this matter, but rather the general character of the obligations im-

  1101
  posed on the companies. I apprehend that is so, although some phrases used by my hon. Friend seems to lead to the opposite conclusion. It is not on the legal aspect of the case, but rather on the general moral aspect revealed by the charter, that my hon. Friends rely. I quite admit the matter well deserves consideration, but some interesting questions arise. Is the moral obligation imposed on these companies a general moral obligation to use their funds generally for the public benefit, or is it an obligation to use the funds particularly for that locality in which the estates are situated? The obligation is not clear on the face of it, and that is a question into which the Committee, if the House should think proper to grant it, would certainly have to inquire. Then out of this arises another question. I gather that my hon. Friend thinks that the obligations of the companies are ear-marked for the particular area of the estate which up to this time they hold. That may or may not be the right view, but evidently it is not the view that has hitherto prevailed; for, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Fowler) has pointed out to the House with considerable force, ever since these charters were first granted, almost from the moment the companies became freeholders of the estates, the process of sale now going on commenced and, in a series of years, from 1687 down to 1886, that process has gone on not indeed absolutely continuously, but still at intervals, and never so far as I know until the present debate or within a very recent period of time has it ever been contended that the obligations of the City companies were of a kind that compelled them to keep up their eleemosynary relations with that part of the country where these estates are situated after the estates were sold? I do not deny that that may be the case. I am only pointing out that never yet has it been held to be the case. Almost all great landlords have felt it part of the duty incumbent upon them as holders of large estates to bear a considerable share in supporting the charities of their district and I suspect the City Companies supported these schools and churches to which my hon. Friend alludes rather in deference to this general principle than from any idea that they were compelled to pay this
  1102
  money for churches and schools under the terms of their Charter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Irish Society actually spend all the money derived from the property upon the property.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a still more important point. I now gather that my hon. Friend holds that the companies are not only bound to pay a certain proportion of their income on the local charities after they have sold their estates, but that, following the example of the parent society they ought to spend the whole of the money in improving the neigbhourhood where those estates exist. I do not know whether that is the view of the hon. Member, but it is the logical inference from his interruption.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I simply made a statement of fact.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. I thought I ought to indicate the kind of questions that would come before the Committee. It is not merely or chiefly a question of how the companies have treated their tenants under the Ashbourne Act; it is not merely or chiefly a question whether they ought, while they own the estates, to subscribe money for local charities; but the Committee will have to determine whether the terms of the Charter compel them legally to spend money in this way, whether if they are not legally compelled, they are morally compelled; and, if morally compelled, to what extent, in what proportion to income; whether the money should be spent on the estate or in the district; whether the expenditure should be confined to the district in which the estates are situated, or whether the money should be given to Ulster or to Ireland as a whole. All these are matters upon which I do not venture to give an opinion. In these few remarks I merely wish to indicate their character to separate some of the threads of the controversy. I have only to add, in conclusion, that although I cannot agree to the particular terms of the Motion of my hon. Friend, I see no objection to granting him the Committee he desires, but I think the terms had better be left to be settled at a later stage.
  MR. LEA: If I may be allowed a word in reply, I wish to say that I

  1103
  would rather the House passed the Resolution in the terms I have moved it; but as the right hon. Gentleman has conceded the principle, and in the hope that an early day will be fixed for the appointment of the Committee, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, and am willing that my Motion should be negatived.
  MR. M. KENNY: I should like to know from the First Lord of the Treasury when he will arrange for this Committee to be appointed. There are only about six weeks of this Session to run, and it is quite impossible for a Committee upstairs to dispose of such a subject as this within that space of time, and present a Report to the House. It is a farce to go on with this at this period of the Session; it is all pretence—manifest humbug. It is just as well to say so. This inquiry might as well have commenced in February if seriously intended. Will the right hon. Gentleman take his part in the farce and tell us when he proposes the Committee shall sit?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): In giving expression to this view, the hon. Gentleman has used language which is certainly not Parliamentary; but whatever may be the view of the hon. Gentleman, it appears to me that great advantage may be derived from the nomination of a Committee even at this period of the Session, because the preliminary arrangements for inquiry can be made, and if this inquiry is not completed when the Session terminates, it will be quite in accordance with the practice of Parliament if the inquiry is resumed in the coming Session. I hope the House will accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend. The Motion for the appointment of a Committee shall be put upon the Notice Paper within a few days, and it will certainly be proceeded with without delay, unless opposed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn; Committee to sit on Monday, 1st July.

  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [LORDS]. (No. 283.)
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CONYBEARE: Before the Second Reading of this Bill is passed, I think we are entitled to hear from Her Majesty's Government some explanation of the details in connection with it. It is now becoming a regular practice to rush Bills of this kind through the House without a word of explanation, no Minister deigning to get up and make the Motion from his place. I notice the Bill comes down to us from another place, and should therefore be regarded with an extra amount of suspicion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Member must speak with respect of the other branch of the Legislature.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have noticed the Bill comes to us from another place, and the wisdom of its provisions will require a great amount of attention on our part. This is an additional reason why, to my mind, we should require a little enlightenment from Her Majesty's Government, and this, I hope, we may have before we decide upon the Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 1st July.

  SUPERANNUATION (OFFICERS OF COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL (No. 60.)
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. KENNY: It is contrary to the general understanding to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity on a Friday evening, to rush a Bill of this description through without explanation. I hope we shall not be asked to proceed with a Bill of which we know nothing. The Attorney General is present, and perhaps he can give us the Government view in regard to it.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,—
  House was adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock till Monday next.