Commons Sitting of 10 May 1889

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—THE REV. D. STEPHENS.
  MR. BLANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if it was true that the Rev. Daniel Stephens, C.C., of Falcarragh, had a sentence of six months' imprisonment for conspiracy confirmed on appeal by Judge Webb at the last Quarter Sessions in Letterkenny; if the principle evidence against him was a private correspondence found by the constabulary in a search in a neighbouring parish; if evidence was also given of his having taken part in the Plan of Campaign since January, 1888; if, on the evidence given in April, 1888, the Rev. Daniel Stephens, C.C., was sentenced to three months' imprisonment; and if the Government will permit him to be punished a second time for the same conspiracy?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The facts are as stated in the former portion of the question. The evidence given at each of the prosecutions was not the same, nor were the prosecutions for the same offences.

  THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether a man named Beattie, an agent for the Kelp Company, was returned for trial by the Petty Sessions Bench at Falcarragh, to the Cork Summer Assizes, for the wilful murder of a man named Irwin, by shooting him with a revolver; whether Mr. Wybrant Olphert sat on the Bench, and decided to dismiss the charge, but was overruled by the other Magistrates; whether, at the Summer Assizes at Lifford, the grand jury, who were only 17 in number, threw out the bill against Beattie, the foreman stating there was not a sufficient number of grand jurors to find a bill; whether having regard to the fact that a bill to become an indictment must be found to be a true bill by 12 grand
  1700
  jurors at least, will the Crown take any, and what, steps to insure a full attendance of the grand jury, which should consist of 23 members; was Mr. Wybrant Olphert a member of the grand jury by whom this bill was ignored; why was not a fresh bill sent up to the grand jury against the said Beattie at the Winter or Spring Assizes; and, do the Crown intend to take any further steps in investigating the circumstances of Irwin's death?
  MR. MADDEN: The facts are substantially as stated in the first, second, third, and fifth paragraphs of the question, with this exception, that it is inaccurate to say that there was not a sufficient number of grand jurors to find the bill. In answer to the remainder of the question, I have to say that, after the bill was thrown out at the last Summer Assizes, the Attorney General called for a Special Report from the Crown Solicitor, and after going into the matter fully with him came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence against Beattie to justify the Crown in taking any further proceedings.

  VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY CORPS AT SINGAPORE.
  GENERAL SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that, on the formation of a Volunteer European Artillery Corps at Singapore, certain conditions were virtually agreed to between the General Officer Commanding and the promoters of the Corps as regards the training of the men in working guns of the same nature as those mounted for the defence of the, place; whether it was understood that every facility would he given to the Volunteers to enable them to drill at some place near the town and not at the outlying forts, to which they would have to proceed by boat; whether, up to the beginning of April 1889, a 7-inch gun at Fort Fullerton, a place most conveniently situated for the Volunteers, had been used for drill purposes, and that this gun was mounted on a carriage and platform of the latest type supplied to the Colony borrowed from Fort Blankan Mati, on condition that they were returned to that fort at 72 hours' notice; whether the War Department has now peremptorily or-

  1701
  dered the immediate return of these gun mountings to Fort Blankan Mati, and have offered for the use of the Volunteers a gun at Fort Fullerton which has an obsolete mounting, or at all events one which requires an entirely different drill to that which is required for working the guns that are, or will be, mounted for the defence of the port; whether the difficulties of distance and time would prevent the Volunteers, nearly all of whom are men connected with business, from proceeding to the outer forts for drill so often or so regularly as would be desirable; and, whether, if the facts are as above stated, and considering the great exertions made, and the large sum of money spent by Singapore in providing for its own defence, the War Department will consider the advisability of giving immediate orders that a gun properly mounted at Fort Fullerton, as previously arranged, be placed at the disposal of the Volunteers for drill purposes?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Without entering into the past arrangements in connection with the practice of the Artillery Volunteers at Singapore, I will take such steps as may he necessary to secure that the wishes of the Volunteers shall be complied with as far as may be possible.

  THE 1ST WORCESTERSHIRE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War, whether in a letter dated the 15th of February last, the 1st Worcestershire Artillery Volunteers were informed by the War Office, in reply to an application in that behalf, that H.R.H. the Commander in Chief had been pleased to approve of the issue, on payment, of part-worn Artillery harness to them for the batteries of position; whether on receipt of such communication, a requisition was forthwith made in due form to the Senior Ordnance Store Officer, western district, to which no reply was given; whether subsequently, viz., on the 8th of April last, a letter of reminder was sent to the same official, to which a reply was received on the 1st of May instant in the following words, "None in store at present, will be supplied as soon as available" Whether at the date of
  1702
  the first mentioned, namely the 15th of February last, there was, as would appear to be the case, part-worn Artillery harness in store available on payment for issue to Artillery Volunteers; if so, what has become of such harness in the meanwhile? And what was the reason of the delay in replying to the requisition, whereby the said 1st Worcestershire Artillery Volunteers are now left in the position of having to train 62 horses and 36 men without proper harness between now and their annual camp training in July next?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: When the offer of part-worn harness was made to the Artillery Volunteers, it was on the understanding that part-worn harness should be available in sufficient quantity for the issue. At present this is not the case, as the store of such harness is purposely kept low; but new harness is in course of issue to the Second Army Corps, and as the harness which it replaces comes in it will be issued to the Volunteers. In the meantime the 1st Worcestershire Artillery Volunteers must act upon the original arrangement and hire farm or other harness for their training. The expense of thus hiring harness has been taken into account in fixing the annual grant of money for each battery. The delay in replying arose from the necessity of considering how the demands, which were in excess of the supply, could best be met.

  MILITARY EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War, whether it is the case that, by Army Order 143 of 1889, the examinations in tactics, fortifications, military law, and topography, which Line Officers have to pass in. order to qualify for promotion, have been thrown open to Militia Officers and Volunteers of equivalent rank; whether it is the case that the examination in tactics may be taken separately, but that the other three subjects must be taken up together, not separately; whether it is a fact that these examinations are considered of sufficient difficulty to warrant Line Officers being struck off all duty and sent to garrison courses of four months' duration to be coached up by garrison instructors before passing them; and, whether, having regard to the difficulty of these

  1703
  examinations, he will direct that each subject may be taken up separately, so that, for example, an Officer may pass in tactics in May 1889, in law in December 1889, in fortification in May 1890, and in topography in December 1890.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. Line officers are allowed if they wish it to have a two months' course of garrison instruction, as their promotion depends upon their passing. Line officers are not allowed to take up the subjects separately. The reason why an exception has been made in favour of Volunteer officers as regards tactics is because a special capitation allowance is granted for each officer of Volunteers who has passed his examination in tactics. It is not desirable that the examinations should be further subdivided.

  EMIGRATION TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to circulars, issued by the authority of the Argentine Republic, inviting working people to emigrate to that country; and whether, seeing that the statements made in such circulars with regard to the rates of wages, the demand for labour, and the cost of living, are misleading, and that great misery has been caused to those who have thereby been induced to emigrate, the Government will issue a warning to intending emigrants on the subject.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The Secretary of State has received from the Argentine Legation copies of the circulars referred to; but the reports of Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres give a very fair prospect for suitable emigrants, and would not appear to justify the issue of such a notice as that indicated by the hon. Member. We are not aware of any misery resulting to emigrants, but only of a case of some temporary discomfort, caused by the simultaneous arrival of a great number of emigrants, who were soon after settled. Steps have been taken so that adequate notice is given to Her Majesty's Representatives of the arrival of emigrants from this country.

  COCHIN CHINA—BRITISH COTTON CLOTHS.
  MR. BRISTOWEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it has been brought to his notice that British cotton cloths when imported into Cochin China, which for about two years have been subject to the Tariff General, and under it have been taxed at rates varying from 20 per cent to 40 per cent on their respective values, are now, under a resolution adopted recently by the Conseil d'Etat at Paris, to be charged an additional duty of 60 per cent; whether remonstrances have been made as to this impost, on the ground that it will be prohibitory as regards British cloths; and, whether, if enforced, such cloths now en route viâ Hong Kong and Singapore, or actually contracted for in Lancashire, will be subject to the said impost?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The statement contained in the first paragraph of this question is substantially correct. As regards the second paragraph no remonstrance has been made because there is no treaty ground for remonstrance, and because this measure is in accordance with a settled policy, deliberately adopted. Whether goods now en route will be subjected to the increased duties must depend on the regulations under which these duties will be applied. On this point inquiry will be made at Paris, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the reply.

  MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS.
  MR. MONTAGUasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to Report in the Daily News of the 7th instant of a case tried before Mr. Montagu Williams, in which the following words appear:—
  "The magistrate said that not half the evidence was before him, but he had no doubt that the child of Mrs. Cohen was lent for the purpose of this conspiracy, and that the prisoners, like their nation and religionists always did, lied as deep as they could lie to back up that conspiracy. Whether it would be proved was another matter."
  And, if such expressions were really uttered, will any notice be taken of the use by a Magistrate on the Bench of words reflecting on all persons of a particular faith?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Magistrate that he did not use the exact words as reported. What he said was that—
  "The prisoners had lied as deeply as they could, and that the perjury which was committed at his Court by many of their co-religionists was perfectly appalling."
  Although these words have a much narrower application than the expressions given in the Report, I cannot conceal my opinion that the practice of making general comments from the Bench in particular cases is open to considerable objection.

  THE NEW CODE.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether persons at present recognized as provisionally certificated teachers, not having sat for the Queen's Scholarship Examination, will cease to be so recognized when the New Code comes into operation; whether, if they are still so recognized, it will be necessary for them to pass the Queen's Scholarship Examination before taking the certificate papers of the first year students; and whether provisionally certificated teachers, after being employed for one year in that capacity, may sit for first year papers?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): Nothing in the Code will affect the position of teachers now holding provisional certificates, nor will they have to pass the Queen's Scholarship Examination before taking the certificate papers of the first year; but they will not be allowed to take these papers after being employed only one year as provisionally certificated teachers.

  IRELAND—THE OLPHERT EVICTIONS.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention had been called to the fact that a woman named Bessie Doolan, upwards of eighty years of age, one of the tenants on the Olphert estate, whose eviction was stayed about three weeks ago on account of her illness, was evicted from her holding within the last few days, and that she died on
  1706
  Tuesday evening from the effects of privation and exposure; whether the Government intend to institute any inqury into the circumstances of her death; whether any precautions will be taken for the preservation of the lives of destitute women and children on the Glasheroo portion of Mr. Olphert's estate, who are to be evicted on Monday next; and, whether the report is true that directions have been given to burn the houses, from which the people of Glasheroo are about to be evicted, with paraffin oil; and, if so, by whom will the cost of the paraffin oil be defrayed?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question. A Report has been called for which has not yet been received.

  MR. W. O'BRIEN AND MR. E. H ARRINGTON.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, during the detention in London of Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. Edward Harrington, they are under his care; and, if so, where are they lodged, and what is the nature of the prison treatment to which they are subjected?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. William O'Brien is lodged at Holloway and Mr. Harrington at Pentonville, in charge of Irish prison officers. The governors of these prisons have been instructed to allow their treatment to be regulated according to the information they receive from the Irish officers in charge, in order that they may be treated here as they are in the Irish prisons from which they come.

  THE SUGAR BOUNTY CONVENTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the Sugar Bounty Convention, Great Britain could be called upon to exclude sugar being the produce of a Nation (not in any way a party to the Convention), on the ground of its giving a Bounty, although such Nation may be entitled by Treaty to the "most favoured Nation" treatment, as in the case of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and the United sates, in which it is stipulated as follows—

  1707
  "Nor shall any prohibition be imposed by Great Britain upon the Exportation of any any article the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, to the territories of Her Britannic Majesty, which shall not equally extend to all other Nations;"
  And, whether, in a case where such a Treaty exists, Her Majesty's Government claim the right, without the consent of the other contracting party, to exclude sugar, the produce of such country, whilst they admit the sugar of other nations?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It rests rather with the Foreign Office than with the Board of Trade to give an authoritative interpretation of our treaty engagements, but as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have my opinion I shall be happy to give it. This question, though apparently general, is really limited to the case of our treaty with the United States. I think all other nations that are at all likely to send us sugar or give bounties are either in some way parties to the Convention or do not possess the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman quotes in their treaties with us. In the case of the United States I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the correspondence which took place in 1884 between Lord Granville and the United States Government. Them he will find that Lord Granville then complained that by the treaties then made, or about to be made, by the United States with the Sandwich Islands and some of the South American States, the latter countries were placed in a more favourable position than our West Indian Colonies, and asked that this might be remedied by extending the most favoured nation clause in our treaties with the United States to our West Indian Colonies. The United States Government declined to do this, offering to consider a reciprocity treaty securing special favour for our West Indian Colonies, and saying—and this is the important point—that
  "The most favoured nation clause in the Treaty of 1815 has not authorized, and could not authorize, Great Britain to ask for the products or ships of the United Kingdom (or our West Indian Colonies if extended to them) favours identical with, or equivalent to, those which Spanish American or West Indian Colonial products might receive in treaties with the United States by reason of special reciprocity treatment."
  In my opinion the United States would
  1708
  be absolutely barred by the interpretation they thus themselves placed on the most favoured nation clause, and by arrangements made with other countries in accordance with that interpretation, from pleading the most favoured nation clause in bar of the operation of the Sugar Bounties Convention as against themselves. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have been ignorant of the correspondence which I have quoted, and which took place when be was himself Home Secretary. Perhaps he has forgotten it, as he must have forgotten, when he made his speech the other day that the Government of which he was a Member attempted by negotiation to abolish those very Sugar Bounties which he now declares to be beneficial to this country.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot now answer the rather irregular speech of the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject. I will take another opportunity of dealing with it. I am not aware that any Government ever proposed clauses of the character contained in the Sugar Bounties Convention. The late Government never proposed to limit themselves in that respect. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into that matter, but I will ask him this question, which is important as arising out of his answer, whether the Board of Trade have satisfied themselves that the Government of the United States acquiesce in the interpretation he has placed on the most favoured nation clause in respect of the Sugar Bounties Convention? I will further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has satisfied himself that the French Government, though not acting under treaty, but acting practically under the most favoured nation treatment, also acquiesce in the interpretation he has placed on the most favoured nation clause?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In answer to that question, I may say that the Representative of the United States, though not taking part in the Conference, was present at the deliberations, and the Government of the United States have in no way signified that they have changed the opinion which I. have already read to the House. The Representatives of France took part in the proceedings of the Convention, and themselves proposed the clause barring the operation of the most favoured

  1709
  nation clause with regard to the Sugar Bounties Convention.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he states upon his authority that the Government of the United States and the Government of France hold the most favoured nation clause as having no operation whatever against the stipulations of the Sugar Bounties Convention.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is impossible for me to add to the answer I have already given.

  WRONGFUL CONVICTION.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any compensation is to be given to the man Travis who was wrongly convicted of the murder of a woman.
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is no intention to grant this man any compensation. He has not received a free pardon, and it must not be assumed that he was wrongfully convicted. It appeared, on a careful review of all the circumstances, that there was sufficient doubt in the case to make it expedient that his term of imprisonment should be abridged.

  RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY ACT.
  MR. WALTER JAMESasked the Solicitor General to be so good as to explain by what words the Railway Passenger Duty Act, 5 and 6 Vic. c. 79, confines the charge to receipts for passengers on a railway which is the property of some company or person, and does not cover the case of a tramway laid down on land which is the property not of some company or person but of the public, as stated by the Secretary to the Treasury.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): The Statutes under which the Railway Passenger Duty is levied, and particularly 5 and 6 Vict., c. 79, apply only to railways. No other explanation can be given. Tramways do not fall within the provisions of the Railways Act.

  THE SWISS LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury if
  1710
  Her Majesty's Government has now finally determined to send representatives to the Swiss Labour Conference.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Communications are still passing on this question, and no final decision has yet been arrived at.

  IRELAND—CONDITION OF DONEGAL.
  MR. JOHN KELLY,asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there has lately been any real crime in that part of the county of Donegal in which Mr. Olphert's estate is situate, except such as has been the result of the adoption of the Plan of Campaign on that gentleman's estate? And whether any complaints have reached him that disturbances have been created at Falcarragh by Members of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force and soldiers of the Rifle Brigade rolling and rioting through through the streets there, or that the police there have been guilty of assaults upon women and children.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked whether the first paragraph was in order considering that it related to a mere matter of opinion and not of fact.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not observe that there is any irregularity in the question.
  MR. MADDEN: So far as I am aware, there has been no real crime in the district of the county Donegal in which Mr. Olphert's estate is situate except such as has been the result of the adoption of the Plan of Campaign. No complaints have reached the authorities of disturbances having been created by the constabulary or by the military, or of the police having assaulted women or children there; and I do not believe that there is any ground for such a suggestion.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked if it was not true that the riflemen had killed Sergeant Ducks.
  MR. MADDEN: I have no specific information on the point.

  ARMY (COURTS MARTIAL).
  Return ordered, —
  "For 1888 for each Regiment of Cavalry Battery of Artillery, Company of Engineers,

  1711
  and Battalion of Infantry, respectively, of the number and proportion to average strength of, first, General; second, District or Garrison and Regimental Courts Martial, distinguishing those in which the Offences are only in relation to Enlistment; third Minor Punishments; fourth, Desertions; and fifth, Stations (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 337, of Session 1888)."—Sir Frederick Fitz Wygram.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ADMISSION TO HOSPITALS).
  Address for,
  "Return showing (1) the Ratio of Admissions into Hospital, and of Constantly Sick in Hospital, per 1,000 of strength of Troops serving in the United Kingdom during the year 1888; and showing (2) the Ratios of Admissions into Hospital for Primary Venereal sores and Gonorrhœa per 1,000 of strength of the Troops at certain large Stations in the United Kingdom (formerly under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts) during the year 1888 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 245, of Session 1888).''—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

  MOTIONS.

    PUBLIC EXECUTIONER BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Edmund Lechmere, Bill to provide for the appointment of a Public Executioner, ordered to be brought in by Sir Edmund Lechmere, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Howard Vincent, and Mr. Paulton.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 216.]

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to amend the Public Libraries Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Sydney Brixton, Sir William Houldsworth, and Mr. Justin M'Carthy.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 217.]

    VOTERS' SUCCESSIVE OCCUPATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Causton, Bill to provide for the registration of Voters for successive occupation in London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Causton, Mr. Mark Beaufoy, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Howell, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Octavius V. Morgan, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. James Rowlands, and Mr. James Stuart.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 218.]

    NATIONAL DEBT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill to amend the Law relating to the National Debt, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith, and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 219.]

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CLASS II.
    (1.) £133,823, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
    *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to a question of considerable importance —namely, the frequent occurrence of blindness in this country among the children of the poor. At the time the last census was taken there were 22,833 blind persons in England and Wales, and I think something ought to be done to diminish, if possible, the misery which must result from this cause. It has been calculated by high authority that about 30 per cent of the cases of blindness occur from ophthalmia in newly born children, who are allowed to become blind through the negligence or ignorance of their parents. I think it is in the power of the Local Government Board to bring the gravity of what in the first instance may appear to be a comparatively slight ailment under the notice of parents. Some time since the President of the Local Government Board was approached by the late Sir Jacob Behrens, of Bradford, with a suggestion, that when the Registrar of a district gave to the parents of newly-born children the registration or vaccination notice, he should be allowed at the same time to distribute a card, such as was issued by the Eye Hospital at Bradford, calling the attention of the parents to the gravity of ophthalmia. It was believed, if this were done, that this ophthalmia would come in for timely treatment, and that the serious loss of sight of 7,000 persons would be prevented. It is a national loss because the persons so afflicted instead of being producers, become more or less burdens upon society. I want the President of the Local Government Board to undertake that the registrars shall be empowered to distribute at the same time as the notice of Registration or vaccination such a card as is issued with great benefit by the Bradford Eye Hospital. It contains the fol-

    1713
    lowing very simple instructions in reference to newly-born infants. "If the eyes become red and begin to run with matter, take the child at once to a doctor. The disease is very dangerous indeed if not seen to at once. It destroys the sight of both eyes" This is very well known to people who are educated, but the masses of the poor do not possess the same knowledge, and the consequence is that a large number of children are allowed to grow up deprived of sight from negligence and inattention when they are infants. It has been contended on the part of the Registrar General and the Local Government Board that, inasmuch as the parents do not get the notices of registration or of vaccination until some weeks after the birth of the child, the damage would be done in the meantime. I quite admit the validity of that argument as regards a great many cases, but if only one per cent of the children afflicted were saved, we should be doing a great benefit to them and, indirectly, to the general community; while at the same time there would be brought to bear an educational process of a most valuable character. It would probably be enough to have printed at the head of the vaccination notice in red letters some simple instructions, and in many cases we should be able to prevent the needless sacrifice of one of the most precious of the senses. I do not suppose that we should save all those who are annually afflicted; if we succeeded in saving one-seventh we should have conferred an incalculable benefit upon the community.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I entirely appreciate the object the hon. Gentleman has in bringing this matter under the attention of the Local Government Board, and I also value the suggestion he has made. I need hardly say that if the Local Government Board could do anything that would have the effect of diminishing the spread of ophthalmia, and the consequent danger to sight, which the hon. Member has described, we should be very glad to do so. I understand the proposal is that when the parent registers the birth of the child, it is to be the duty of the Registrar to give a formal notification of the danger of ophthal-
    1714
    mia with the vaccination notice. When the question was brought before the Board previously by Sir Jacob Behrens, it was referred to the Registrar General, who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board, and the objection which the Registrar General raised was that the duty suggested was something quite foreign to the duties the Registrars have undertaken to discharge. At that time it was proposed that a separate paper should be issued, but the suggestion now is that the intimation should be printed on the vaccination notices. As against that I would point out that the notification with respect to vaccination is a notification of an imperative duty, and it might, perhaps, lead to misunderstanding if along with and as part of the notice there appeared a recommendation which it was optional on the part of the parent to adopt. However, I admit that if we can do anything in the matter we ought to do it. I will, therefore, consider whether the objections which have been raised are really insurmountable, and I assure the hon. Member that I will further consider whether anything can be done in furtherance of of the object he has in view.
    *SIR WALTER FOSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to try the experiment in one town? I quite understand the objection he has raised in reference to the vaccination paper, but a notice printed in red ink would attract attention. When there exists such a serious amount of disease, and a disease attended by such grave consequences to the children who survive, if we can do anything to lessen the evil so far as future generations are concerned it is our bounden duty to do it. I will, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to try the the experiment in any one town he may select.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I must ask the hon. Member to remain content with the assurance I have given, all the more as I have not by any means exhausted the objections. There are many other diseases to which proper attention is not paid by parents at the right time, and if special measures are taken in respect of this particular disease, there will be many other demands in a like direction.
    *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need

    1715
    have the least fear that there will be any considerable demand for other medical notices, and that I take it, is one of the objections of the Registrar General. Unfortunately this is a disease, the gravity of which the people do not understand, and it is one which is attended with the most serious consequences. The right hon. Gentleman has approached me with a certain amount of fair-mindedness, and I hope that next year something will be done to prevent what I cannot help regarding as a national calamity.
    *MR. GRAY, complained that in some of the workhouse infirmaries imbeciles, whose habits were repulsive or disgusting, were placed in the same wards with the ordinary patients.
    *MR. CHANNING: I wish on this vote to draw attention to the question of the vaccination of children in workhouses within two or three days after birth. I regret that the President of the Local Government Board should decline to interfere with the system which has been adopted very largely in the Metropolis. That the Local Government Board are responsible for the system and could put an end to it is shown by the circular they addressed to Boards of Guardians in 1881, advising this early vaccination. I have received a letter from a former Vaccination Officer of one of the largest towns outside London, who stated that formerly—
    "The Public Vaccinator had the children brought to him from the workhouse from four to six days old. Afterwards a Resident Medical Officer was appointed who declined to vaccinate the workhouse children till three months old. I took the Registrar's returns for two periods—one month after vaccination—and found the deaths to be nearly 50 per cent in favour of the Resident Doctor's plan, clearly showing that many deaths must have occurred consequent upon too early vaccination."
    The other day I called attention by means of a question to the case of a child described as extremely feeble, which was vaccinated three days after birth, and died a month afterwards. The doctor who carried out the operation stated on oath at the inquest that the mother of the child consented, but the mother distinctly stated on oath that her consent was not obtained. In regard to this particular case to which I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentle-
    1716
    man the other day, the doctor of the St. Giles's Workhouse, in replying to a medical paper which somewhat sharply criticized his conduct, stated that—
    "The immediate cause of death was convulsions, probably brought on by intestinal irritation."
    But I would like to point out that Dr. Ballard, a very strong friend of vaccination, in an essay published in 1868, stated that a French authority, Bousquet, held—
    "That the cutaneous excitation [from vaccination] was apt to show itself in the form of erysipelas and roscola, and in infants very young indeed, the intestines sympathized, and enteritis or diarrhœa might result."
    The Hospital Gazette, commenting on this case, says:—
    "Whatever one's opinion may be as to the merits of vaccination, no one can say that the risks of an outbreak of smallpox in St. Giles's Workhouse were so urgent as to justify the doctor in vaccinating the child before it was a week old, and that, too, without the mother's consent. Such indiscretions as this are calculated to bring vaccination into unmerited contempt."
    Of course the justification of early vaccination is that possibly the small pox may get into a workhouse, where there are always many young children, and may produce a very serious epidemic. But there are other dangers. Dr. Crichton, in his article on this subject, draws attention to the fact that—
    "In Foundling Hospitals, notably at St. Petersburgh, the erysipelas of vaccination has been the starting-point of disastrous epidemics affecting the inmates generally."
    Erysipelas is far more likely to occur after vaccination than small-pox is likely to occur in a workhouse not specially liable to infection. We all know what great care is taken by our medical men in regard to the vaccination of our own children. They wait to see what the constitution of' the child is, and not till they are sure the constitution is strong enough do they vaccinate. There is a very strong opinion among the highest medical authorities that a child is best fit for vaccination at a period of about half way between the birth and the time of dentition. Most of the children born in workhouses are not legitimate. A poor woman goes into one of these places and gives birth to a child, and she is, a few hours after, utterly incapable of forming an opinion as to the period when vaccination should

    1717
    take place. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division, has just been dwelling on the notices carefully served on parents to vaccinate. But in such cases as this there is no notice whatever. To say that her consent is obtained is a mere farce, and it seems to me that very great hardship is caused both to the parent and the child. It is obvious that in many cases some serious malady may be breeding in the body of the child, and it is difficult to say whether any doctor on earth can discover it when the child is only two or three days old. Undue risk is inflicted on the child by such early vaccination, which really sets aside the principle of the Vaccination Act, fixing three months as the period after which the penalty for non-vaccination shall be enforced. I must, therefore, condemn the practice, and unless the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board indicates an intention of issuing some order discouraging it, I shall be compelled to move the reduction of the Vote and take the sense of the Committee upon the question.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I do not think the Local Government Board has any power to issue such an order as that. The matter is in the discretion of the Guardians, on whom lie the responsibility of carrying out the law, and the Local Government Board has no power of interference. The hon. Gentleman says it is owing somewhat to the advice of the Local Government Board that this practice has been adopted. Certainly the Local Government Board has never given any advice which would justify the Guardians in doing either of the things of which the hon. Gentleman complains. He says that young children are frequently vaccinated without the consent of the mother. That, I distinctly assert, ought not to be done, and certainly it is not done under the advice of the Local Government Board. In my opinion, no child ought to be vaccinated within the period of three months allowed by law without the consent of the parents. At the same time, I think it extremely desirable that the child should be vaccinated at such a period as will enable the sore caused by vaccination to be healed before the child leaves the 'workhouse. In a large number of cases
    1718
    the children born in workhouses are illegitimate, and when the mother goes out it is extremely doubtful whether any trace can be found to enable the authorities to see that the law is complied with. We have frequently had investigations by Inspectors of the Local Government Board which show that the ill-health, and sometimes the death of the child is caused by the neglect on the part of the parents to see that the arm is properly looked after. A certain percentage of children do, no doubt, suffer from erysipelas after vaccination, but in nine cases out of ten that is owing to the child's being brought into an erysipelatic atmosphere. Vaccination ought not to be performed at such an early period without the consent of the parent, and in no ease where there is danger to the child. The doctor ought to satisfy himself that the child is in a condition of bodily health which renders it perfectly safe to perform the operation. In the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, the Board was informed that the consent of the mother had been obtained before the vaccination of the child, and the statement that there was any unfortunate result from the vaccination has not been substantiated. There is no power vested in the Local Government Board to issue instructions to the Guardians, though we have given advice that the children should be vaccinated before they leave the workhouse. With respect to the case referred to by my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Gray), I sent down an Inspector, who reported that there were five imbeciles in the infirmary, but that there was no pregnant woman with the imbeciles. I quite agree that the association of women in that condition with imbeciles is most undesirable, and I will take steps to put a stop to such a state of things if it be brought to my notice. The Inspector reported that the imbeciles were of an unobjectionable character, and the other inmates of the infirmary said they had no objection to make. It should not be forgotten that the Lunacy Commissioners have jurisdiction over such imbeciles as well as the Local Government Board, and it would be the duty of the Lunacy Commissioners, if they found any abuse of the kind existing, to at once order the removal of the patients from the workhouse infirmary. It would be the duty of the Local Government Board

    1719
    Inspector to draw the attention of the Lunacy Commissioners to any such abuses as the hon. Member has referred to.
    *MR. C. W. GRAY: I have had a long-standing experience of the very ward to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and I know that many of the imbeciles bad the most objectionable habits. However, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I trust Guardians will be more careful in the future.
    MR. PICTON: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, whilst showing the most kindly feeling and the best intentions, has not, I think, sufficiently answered the case as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. The right hon. Gentleman said the Local Government Board had no power. But, Sir, the Board exercises power continually, or exercises a description of pressure which amounts to very much the same thing. I hold in my hand a printed copy of a letter signed by the Secretary and dated front the Local Government Board, Whitehall, January 7th, 1881, and sent apparently to the clerks of all Guardians throughout the country. In this letter the greatest pressure appears to be brought to bear upon the Guardians to see that newly-born children are vaccinated before they leave the workhouse at the end of the fortnight. The letter states that some Boards of Guardians had passed a resolution requiring the Medical Officer, subject to the exercise of his judgment, and making exceptions in particular cases, to secure the vaccination of all children born in the workhouse, as soon as practicable after birth, and further that it had been found practicable as a rule to vaccinate the children when six days old. I hold, therefore, that the Local Government Board is responsible for the initiation and continuation of this practice. Oftentimes, as we all know, the most unexpected changes take place in the health of young children, and some who are apparently strong to begin with are taken with some serious illness. Nothing is more uncertain than the health of a young baby, especially when born in the circumstances which have been referred to.
    1720
    In more than one case in my own experience, the vaccination has been put off for a year or more after birth. Our own children are dealt with in a very different way from those of poor parents, and I maintain that a very great hardship is inflicted on the poor parents. The right hon. Gentleman says that in all cases the consent of the mother must be obtained. But in this instance evidence was given at the Coroner's inquest, by the mother herself, that she did not know her child was to be vaccinated. It is, of course, open to the Medical Officer to interpret the silence of the mother in such circumstances as giving consent, but it seems to me to be a very illegitimate mode of interpreting such silence. It has often been said that the proper way of enforcing vaccination is to take the child out of the recalcitrant mother's arms and put it into the arms of the doctor. The reply made is, that public opinion in this country will not stand that—that public opinion will stand the infliction of fines again and again, but will not stand recourse to such violent measures as that. I maintain, however, that incidents like that which has been referred to are simply the thin end of the wedge. You begin with violently taking away the child from the mother in the workhouse, and if that is not protested against perhaps some plan will be proposed of taking away the children of other mothers in the same way. I therefore think it is only the right thing to protest earnestly against what took place in this case, and as I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has sufficiently indicated appreciation of the gravity of the position, I am rather disappointed that my hon. Friend has not moved the reduction of the Vote. I desire to protest against what I call the cruel and unconstitutional arbitrariness of taking away a delicate child from the mother in order that it may undergo an operation of this kind which has the effect of causing its death.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I wish to protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), that the death of the child referred to was due to vaccination; because that is not the fact.
    *MR. CHANNING: At any rate it was an improper thing to vaccinate a

    1721
    child in the state of health in which it then was.
    *MR. S. SMITH: I desire for a few moments to call attention to the question of the emigration of pauper children, and I have to complain that the intentions of Parliament and the Local Government Board in regard to the emigration of pauper children are continually being frustrated. For years past there has been a general opinion in this country that there is no better way of dealing with that portion of the population than by emigration, and yet year after year next to nothing is being done in that direction. I am informed that last year out of a total of 60,000 pauper children only 600 were emigrated, or at the rate of 1 per cent. I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman opposite sympathises with my view that the best way of dealing with those pauper children who are left as orphans is to send them out to places where they may find comfortable homes, and I wish to ask why it is that the intentions of Parliament and the Local Government Board in this matter are so constantly frustrated? Compare the children who are sent out with those who are kept at home. Pauper children are kept in this country at an average cost to the ratepayers of £20 a year, whereas they might be sent out to the Colonies and placed with farmers to their own very great advantage and also to the benefit of the community at an average cost of from £10 to £15 per head all told. Why should the ratepayers be put to the additional expense involved in keeping the children in this country? Our Colonies are calling out for this class of emigrants. A society with which I am connected sends out poor children to Canada, where they are placed under all kinds of guarantees for their proper care and future welfare, and the system works most satisfactorily. But in this country we have still those 60,000 children brought up in pauper schools, whence they are sent out into our large cities, where they are exposed to great temptation and where their future chances of earning an honest livelihood are not to be compared with the prospects they would have in the Colonies. I therefore hope that the President of the Local Government Board will bring more pressure to bear upon Boards of Guardians in order to induce them to use
    1722
    that safety-valve of emigration which they now so much neglect.
    MR. LONG: There has been a steady increase in the number of pauper children sent out to the Colonies, and I can assure the hon. Member for Flintshire that the Local Government Board not only throws no obstacle in the way of such emigration, but encourages it by Poor Law Guardians as far as they can, subject to the regulations. I can endorse every word that has fallen from the hon. Member as to the advantages which awaits the children when they get out to Canada. A vast number of residents in the Dominion of Canada are only too glad to receive children who are reasonably prepared to work in either in-door or out-door occupations. It would be unfair to compare the methods of private associations in promoting such emigration with those of the Central Board in London, which could not adopt similar methods. But the Department offers every facility in its power for the emigration of those children in such a way as will secure their being properly placed when they arrive on the other side of the water. The Local Government Board are as anxious as the hon. Member himself to promote that object; but when the hon. Member asks us to go still further and put pressure on Boards of Guardians for that purpose, he asks us to do that which it is impossible for us to accomplish.
    MR. MUNDELLA: It is only on such occasions as the present that we have the opportunity of calling the attention of hon. Members and of the President of the Local Government Board to cases such as that to which I referred a week ago in regard to the condition of the blind in this country. I allude to the prevalence of a disease known as granular ophthalmia, as to which there is an abundance of evidence showing that that disease is largely existent in our workhouse schools. A few days ago I brought before my right hon. Friend opposite a case which it could hardly have been supposed would have occurred in this country, so bad is it in point of neglect and so scandalous to the Local Authorities concerned. What are the circumstances of that case? It is one which is under the immediate control of the Guardians of the richest union of the richest city in the world—the City

    1723
    of London. The school is situated at Hanwell, and there are 1,100 children there at St. Saviour's School. In that school ophthalmia has been chronic for over 20 years; and in the course of the ten years, from 1875 to 1886, no fewer than 2,420 children have suffered from ophthalmic disease. There is another school at Anerley where there was a similar outbreak three years ago. They called in an eminent oculist, and he advised them as to the course they ought to take to stamp out the disease, and I am told that in that school there has only been one case of ophthalmia. In the Hanwell school at the present time there are quite as many children suffering from ophthalmia as there were ten years ago. They called in the same eminent man, who gave them the same advice, supported by the Inspector of the Local Government Board, but in spite of this pressure the Guardians, by a small majority, refused to make the necessary outlay to stamp out the disease. I do not complain of the action of the Local Government Board, but I hope the time has come when some additional pressure may be exerted, having regard to the fact that this disease is one of the most fruitful sources of blindness, and of misery and pauperism in later life.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I am not at all sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this matter, and I hope that what he has said will have an effect upon the managers of the schools in inducing them to carry out the works which are in the opinion of the Local Government Board absolutely necessary for stamping out the disease. It is only fair to say, however, that the managers of the schools have taken some steps, with the result that, while the re still exists a regrettable number of cases of ophthalmia, the prevalence of the disease is enormously lessened, and the cases are not so severe. But the managers are incurring a grave responsibility in not carrying out still further the suggestions of the Local Government Board. A new infant school is absolutely necessary. The Local Government Board have strenuously advocated this course, but its powers are limited to remonstrance and the exertion of pressure. I cannot, however, believe that the managers will continue to resist the pressure which has been, and which will continue to be,
    1724
    put upon them, and the effect of which will be considerably enhanced by the expression of opinion which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the member for Sheffield.
    MR. RATHBONE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible that in cases where the Guardians do not do their duty, the Local Government Board should supersede the Guardians, as has been done in Ireland? At any rate, could not the Local Government Board give the names of the people who so discredited themselves?
    *MR. RITCHIE: Whatever the powers of the Local Government Board may be, the circumstances would have to be extremely grave to justify them in taking such serious action as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot contemplate that, after what has been said in the House, and done by the Local Government Board, the managers will fail to do what is necessary.
    *SIR TINDAL ROBERTSON: I desire to endorse the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield. If two things are clearly demonstrated by the inquiries of the Royal Commission on the Blind, they are that ophthalmia is one of the most contagious diseases, and that, if properly treated, it can be stamped out. Under these circumstances it is most criminal on the part of Guardians not to take steps immediately. I believe that the forthcoming Report of the Commission, on which I have lately served, will strongly recommend that the President of the Local Government Board should have further powers. If these powers are not enough, I hope that the pressure of public opinion will be brought to bear on the managers, and that there will be no longer a possibility of a large number of poor children being afflicted with such a terrible disease.
    MR. J. NOLAN: I may be allowed to say that I have had opportunities of watching the inception and growth of this disease, and I am sure that there is scarcely a reformatory, industrial, or workhouse school in the country where it is not known in some degree. With regard to the emigration of pauper children, I think that the Government ought to act with very great caution. I have had reports from Canada

    1725
    with reference to these children which cause me to doubt whether they do benefit in all cases by exportation, and I will ask the Government, before consenting to bring pressure upon Poor Law Guardians to send children out to Canada in large numbers, to take time for reflection and allow the scheme, which has been at work for some time under the auspices of the hon. Member for Flintshire to show its fruits in an unmistakable way, so that there shall be no doubt as to the real tendencies of the plan. For my own part I hold that the rescue of children from lives of shame, and suffering, and sorrow is well worth the ambition of any man, whomsoever he may be, but from what I have seen and heard I know that it is possible for people with the best intentions in the world to make very grave mistakes indeed in dealing with this delicate subject.
    MR. W. H. LONG: I only want to say in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member who last spoke, that the Government recognize the importance of very carefully safeguarding the interests of the children when they are sent out, but I can assure the hon. Member that we receive reports which are the results, not of flying visits, but of annual inspections made by competent and painstaking officers of the Government of the Dominion of Canada on the subject. We find from these reports that the children like their places, and would, on no account, return home. The experience gathered from these reports coincides with the experience on the subject which I gained when I interviewed some of the inspectors, and also witnessed the arrival of a number of these poor children and their conveyance to their respective homes.
    MR. J. NOLAN: I have seen some of the children, who, under great disadvantage and after great trouble, have made their way back to this country.
    MR. LONG: Yes, Sir. Of course there are a few cases where the good intentions of the promoters fail, but surely the whole system of emigration is not consequently to be condemned. It is manifest, looking at the material with which we have to deal, there will be some cases of failure, but nobody who has seen the homes provided for the children, and who knows the excellent future which is before the majority of them, can deny that it is completely to
    1726
    their advantage that they should be emigrated, provided that the Local Government Board exercises proper control as to the destination to which they are sent. It is impossible to expect that there will be success in every case, but in the vast majority of cases, complete success has so far attended the emigration.
    *MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I merely want, in reply to the hon. Member, to explain that our scheme of emigration has now been carried on for nearly twenty years, and that after the most thorough and searching examinations of the results we have found that 95 per cent of the children we have sent out have gone on happily and well, and will grow up, or have grown up, good, prosperous citizens of Canada. I must say that the result is one which no system of workhouse management could possibly produce. I do not blame the managers of workhouses for that at all; but when you get hundreds, or even thousands, of children herded together in pauper schools, you find from experience that the result in after life is very disappointing. In these workhouse schools it is hardly possible to touch the hearts of these children; and, after all, it is through the heart that you can best train a child. Now, with regard to the precautions which are taken to secure that the children in Canada are well treated, I may say that if any child makes a complaint we immediately send an Inspector to inquire, and should there prove to be a good foundation for the complaint, the child is removed. My hon. Friend has suggested that we are sending these children into the backwoods of Canada. Sir, that is not so. We send them to the settled parts of Canada, where the land is in a fair state of cultivation and covered with homesteads, and the children are planted out in the most comfortable farms. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will see that what we do is for the real good of the children. It is a purely benevolent enterprise to save the children from the misery of the streets of Liverpool, and I hope he will admit that our work has not altogether failed.
    MR. J. NOLAN: I only wish to add, in reply to the hon. Member for Flint-shire, that I never thought for one moment to doubt his intentions. I have been for a long time familiar with the

    1727
    character of the hon. Gentleman, who has devoted a considerable portion of his time and means to helping on the most unfortunate of his fellow creatures, both grown up and children. What I wished to do was to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that human nature is the same pretty well all the world over; and if we in England cannot find homes here for our poor children, it is hard to expect that Canada shall be willing to find satisfactory homes for them.
    *MR. BRYCE: I have risen only for the sake of making one remark in confirmation of what has just been said by the Secretary to the Local Government Board and the hon. Member for Flintshire. There is in New York a society for exactly the same purpose as that which they have been referring to. It is called the Children's Aid Society, and has been in existence for thirty-five years. This society gets hold of the poor children from reformatories and sends them out West, finding homes for them amongst farmers, and I believe the same testimony which the Secretary to the Local Government Board and the hon. Member for Flint-shire have given with regard to Canada might with equal truth be given as to the result of the operations of this society. Since 1853 it has sent out 80,000 persons, nearly all children, and in 1885 it sent out about 2,600 children. I believe an equal percentage of the children turn out well—it is stated at over 93 per cent for children under 14 years of age. I have gone into the question in America, and I found but one testimony, to the effect that this society has produced the greatest possible benefit, and that nothing can be imagined which is more likely to relieve the pressure of the population of large cities, and to meet the great difficulty which such cities experience in dealing with juvenile vagrancy and crime, than this plan of getting children of this class and sending them out to new homes. The decrease of crime, and especially of juvenile crime, in proportion to the population which has lately been observed in New York is attributed largely to its efforts.
    *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I desire to raise the question of compulsory contributions to the maintenance of pauper relatives. I have in my hand a letter
    1728
    just received which gives an instance illustrative of what occurs in some of these cases. A Staffordshire man has been earning when in full work 2s. 4d. a day. His father was injured some years ago in a colliery, and his earning power was lessened, and the parish has forced the son to pay one shilling a week as a contribution towards his father's outdoor relief. That one shilling a week was paid by this man for some time, but lately he has fallen ill and been confined to his bed and attended by a medical man. While ill in bed he failed to appear on a summons, and when he did appear he was condemned to one month's imprisonment for not contributing a shilling a week to his father's maintenance. The actual rate of wages he received for April came to nine shillings and a halfpenny per week, and yet he was absolutely condemned at the instigation of the Board of Guardians to go to prison for one month for not supporting his father. I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board might well exercise a certain amount of pressure upon Boards of Guardians in different parts of the country, so that these cases of cruelty and hardship may not be so frequent. There is in all the Poor Law districts a large amount of work done by Poor Law Guardians with humanity and kindness, but there are, on the other hand, from time to time, instances of hardship and almost cruelty itself, and if the right hon. Gentleman can, during his tenure of office, introduce more of that tenderness and kindliness to poor people which should prevail, in the treatment of the poor, he will have done great service. There are, I know, gross abuses, in which people able to contribute to their poor relations are unwilling to do so.
    *MR. RITCHIE: Hear, hear.
    *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I do not plead for any mitigation of the punishment in such cases, but where a man has to support his wife on 9s. 0½d. a week it is a disgrace to our humanity that he should be sent to prison for a month for failing to contribute one shilling out of the nine towards the support of a man nearly as well able to earn his living as he is himself.
    *MR. A. B. WINTERBOTHAM: Probably the reply of the President of the Local Govern-

    1729
    ment Board will be that there is an appeal to Petty Sessions against orders to contribute made by Guardians. But there are many poor people who do not know of this, and who, if they do, do not care to go before a Bench of Magistrates, prefer to go on paying. It may be in the recollection of hon. Members that some two years ago I brought forward a case which the Secretary for War at first hardly believed, but which on inquiry he found to be as I had described. It was the case of a poor man earning only 12s. a week, who for years had been called upon to contribute 1s. 6d. a week to the support of his son, who was in the Guards, and was wounded at Aldershot during some manœuvres. As a result of the inquiries then made, the Government granted an allowance for two years, but the grant has ceased, and his father has again been ordered by the magistrates out of his scanty earnings to pay this 1s. 6d. a week. The reply will probably be that the magistrates can exercise their discretion. but as a fact I know that some Benches do make these orders on working men who earn only 12s. a week, and who have a wife and a family to maintain. I would suggest that a Circular should be drawn up by the Local Government Board to the Boards of Guardians, so that there may be some uniformity with regard to the exaction of contributions for pauper relatives, and that poor people, with a wife and family and scanty earnings, shall not be called upon to make payments which are very heavy for them.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I do not at all complain of the manner in which hon. Members have brought this matter forward. I think we are all agreed on the general principle that persons able to pay should contribute to the support of relatives who are under the Poor Law. Any other principle I think would lead to great abuses. The case cited by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston appears on the face of it to be one of hardship. If the Local Government Board had any power, by remonstrance or otherwise, to induce those who are responsible to deal with cases of this kind in a more kindly and humane spirit, we should not hesitate to do so, and I hope and trust that those who have to administer the law will, while seeing that the law is observed, be extremely careful that is not unduly
    1730
    strained. It would be most inexpedient, however, to lay down any hard and fast line, which would only lead probably to more difficulties than would be got rid of.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I desire before the Vote is passed to draw attention to its exceedingly inflated character. We have been assured that during last year there has been the most stringent investigation of every detail of the estimates by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I assume that the President of the Local Government Board has himself overhauled his own estimate with a view to seeing if some economy might not be affected. Now, Sir, this Vote affords an illustration of the character of the detailed investigation which has been carried out. There is, for example, a Chief Inspector and Assistant-Secretary with a salary rising from £900 to £1,000, by a triennial increment of £50. The Chief' Inspector has a maximum salary of £1,000, but no less than £4,100 is put down for this single officer. Anyone might suppose that that is a clerical error, but I have taken the trouble to cast up the figures and I find the total is correct. Now, Sir, with regard to the general character of the Vote. It seems to me that it is clearly inflated. I do not see why services rendered to this country should be more highly paid for in England than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not refer to Ireland, because we have long ago given up the attempt to get justice for her in that respect. I will compare it with Scotland, and I will ask why Scotch officials should have 30 per cent less than English officers, although they perform similar functions? The Local Government Board appears to cost £450,000, or at the rate of £17,300 per million, or about 44d. per head. The Board of Supervision in Scotland, on the other hand, is allowed £29,000, or £7,330 per million, or 13/4d. per head. Again, in the vote for salaries and wages of Local Government Officials England receives £72,843, and Scotland £7,300, or less than one-tenth. Now, I pass to the Engineering Department of the Board of Trade. It costs £8,000 of which £6,300 is for salaries. Why does Scotland get the generous sum of 1280? And so it is throughout the whole public service; the Scotch are

    1731
    underpaid and the English exceedingly overpaid. While in England you have four Inspectors with a salary of £1,000, 13 others with salaries ranging from £600 to £900, and four Assistants at £500 a year, you have only, in Scotland, two with a maximum salary of £500, beginning with a minimum of £300. And in the case of the clerical staff, you find precisely the same thing. In England there are 12 first class clerks receiving from £400 to £600 a year each, and 32 second class clerks receiving from £200 to £350 a year each. In Scotland there are three first class clerks who receive from £250 to £400 a year each. The same thing occurs in the case of the employés of the lower grades. The English messengers get salaries ranging from £70 to £100 a year, while the Scotch messenger has to be satisfied with something between £50 and £60, and we find that the English charwoman receives £36 a year, while the Scotch charwoman is only paid £16. For the Medical Department in England £15, 000 is asked in these Estimates. What does Scotland get? One-thirtieth part, or £500. The salaries in this Department range from £500 to £1,200 in England, the total salaries paid amounting to £9,080. Scotland, however, only gets £300 in salaries. Again, under the Alkaline Acts £4,600 is spent in salaries in England; but Scotland does not get a penny. Who is to blame for the inflated state of the English Estimates as compared with the starved condition of the Scotch Estimates? I cannot find it in my heart or conscience to blame the Government. They are providing for their own people. But I do think that the blame rests upon the Scotch Members who, year after year, have had all these figures before them. In duty to their constituents they ought to have investigated these things. It seems rather an odd thing that it should be left to Irish Members to point out to Scotchmen the way in which Scotland is treated. Having said this. I feel that perhaps I had better leave it to some Scotch Member to move whatever reduction is necessary. I have only risen for the purpose of illustrating what inequalities are found in the Estimates by anyone who takes the trouble to examine the figures.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I think it may appear strange to the Committee that
    1732
    when the hon. Gentleman desires to institute a comparison of the expenditure of certain public offices he should not have done so as between England and Ireland. The hon. Gentleman. exercised a wise discretion in comparing England and Scotland; had he taken the course which might seem a natural one for him, and drawn a comparison between England and Ireland, the deduction to be derived might not have been quite in the direction he desired it. Now it is perfectly impossible for the Committee to arrive at any correct conclusion on the matter without knowing the whole of the duties devolving upon one Board and another. The hon. Member has not given any such information, and therefore he omitted to furnish the necessary guidance. The hon. Gentleman started by saying that one Chief Inspector and Assistant Secretary receives a salary of £4,100 a year. Anybody who looks at page 138 will see that that is the amount for three Assistant Secretaries and one Chief General. Inspector.
    Mr. A. O'CONNOR: Yes; I am wrong. I give in.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I am not at all sorry the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the Committee to this Vote, because he has afforded me an opportunity of saying—and I must know more about the work of the particular gentlemen referred to than any Member of the Committee can possibly know—that not only do these gentlemen do, most valuable and efficient work, but that there are no public servants who work longer hours or more continuously. There is hardly a day on which the Secretary of the Local Government Board and his assistants do not work for 10 and sometimes 11 hours and more. The pressure brought to bear on the Local Government Board in consequence of the alterations connected with the Local Government Act have been of a very great and onerous character, and the country owes these gentlemen a debt of gratitude for the most valuable and efficient services which they have rendered in the matter. I am glad the, hon. Member has given me an opportunity of saying how much I am personally sensible of the value of the I services rendered to the country, the Department, and myself by the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member has

    1733
    referred. Now it is impossible for me to enter into a comparison of English and Scottish expenditure. But if the expenditure of the Local Government Board now is to be compared with the expenditure of previous years, it will be found in the highest degree satisfactory and economical. Year by year additional responsibilities are constantly being placed on the Local Government Board. Nevertheless, the expenditure upon salaries has certainly not increased in proportion. Indeed, it has positively decreased as compared with many previous years. In 1879–80, putting aside grants in aid, the expenditure was £127,904; in 1884–85 it was £126,196; and in the present year it is £126,317. I am sure the Committee, looking to the immense increase of work thrown on the Local Government Board, will regard that as extremely satisfactory.
    DR. CAMERON (Glasgow College Division): I should not have intervened in this discussion but for the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor). The hon. Gentleman thought it very wonderful that he had discovered a mare's nest that no Scotch Member had been able to find. He discovered one mare's nest which has been pointed out by the President of the Local Government Board, and I think he discovered another mare's nest when he instituted a comparison between the expenditure of the Local Government Board in England and the Board of Supervision in Scotland. We have repeatedly called attention to some of the inequalities, but those inequalities were in the form of grants in aid. There is no use in talking of them now, because national grants in aid are to be given to the different countries and are to be distributed by them. We have had the worst of it in many cases. In respect to vaccination the English got excessive grants in aid. This was also so in the case of grants in aid of the sick poor, but in the matter of grants in aid in respect to lunatics Scotland had the best of it. So far as the Board of Supervision is concerned we do not want to increase the emoluments, but want to sweep it off the face of the earth. The Local Government Board has in it the germs of the most important Ministry that can possibly be represented on those Benches—the Ministry of Health. The Board of Supervision is
    1734
    a non-representative body, altogether out of accord with the spirit of the age. It is composed of a paid secretary, sundry Sheriffs, and a couple of Law Provosts who have no official acquaintance with Poor Law administration. We think that the duties of the Board might be better performed by an Inspector elected to the Scotch office. I know there are some who think that the Local Government Board itself might be dispensed with. Sir Charles Dilke thought so. But I am of opinion that the Ministry of Health is as important as a Ministry of Agriculture, and I should be very sorry to cripple it in any way. Of course I do not mean to say that the Department is administered with a single eye to economy, but I am not aware that there is any gross or extraordinary extravagance in its administration as compared with that of other Departments. I am inclined to think there is less, and what inequality we have had to complain of in the treatment of Scotland, as compared with England, has been in respect of grants in aid. Those inequalities will by the new arrangements be entirely redressed.
    *SIR H. ROSCOE: I wish to call attention to a matter of some consequence as affecting the health of the people, viz., the working of the Alkali Acts, which however in my opinion ought to be called the Noxious Vapours Acts. We all know how important is the question of air pollution, and these Acts have in this respect been of the greatest value in the manufacturing districts both to the manufacturer and to the public. Whilst, however, I say this, and will bear testimony to the knowledge and ability of the Inspectors who carry out the Acts, I think that much still remains to be done. The subject is a somewhat complex one, but I may explain that the Acts apply to certain manufactures in which. noxious gases are evolved, but they apply to manufactories alone and not to any other place in which such noxious gases are evolved by the use of the products made in those manufactories. I desire, therefore, to suggest that the President of the Local Government Board should consider whether the provisions of the Acts may not be extended so as to include places where chemical substances are employed which, during that employment, give off

    1735
    noxious vapours. For example, many refineries of gold and silver, where nitric acid is used, do not come under the supervision of the Inspectors. This, as I have said, is a matter of the greatest consequence to the health of the people. It is impossible to get rid of the fogs of London under any Act of Parliament, but a great deal may be done to purify the atmosphere, especially of our manufacturing towns, much has been done under the Acts by the application of the best practicable means clause, but much still remains to be done, and I therefore desired to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the suggestion I have made.
    *MR RITCHIE: I will confer with the hon. Gentleman on the subject.
    *DR. FARQUHARSON: This Vote may be inflated, but if there is any increase it is certainly not due to any excessive emoluments paid to the Medical Department of the Local Government Board. The Chief of the Department only receives £1,100 a year, and the juniors £800 and £900. I should be glad to know whether steps cannot be taken for the circulation among medical officers of health of the admirable report of Dr. Barry on the Sheffield smallpox epidemic. I understand that the price of the volume has been reduced from 24s. to 10s. or 12s. But I do not see why a cheap edition should not be published and sent out to to the Inspectors of the different districts. May I suggest that Members of the House who are supplied with copies should, if they do not want them, give them to their local Officers of Health.
    *MR. RITCHIE: The price of the volume has been reduced from 24s. to 10s., and that I hope will cause the Report, of which I cannot speak too highly, to get into the hands of many people who would not otherwise see it. We are now in communication with the Treasury concerning the supply of a certain number of copies for distribution amongst medical officers.
    MR. PICTON: I have been informed by friends who endeavoured to buy the Report, that it has been withdrawn from circulation, for the purpose of being corrected. I should like to know what truth there is in my information. There is another matter I wish to raise. The terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the opera-
    1736
    tion of the Vaccination Act leave it a little uncertain whether the question which I raised on Tuesday will come before the Commission. In 1887 a disease broke out amongst a certain herd of cows in Wiltshire. There were various speculations as to the nature of the disease, but Professor Crookshank, who is a very eminent authority upon such questions, having closely examined the cows and compared the disease with what he had seen elsewhere—on the Continent and in thiscountry—came most decidedly to the conclusion that it was a clear case of cowpox. He read a paper on the subject before the Pathological Society in December, 1887. A report of the meeting was published in The Medical Journal, and in the course of the discussion, it was stated that the medical officer of the Local Government Board expressed his satisfaction that the outbreak of cowpox in Wiltshire would afford an opportunity of testing the effect of vaccine from that source on human beings as had long been desired. The right hon. Gentleman stated on Tuesday that the report was incorrect, perhaps he would now say in what particulars it was wrong.
    *MR. RITCHIE: What I meant to imply on Tuesday, was that the report was substantially incorrect; that Dr. Buchanan had not expressed the views attributed to him.But I am not at all sure that the language in The Medical Journal was wrong. I think it was capable of another interpretation. That is how it was put to me. The question the hon. Gentleman asked as to the Sheffield Report surprises me. I have never heard of the withdrawal of the Report, neither have I heard any suggestion that it required correction.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Economies have been effected in this Vote notwithstanding Ministerial assurances of their impossibility. That only shows how necessary it is to scrutinize these Votes most carefully. A certain number of the Inspectors travel, and in addition to the large salaries paid to them it seems to me excessive to give them a guinea per night for expenses. In the case of four of the Inspectors of Workhouse Schools the travelling expenses appear to have been commuted for a sum of £250 a year, which is, I think, an exceedingly good commutation for them. At a guinea per

    1737
    night I think the amount would be much less. The same system runs through the whole of the Vote, and brings the total up to a very large sum per annum.
    *MR. RITCHIE: So far as the ordinary expenses are concerned, the hon. Gentleman should remember that most of these gentlemen have large districts to superintend, and they must of necessity, in order to discharge their duty, be a great many nights away from home, and be compelled to obtain accommodation at hotels. The Inspectors do not receive more than a guinea a night for personal expenses when they are on duty away from home — an allowance only equal, I understand, to that paid to commercial travellers; and considering their position, and the work they do, I do not think that amount is excessive. For years past the Inspectors have been required to reside in their districts, so that travelling expenses may not be incurred unnecessarily. I do not think that we can do more in the matter. These accounts are gone through with the utmost care by the Department.
    MR. J. NOLAN: I do not intend to criticize the Vote, but I wish to say that in my opinion the Canal Boats Act has conferred an immense benefit on the canal boat population, both physically and morally. I believe that the population living in these canal boats have been much benefitted by the system of inspection, but I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there are other wanderers in the country besides those who live in canal boats.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The canal boat inspection comes under item B., and that has already been passed.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £13,215 to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
    *DR. FARQUHARSON: I had hoped that the Lunacy Act Amendment Bill would have been introduced this Session, and if that had been the case I should not trouble the Committee with any remarks on the present occasion; but as our hopes in that respect have been so often before disappointed, I will offer a few observations on the general system of
    1738
    inspection. I wish to obtain a little information from the representives of the Home Office. I am not one of those who look upon our lunacy inspection generally as being well carried out. I consider that the number of Inspectors is too few to render the inspection of that thorough-going character which we all desire. Three medical men and three lawyers, who go about together, have to inspect 100 asylums containing 82,600 lunatics. One question I want to ask is, why lawyers should be employed for that duty at all? I presume that the object of the inspection is to find out whether persons are mad or improperly shut up, and that the asylums are maintained in a proper condition. A man who has not been properly trained to the technical and difficult study of insanity cannot give a competent opinion as to whether persons who are shut up in these asylums are mad or not; and if they have only to see that the asylums are properly furnished and the like, the salary, which is £1,500 per year, is too high for the performance of such a duty. I want to know what is the actual function which the lawyers discharge in these cases. In Scotland, where the lunacy arrangements are nearly perfect, this system of inspection by lawyers and doctors does not exist; the doctor goes round by himself, and the system of inspection there carried out is one of a more searching and complete character than that adopted in England. If any legal question arises, of course a lawyer is called in. In Scotland the inspection is done from patriotic motives; the gentlemen by whom it is done get no salary, whereas in England they receive the large salary of £1,500 a year. If inspection is necessary it ought to be thorough, and the doctor ought to see the patients at least once a year. In Scotland we have an excellent arrangement of lunacy districts. A doctor is appointed to each district, and by going round regularly he gets to know the patients. There is nothing of that kind here. The remedy which I propose is to abolish the legal Commissioners, and to appoint in their place three more doctors, thus insuring an inspection which would give confidence to the public. I should like to know what the functions of the legal Commissioners are, and how they have ever been of

    1739
    practical use in detecting persons improperly confined in asylums.
    *MR. H. H. FOWLER: My hon. Friend behind me has assumed that the Government have no real intention of proceeding with the Lunacy Amendment Act this session. If I thought so, I should regret that decision very greatly. The Bill has been introduced by successive Governments year after year, and I understand that having been passed through the House of Lords, it is now awaiting a Second Reading in this House. I would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to say whether arrangements can not be made for reading the Bill a second time in the House of Commons and sending it up to the Grand Committee on Law, which has at present nothing before it. The country is anxious for legislation, and the Bill will arouse no Party feeling whatever. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to give it all the support in my power.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think I had better reply at once to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have every hope of being able to pass the Bill in the course of the present Session. With such a Bill, touching a great many interests and prejudices, it is desirable before reading it that communications should pass between those who have fair reason to object to any of the provisions in order to smooth down any opposition. Those communications are passing; and I trust that the Second Reading will not occasion any debate in the House, because the Bill is very generally approved and it is most desirable that it should be carefully considered in Committee upstairs, and after issuing from the Committee, by the House, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will pass the Bill unless they meet with uncompromising opposition.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sure that the Committee have heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction and relief. I do not see how he can expect anything like factious opposition to the Bill which he proposes to bring in. I presume that all the details will be settled by the Committee upstairs. I wish now to join the hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate in urging he Home Secretary to substitute medical for legal Lunacy Commissioners,
    1740
    as lunacy is pre-eminently a subject for doctors. The legal man knows nothing of lunacy, which is a physical and not a legal question, and consequently under the present arrangements two men are employed to do the work of one. There are few subjects on which the public mind has been so disturbed, and several recent cases have served to increase the anxiety. The other day the relatives of a man who had been missing for years applied for permission to administer his estate, when the man was suddenly discovered in a lunatic asylum. There must be something wrong in a system which could permit this. I think there are many persons within the walls of a lunatic asylum who ought not to be there at all, and on the other hand there a good many outside who might be confined with great advantage to the wives and children who have to live with them. I believe that in some cases both lawyers and doctors have mistaken eccentricity for lunacy. In former days it was much too easy to have a man shut up in a lunatic asylum, and now we are confronted with the other evil, that it is too hard.
    MR. BIGGAR: The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the front bench, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), have assumed that this Bill will be a great improvement of the existing law. Now, I have heard on competent authority that the proposed Bill, if carried, will make the law worse than it is at present. My belief is that at the present moment there is not a proper amount of supervision. I think that the present system of putting people into asylums on the certificate of two doctors is a most objectionable one. There ought to be no private asylums, but the Executive Government should be responsible to the public for all institutions for the confinement of the insane.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I do not know whether the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) is aware that the arrangement by which the Commission is composed of members partly legal and partly medical is one that cannot be altered without legislation, so that if the hon. Member will

    1741
    render what assistance is in his power for bringing on the Lunacy Bill which has come down to us from the other House, he will be bringing nearer his opportunity for bringing about an alteration in the law in the direction he desires. On the merits of the present system there are some impartial judges who have arrived at an adverse conclusion to that of the hon. Member. The Medical Members of the Commission are in favour of the present arrangement, and they find advantage in the presence of their legal brethren on the Commission. It was the opinion of the late Lord Shaftesbury, who was Chairman of the Commission, that it was an advantageous arrangement, and an examination of the duties of the Commissioners shows why that should be so. Those duties are by no means exclusively of a medical character; they include investigations into matters of fact and other matters of an administrative nature upon which legal qualifications are required. The Commissioners have to inquire into not only the physical and moral treatment of the insane, they have to consider the disposition and arrangements for property; to conduct prosecutions for neglect or ill treatment; they have to enter on the plans for the structure and accomodation in asylums; and deal with contracts relating to administration and general rules. They have also to deal with the licensing of Metropolitan Asylums and to examine the forms of orders, certificates, and all similar documents under the Lunacy Acts. These duties cannot be described as entirely medical, and there is no doubt it was with a view to these matters that Parliament decided there should be a strong legal element on the Board. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. O'Connor) says that under the present law lunatics may possibly be improperly confined, and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) complains that the Bill we have laid on the Table would probably make matters worse, but without infringing on the rules of the House that forbid me to discuss the merits of the Bill not now before us, I may point out that the Bill alluded to makes only two proposals, curtailing the extension of private asylums and ensuring that judicial intervention in reference to orders for detention which
    1742
    the hon. Member thinks would check the evils of which he complained.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think the hon. Gentleman has made out a case for having a certain number of lawyers upon the Commission, but that was not exactly the point of my hon. Friend, and that to which I also alluded. It is not that lawyers are not useful for the legal work to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the work of looking after the property of lunatics and that sort of thing. Our point is that lawyers go with doctors for examination into the state of the mind of the lunatic, and that, we say, is exclusively medical work, with which lawyers should have nothing to do. We say that medical men should do this medical work.
    *DR. FARQUHARSON: The legal Members of the Commission might sit to adjudicate on points of law, but I object to the dual examinations of asylums by the two sets of men, lawyers and doctors. It is a plan which limits the number of medical inspectors, and unduly contracts their influence and operations. If we could get the £1,500 which the lawyers have, for the doctors, we should have a more effective supervision. There should be in England an arrangement such as we have in Scotland, a legal Board to which reference might be made by the doctors in case of doubt or difficulty.
    *MR. STUART WORTLEY: The visits of the Legal Commissioners are incumbent on them by Acts of Parliament that require that there shall be two visitors—one legal, one medical. They have to investigate charges of ill-treatment and therefore to deal with disputes as to questions of fact—duties, I think, that are better discharged by persons accustomed to legal investigation.
    *DR. FARQUHARSON: I will not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £49,421,to complete the sum for the expenses of the Mint, including coinage.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: There is only one point I wish to raise in reference to this Vote, and that is the great scarcity of sixpences among the currency and the enormous quantity of florins. I cannot understand why this should be, and I very much doubt whether the public care very much for

    1743
    florins. At any rate, I can see no reason why they should be coined in quantities out of all proportion to sixpences. I hope we may have some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever is responsible for the Department, as to the system pursued in regard to the small coinage, and the proportion of one to the other—how many florins, shillings, and sixpences.
    *MR. H. H. FOWLER: My hon. Friend has anticipated a point I was going to raise. There is much inconvenience caused by a scarcity of small silver coins. There is an ample supply of florins and half-crowns, but speaking for my own locality, and I think I can speak generally, there is a want of shillings and sixpences. I hope we may have this remedied.
    MR. JACKSONI shall be very glad to convey this complaint to the Mint Authorities, but I am in a position to say that steps have been taken to increase the coinage of silver considerably, including these smaller pieces.
    Vote agreed to.
    4. £10,708 to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
    Vote agreed to.
    5. £48,496 to complete the sum for the Patent Office.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I believe it is the fact that arrangements have been made for the exchange of the publications of the Patent Office in England for those of the United States office, and of other countries, but there are great complaints that these exchanges are conducted unfairly towards us. We do not get the same number of copies we give to America, and other countries. It is important in our great centres of industry that there should be means of access to these publications, especially those from the United States, and the public libraries in Leeds and elsewhere should have copies for reference. There are complaints that libraries have not copies of these publications, nor indeed the publications issued by our own Patent Office. At any rate, I think these last should be procurable for the actual cost of paper and ink. In all the issues of publications from Government Departments there is an attempt on the part of the office to recoup itself not only for the cost of the parti-
    1744
    cular copy, but for the cost also of setting up and the original expenses. It is the idea of large profits and small sales, instead of small profits and large sales. I do not think it really ought to be a question of profit at all, and surely some arrangement might be made to facilitate the distribution of both our own and foreign Patent publications. In America, as we know, there are far more patents taken out than there are here, and we know that labour-saving appliances are continually being produced, knowledge of which would be of great advantage in our manufacturing towns. I have had a correspondence on this subject with a gentleman who strongly urged me to mention this matter, and it appears to me a very reasonable suggestion.
    MR. JACKSON: I was not aware that there were any complaints in reference to the exchange of Patent Office publications between this and other countries. I know it has been the practice to make such exchanges of publications of designs and specifications, and I will call the attention of the Patent Office to the statement of the hon. Member. As to the publications of the Patent Office, there were some complaints, but quite recently the whole subject was examined by a Departmental Committee, presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), and it was decided that in future a journal should be issued consolidating into one the three publications that have hitherto been issued, and at a price that will bring it within the range of those who desire to refer to it. Illustrations also will add to the usefulness of the publication, and the arrangements made promise to work very satisfactorily.
    MR. COSSHAM: No patent is ever taken out in the United States without a guarantee of its distinguishing merit, but there are patents taken out in England without any merit at all. I think it would be a wise change if our Patent Office were made responsible for the thing patented having some real benefit about it.
    Vote agreed to.
    6. £20,190 to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to know precisely what are the functions of the Paymaster General and his assis-

    1745
    tants. Here we have a Paymaster General who gets nothing, and an assistant with a salary of £1,000. What is the use of keeping up this office of Paymaster General? It was acknowledged to be a sinecure office, and the salary was abolished, I believe in the time of Lord Wolverton, who, I believe, as he did not earn the salary, declined to take it. Why keep up the fiction when the office is superfluous, and does not require a salary?
    MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will refer to the Estimates he will find that there is no amount placed against the entry of "Assistant"; he has been abolished. I may say in relation to this subject that I hope shortly to introduce a Bill dealing with this office, which was the subject of consideration by a Committee some years ago. It is believed that by the re-arrangement proposed considerable economy will be affected. The Bill will, I hope, shortly be ready for submission to the House.
    MR. HANBURY: Has the official in question been transferred or pensioned, or how has he been treated?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: We shall be anxious for the production of this Bill, for it seems that we have a Department that is almost unnecessary, maintained at considerable cost.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to help the Committee a little further by shadowing forth the arrangement proposed, because it may or may not be satisfactory? I hope it may be, but it is clear that as the head of the Department is gone, and the assistant head is gone, we should feel more happy with the knowledge that the body is to go too, and no particular harm would result to the country. It would give satisfaction outside the House and in if the hon. Gentleman would increase our information a little.
    MR. CAUSTON: And may I ask what are the duties of the Department?
    MR. JACKSON: I think it would be rather irregular, and I think the Committee will hardly wish me, to anticipate the statement that necessarily must be made when the Bill is introduced. I gave the information I did that the Committee might know that we contemplate dealing with the office generally, but the Government must not be sup-
    1746
    posed to convey the impression that the office has been extravagantly conducted. I did not mean to cast the least reflection on the officers of the Department. As to the re-arrangement. we propose—I may say as much as this—that it is in the direction of making payments through bankers rather than through the Office. The Committee will excuse me if I do not enter further into a Bill not yet introduced.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: Only one thing I will ask, will the Bill certainly be introduced with the intention of carrying it through this Session?
    MR. JACKSON: Certainly, that is the intention.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I cannot make out whether there is any head to the Office. I suppose there is some head?
    MR. JACKSON: The Chief Clerk is the head of the Office.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The Chief Clerk gets £1,100 a-year, but then we have a Treasury Remembrancer and Deputy Paymaster for Ireland who gets £1,200. What duties is he called upon to discharge?
    MR. JACKSON: Anyone who knows the Treasury Remembrancer for Ireland knows that he has most important duties to discharge. He is the representative of the Treasury, the officer to whom, if the Treasury has occasion to make any communication, reference is made. He is a most efficient and capable officer, and I can assure the Committee has a great deal of official work.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not know who the gentleman is, and am not disposed to dispute the assertion that he is a very capable officer, but it strikes me as strange that the head of the office in England should be satisfied with £800 but the official in Ireland should require £1,200. We know, as a matter of fact, living in Ireland is very considerably cheaper than living in England, so that the difference in salary should be the other way, and £800 in Dublin would be about equivalent to £1,200 in London. But I am afraid my hon. Friend has hit upon one of the many examples that run through all the Estimates that extravagant salaries in Ireland are more extravagant even than extravagant salaries in England. I would be diverging into questions I am anxious

    1747
    to avoid if I were to suggest a reason for this disproportion.
    MR. HANBURY: I must press my hon. Friend for an answer as to the terms upon which the Assistant Paymaster has been removed from office.
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot say, for I do not remember, but I will get the information, and give it to my hon. Friend on Report.
    *MR. H. H. FOWLER: May I ask whether the same rule is applied to Civil Service Officials in Ireland as is wisely applied in England, and is it adhered to, that they shall abstain from all party political manifestations and controversies?
    *MR. JACKSON: Oh yes. There is not the least objection to stating the name of the present holder of the office of Treasury Remembrancer; it is Mr. R. W. Holmes; and having given his name I feel bound to follow it up by saying that from observation of his work in connection with the Department in London, and from personal knowledge acquired in several visits to Ireland in connection with the Department I can testify to the very efficient manner in which he discharges his duties.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have not the least knowledge of Mr. Holmes, and am quite content to take it for granted that he deserves the eulogium passed upon him by the hon. Gentleman; but I would like to ask, does Mr. Holmes take part in political demonstrations, is he compelled to exclude himself from party politics as similar officials are in England?
    MR. JOHNSTON: Is not the very fact that the hon. Member does not know Mr. Holmes in itself sufficient evidence that that gentleman does not take part in political matters?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: With all due respect to the hon. Member I cannot allow him to answer a question addressed to the Treasury Bench, which he does dot yet adorn, though he may do so some time in another House and in another country. Until then I must address my question to the Secretary to the Treasury, and he can probably answer from personal knowledge whether or not Mr. Holmes abstains from taking part in Party politics in Ireland in the same manner as officials are compelled in England?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: The same rules apply to Members of the Civil Service in Ireland as those which operate in England, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and thorough impartiality is exercized so far as the Treasury is concerned. I hope this will be satisfactory. I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Holmes, but believe he is an efficient officer.
    MR. COSSHAM: Is Mr. Holmes a son of Mr. Justice Holmes?
    Vote agreed to.
    7. £8,205 to complete the sum for Public Works Loan Commission.
    Vote agreed to.
    8. £17,506 to complete the sum for the Record Office.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I drew attention to this Vote not long since, but on that occasion I had no answer. I should like to refer to the subject again, not with a view of criticizing the work done at the Record Office which I believe is extremely good, but because the public records are very insufficiently housed, and the public have not sufficient opportunity of viewing them. I believe that many of the records have been ruined and are still being destroyed by the dampness of some of the rooms. Then there are large numbers of our most valued possessions in the nature of relics stored in the Record Office, but they cannot be exhibited to the public. There is no space to allow of them being shown. I think it will be found that the Rolls Chapel is hardly ever used, and might be turned into something in the nature of a museum, where the "Domesday Book," the "Roll of Agincourt." and other interesting historical national possessions might be shown to the public. The collection of national records of this country is perhaps the finest in the world, and, independent of those in the British Museum, those at the Record Office are such that there is no collection to compare with them. But in Paris the collection is infinitely better housed in the Palais d'Archives, and presents a most interesting feature for the visitor. I hope something may be done by which the collection may be properly housed and seen.
    *MR. JACKSON: I know the hon. Member takes great interest in this question, and I do not say but I sympathize with his views to some extent. I am not sure that his suggestion is practical. I dare say he knows that the original plan contemplated the pulling down of Rolls Chapel and adjoining buildings, and some day this scheme will have to be carried out. I should not like to say more, but I will report the hon. Member's views to my colleagues, and I hope he will be content with this general answer. No doubt, when the further extension of the building (which I admit must be made, because a great many papers are stored in a building quite unfit for them) is under consideration, and when additional accommodation is provided, then the question will be considered how they may be most conveniently disposed for public inspection.
    MR. LYELL: Can the hon. Member give the Committee any information as to the progress being made with the Orkney or Icelandic Sagas, about which I asked for information last year?
    *MR. JACKSON: I am glad to be able to say something more definite on this subject than I was in a position to on the last occasion. I am bound to say I think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make some complaint as to the delay that has taken place. Many circumstances have contributed to it, but I am now in a position to say that one volume is in print, and that another volume is in MS. ready to be sent to the printers, some progress having been made with the proofs. The volume in print lacks one sheet. That is to be sent to the printer, and the MS. of the second volume will be sent within a month. Every effort is being made to complete the work during the present Session, and I hope that before the discussion on the Estimates comes round again, it will be completed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not see any return as to the amount which has been received from the sale of these publications, nor of the number of copies published and sold. It is desirable that we should have this information, as it will show us what, as a set-off, we get back for these publications. We want the information before we discuss whether the price is too high, or too low.
    MR. JACKSON: I will make inquiries into the matter, and endeavour to obtain for the hon. Member the information he desires.
    Vote agreed to.
    9. £39,952 to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
    *MR. CHILDERS: On this Vote there arises the question of the preparation the Government have made with regard to the census. Some time ago, a very important deputation waited on the responsible Department of the Government, and several suggestions were made for rendering the next census more efficient, and giving a larger amount of information than has been given on previous occasions. There is no doubt that our census is inferior to the census of the greater number of civilized Governments, and especially to those of Australia and America, and it seems to me very desirable that we should not defer too long the preparations which should be made for carrying out desirable improvements. The Government should take the matter in hand at once. I think something was said by the deputation about the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Committee to collect the opinions of those who feel a large interest in the subject. I would therefore ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the first steps will be taken, and whether facilities will be given to those who have matured opinions on the question to bring them before Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. A. ACLAND: Before the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government replies, I may be allowed to endeavour to elicit from him what I know he is willing to give, namely, a friendly consideration of this question in a little more detail than has been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. A most important deputation went before the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and suggested further classification, to a very moderate extent, with reference especially to the industrial workers in the country. The deputation was introduced by you, Sir, and there were present not theoretical, but practical

    1751
    men, Mr. Charles Booth, whose book on the East of London, has attracted so much attention, being the chief speaker. Mr. Booth is a gentleman who has already done much valuable work in collecting statistics with regard to the industrial and commercial character of the East of London. He is a gentleman who has spent a considerable sum of money out of his own pocket in providing the public with a better knowledge of the industrial and social condition of the people, and he is of opinion that the census of 1891 might give information of a valuable kind which the enumerators could without much difficulty provide. He does not ask for a large number of classes which those who have the duty of filling up the census tables might find it difficult to deal with, but he thinks we ought to draw a distinction between employers and employed, between skilled and unskilled—that is to say, between the artizan and the ordinary labourer. I would ask the Local Government Board to pay attention to what practical men like Mr. Booth have to say, before giving the reply tendered by those who have prepared previous censuses—the very natural reply — a sort of non possumus— that what was done in 1881 is good, and ought to be repeated. I know that that will in all likelihood be the answer, but I trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will go into the matter fully before he says that nothing can be done. It is often said it is better to have few statistics and good than many and bad, but I say that practical men—men like Mr. Booth—would not be asking for these statistics if they did not believe that they could be provided. I would add that every year education is increasing in the country, and we may rely upon it that the bulk of the working people will be better able to fill up the census papers in 1891 than they were in 1881. I go further and say that if they can be made to understand — as no doubt they can in many cases—that the census is being made in their interest in order that we may know the industrial position of the country, they may take more pains. Trade unions, friendly societies, and others ought to appeal to them on the subject, for if they are not induced to believe that the census is going to be utilized on their behalf by
    1752
    persons who take an interest in their position they are not likely to take the trouble to fill up the papers accurately. I feel sure it is not the Treasury that is going to stand in the way of the improvement of the census, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a friendly and cordial answer. I do not think we need have any fears as to the supply of the money, provided we can induce the Registrar General's Department to give a favourable consideration to the proposal, and persuade them not to be too much afraid of the ignorance of those who fill up the papers. The question is one which will have to be settled now in a very few months, and this is probably the last opportunity we shall have of raising it. I hope that before the matter is finally settled the Treasury and the President of the Local Government Board will see some of the practical men I have referred to, and hear what they have to say on the subject.
    *MR. BRADLAUGHI desire to draw attention to the fact that the evidence reported upon last year by the Committee on Emigration —I am afraid I should not be in order in referring to the evidence taken this year—clashes with the Returns prepared by the enumerators and I think there ought to be more care exercised by the enumerators, especially as regards the number of foreigners in particular cities and districts employed in particular trades. We have had one very curious piece of evidence as to the Italian population and the number of their fellow countrymen relieved by the Italian Authorities in England. The number so relieved shows an excess in one occupation over the whole number of Italians without occupation stated by the census to be in the country. Allowing for some disposition on the part of the Charitable Authorities to magnify their operations, one cannot help thinking that there must be something seriously wrong in the Returns that the enumerators have accepted as correct, or in the facts as given in evidence. I desire to support what has been urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rotherham Division, that the census as affecting industrial questions can only be useful when both employers and employed are taught to rely upon it. The more accuracy we

    1753
    get in these matters the more disposed the workers will be to place reliance on the census. There is now a very grave matter to which I wish to call attention. The very specific instructions issued by the Registrar General to the Registrars of births and deaths have been disregarded in a matter which very much affects infantile mortality. Where a child is insured the Superintendent Registrar is not to issue certificates under which a sum can be obtained in excess of that provided by the Act. If it comes to his knowledge that certificates have been issued, or that insurance has been effected, or that money has been paid beyond the amount for which the certificate is given, he should report to the Chief Registrar for prosecution, or he is at liberty himself, as a person aggrieved under a Section of the Act. Now, I am sure that the Registrar in the case of the Borough of Oldham, has continually neglected that duty. I should think, on an average, in eight or nine cases every year for the past five or six years, children's lives have been insured for amounts in excess of the sums for which they ought to have been insured. According to his own statement, in three or four cases where illegal payments have been made, he has never reported to the Registrar General, nor has he himself initiated any prosecution. It is useless to have provisions on the Statute Book prohibiting the improper insurance of very young children if they are not to be carried out. The complaint I am now making is in the same line as that I made in connection with the Department of the Registrar of Friendly Societies last night. The House passes Statutes which, if they were carried out, would be productive of enormous good, but which are utterly disregarded. In the case of Oldham there is no doubt about the law having been disregarded. A gentleman wrote me a letter a year and a half ago calling my attention to the facts I have stated, and this gentleman has since repeated his allegations on oath. I do not blame the Chief Registrar for not initiating prosecutions, as he had no knowledge of these events, no report having been made to him; but the subordinate Registrar was clearly bound to report or prosecute. Unless the Government will promise to inquire into the matter and cause some
    1754
    representation to be made to the Chief Registrar, and through him to the Registrars throughout the country, I shall move the reduction of the Vote. I do not wish to do that, as I look upon such a Motion as one which should only be resorted to in the last extremity.
    MR. AMBROSE: I desire to call attention to the tables prepared by the Registrar General in regard to deaths. I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board last Session to the increase in the number of cases of cancer which is taking place in England, and suggested that information specially bearing upon this disease should be supplied in the Registrars' Returns, but the right hon. Gentleman, whilst admitting the importance of the question, declared that the staff of the Local Government Board was not such as to enable them to undertake any further duty. On looking into the matter, I must say it hardly seems to me that it would cause any additional labour to the Local Government Board, as the work would be done by the officials under the Registrar General. The death tables, valuable as they now are, should be extended so as to afford information on the subject to which I have referred. Sir Spencer Wells has lately called attention to the great increase of cancer in the United Kingdom, and has suggested that under the head of "Cause of death," further particulars, especially in respect of the organs effected, should be given. He says that the disease has doubled itself within a comparatively short space of time, and he and other members of the medical profession are anxious that there should be some means of ascertaining the cause of the increase, as it may enable them to supply a remedy. Additional information as to age, occupation, and geographical distribution might be afforded. The Irish tables are much fuller than those of this country, and if the English standard were raised to the Irish the medical profession would be satisfied. I do not think it can be said that there is not sufficient authority under the Act of Parliament to require this information to be given, as the powers under the Act are very general.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) is anxious to ascertain what

    1755
    the Government are doing or contemplate doing in connection with the census. It is true we received a deputation on this particular subject a short time ago. The recommendations of the deputation I may divide under two heads. In the first they urged that the census should be quinquennial instead of decennial, and, secondly, that the information should be much more ample than that now afforded, especially with regard to the skilled and unskilled workmen, and to employers and employed. Of course, it will be the duty of the Government to consider the recommendations of the deputation. I have been in communication with the Registrar General, and have found that there would be great difficulty in obtaining the additional information. It is only a week ago that I had my last interview with the Registrar General. He went fully into this question and stated that it is not easy to obtain accurate statements of what is now required, and he feared that if we were to endeavour to obtain information as to employers and employed, and skilled and unskilled labour, we should not only get incorrect information on those subjects, but damage the information obtained under the existing system. He urged on me that there was a reluctance on the part of those who are asked for this information to give information as to whether they are employers or employed, or skilled or unskilled. There is frequently a tendency on the part of unskilled workmen to take advantage of some incident of their employment to make out that they are skilled, and in the same way a tendency on the part of the employed to make out that they are employers. Indeed, the line of demarcation can scarcely be drawn between classes of labour, for workmen are themselves sometimes employers also, and come under both categories. With regard to the question of a quinquennial census, the Registrar General states that even if we were to get an intermediate census, confined mainly to the enumeration of ages, sexes, inhabited houses, and the like, the cost and labour would be almost as great as that of the present census. But it has been suggested that, looking at the fact that the great cost was the cost of enumeration,
    1756
    the reduction of expense in taking such a census would not be so great as was at one time supposed. I do not, however, intend to rest satisfied, and I have informed the Registrar General that I will put definitely in writing certain propositions to which I have requested his most careful consideration. I have also thrown out the suggestion that there may be some of the information which they now obtain that is not of such great value as that which it is desired to have, and whether some of the information that is now obtained might not be omitted, and other information obtained that would be more useful. All these matters the Registrar General has promised shall be carefully considered. An hon. Member opposite has alluded to Mr. Booth, a gentleman who has devoted much time and labour to the subject in a manner highly praiseworthy. It does not follow, however, because that gentleman has been able to gain more information than the tables of the Registrar General give, that the matter is an easy one. But I am fully aware of the great value of having some conference with Mr. Booth and the hon. Gentleman at the Local Government Board, and I am in hopes that some of the difficulties raised in connection with the subject might perhaps be disposed of if we had a personal conference. I understand that arrangements are being made for such a conference. I am most anxious to obtain all the information that is desired by those who take an interest in this subject. But I wish the Committee to realize the very great difficulties that stand in the way. Unless we have some guarantee that the information they desire is fairly accurate, it will not be worth collecting. I have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman what work has been done in preparing for the next census. Sir, a great deal of work has been done for a considerable time past; a great deal is now going on through the Registrar General on the question of the areas. There had been a great change in the areas in connection with divided parishes, and also through the Local Government Act of last Session; and attention is being given to all these matters, with the view of forwarding the work of the census when it is undertaken. I have especially put it to the

    1757
    Registrar General whether it would assist him if the Bill, instead of being passed next year, as would be the natural course of things, were passed this year; and his reply was nothing would be forwarded by the passage of the Bill this year. The Registrar General has convinced me that there is no stoppage in the work at present, and that the work is now going on.
    *MR. CHILDERS: Would it not help the Government and the Registrar General if a small Commission were appointed to make preliminary inquiries before the Bill is introduced?
    *MR. RITCHIE: That point has not escaped my attention, and when I have pursued my investigation a little further I shall he glad to let the right hon. Gentleman know the conclusion which has been arrived at. With regard to the matter referred to by the junior Member for Northampton, I will make personal inquiries into it, with a view to see whether or not the law has been obeyed. I am sorry to hear that such a state of things as he suggests exists in Oldham.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that I suggested the Government should inquire into the allegation that the Oldham Registrar has neglected to report breaches in connection with the insurance of children under five years of age, thereby allowing illegal societies to carry on operations while registered societies have been paying more than they ought to
    *MR. RITCHIE: I will make personal inquiry into this matter, and avail myself of any information the hon. Member can give me with a view to seeing that the law is not evaded. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Harrow as to the increase of cancer and the insufficiency of the tables, I will undertake also to make inquiry into this subject and communicate with him. If anything can be done to give fuller information upon matters of such vital importance I shall be happy to do it.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I wish to urge upon the President of the Local Government Board that a new item might be introduced into the census. It would be of great interest to the country, for it deals with a matter vitally affecting the statistics. Temperance has made great progress during the
    1758
    last 10 years, and I think in the census papers there might be a column showing the number of total abstainers.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I have been much impressed by the suggestion that instead of having a census once every 10 years we should have something in the nature of a continuous Statistic Department and a continuous census. Under the present arrangement you have for every census to form a special establishment to work it, and the task is not completed for several years after the census is actually taken, so that when you get the statistics some of them are almost out of date. You do not in fact get the full benefit of the enormous expense which you incur. If you had a continuous establishment you could keep your machinery up to date, and the work would be got out much more rapidly, while you could get additional information. I hope that this question will be carefully and adequately considered by the right hon. Gentleman.
    DR. CAMERON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his answer to me a short time ago as to the facts supplied by the Registrar General in regard to the causes of death, and the detection of causes of death by violence or crime. As a matter of fact this country is behind every other country in Europe in that respect. In 17,000 cases of death people were buried in England without any steps whatever being taken to ascertain the cause of death. In Scotland matters are ten times worse, and in Ireland matters are even worse than that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to talk to him privately, for I may be able to induce him to reconsider his decision.
    *MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I desire to say a few words on the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I think it is unfortunate that this discussion did not come on earlier so that the debate might have been more exhaustive. I sympathize very much with what was said by the hon. Member for the Harrow Division, I think the tables are singularly deficient in regard to some statistics of mortality. I look upon the Census as the Intelligence Department of the country, by which it is able to survey its population, health, and circulation; and

    1759
    with regard to the question whether this subject should be in the hands of a spasmodic and temporary or a permanent body, I think there cannot be two opinions. So important a matter deserves a well-equipped and permanent department; and if the right hon. Gentleman only takes the steps necessary to establish it permanently, I do not think he is likely to meet with any opposition, even from the most rigid economist. Now, I fully sympathize with the objects aimed at by the hon. Member for Rotherham; but let me point out that, in regard to census statistics, there is a very strong disinclination on the part of the people of this country to anything like an inquisitorial inquiry, and I am afraid that if some of the questions suggested by the hon. Member were put, the replies would in sundry cases be more forcible than polite. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast, of course it would he desirable to be able to have statistics showing the effects upon men of temperance as opposed to a moderate indulgence in stimulants. I heard a large shipping agent once say that he never employed a captain who was a total abstainer because he felt assured he would prove to be a badly-reformed drunkard who would break out into intemperance again when he got an opportunity. I fear that a large number of hopeless sots would take the advantage of a census paper to give themselves a good character by describing themselves as abstainers. While sympathizing with the suggestion of the hon. Member. I must say I do not think it is a practical one.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again this day.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    ESTATE DUTY—MIXED ESTATE UNDER WILL OR INTESTACY.
    Resolution reported (9th May) [see page 1574].
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not intend to obstruct the passing of this Resolution, because as I understand it we shall be distinctly entitled to move Amendments in Committees when the Bill is before the House. I do hope that before that
    1760
    stage is reached, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the anomalies which have been brought to light, and will do away with the distinction between real and personal property. The right hon. Gentleman has determined that toll shall be levied on property which so to speak passed the Styx on each occasion, of death, and he has also determined on the general principle of having no distinction between real and personal property. Why, then, does he not get rid of all the anomalies by saying that there shall be no distinction at all, whether the property be settled, or whether it be willed absolutely?
    Resolution agreed to.
    Ordered, that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES [COSTS].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the costs incurred, and of the remuneration of the officer employed, in any local inquiry which may be held under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Weights and Measures.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolutions [9th May] reported. (See Pages 1580–1635.)
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Order for Committee, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    THE REPRESENTATION OF UNIVERSITIES.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: In risingto move the Resolution which stands in my name, I desire to say at the outset that I do so in no spirit of hostility or disrespect to the Universities. It would ill become me at any time or in any place to speak of these illustrious foundations otherwise than in terms of the warmest affection, and with the most

    1761
    profound gratitude and esteem. And least of all could I speak in terms of depreciation of the Universities in an assembly which has hitherto consisted, and now largely consists, of men who have sought and found in the Universities the best possible preparation for their duties in the House of Commons. I hold that the proudest boast of the British Universities—that which distinguishes them from similar bodies in other parts of the world—is that they have never failed to furnish to the service of this House and the country an abundant supply of able, accomplished, and honourable public men. Nor, Sir, do I intend by the Motion to cast the slightest reflection upon the fitness for their position of the group of Members who have the high honour of representing the Universities in this House, and if I name one of them more particularly it is not by way of invidious distinction, but because he is the don of the order and I am one of his constituents. I refer to the right hon. Baronet the senior Member for the University of Oxford, and I hope that he will allow me to assure him that I set a high value on his public services in this House, and as one of his constituents I have no fault to find with him, except for the colour of his political opinions. My motion does not deal with any of the academical functions of the Universities; and I wish the House simply to regard them as Parliamentary constituencies. As such, I invite the House to pass sentence of death upon them, because University representation is a unique anomaly, entirely opposed to the plain spirit of the existing Parliamentary system, and productive of no such good results as would, in the mind of any reasonable man, justify such an anomaly. Before I proceed to the practical points which I shall urge in support of the proposition, I hope I may be pardoned if for a moment I venture to glance at the history of the question. The House, no doubt, is aware that the origin of this anomalous system is to be traced back to Letters Patent issued by James I. in the first two days of his reign to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and some time afterwards to the University of Dublin. This anomalous system has not had a legitimate Parliamentary origin. The validity of the Letters Patent was
    1762
    doubted, I believe, for some considerable time, and steps were taken in this House and in the Courts of Law to test their legal validity. These proceedings, however, came to nothing, and undoubtedly the system has been ratified by long and uninterrupted acquiescence. But it is undeniable that this spurious, illegitimate system has never yet been sanctioned by Parliament—it has never yet deliberately and on principle been ratified by Parliamentary Law. I will just allude to the occasions on which it has come before the House. In 1887 three new University seats were created by the Redistribution Bill of that period—the two Scotch Universities and the University of London. But these seats were created, not because the House approved of the principle of University Parliamentary representation, but rather as a compromise and a kind of set-off to the three older Universities, which had so long been represented in this House. And in support of my theory that in creating these seats the House did not approve of the principle of University representation, I wish to quote an authority for which I may claim the respectful attention of hon. Members opposite. One of the great men in this House, whose loss we have all had occasion to deplore—Mr. John Bright—used the words which I am about to read. Let me say that the Conservative Party has recently exhibited a great deal of significant, and at all events, severe remorse, for the treatment which, in his early days, they meted out to Mr. Bright. This is what he said:
    "I am not in favour of the representation of Universities. The representation of the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was created in times about the worst in our history, and the Members they have sent to this House, learned as some of them have been and amiable as many of them have been, have not been representatives such as it would be wise for the House of Commons to follow. I therefore say I am not in favour of the representation of the Universities and if I had had the making of the Reform Bill for introduction to this House, I should have done violence to my views in regard to the subject if I had proposed to give a representative to the University of London."
    I may remind the House of the well-known saying attributed to Lord Beaconsfield in regard to the University of London, that the reason he gave for the creation of that constituency was to accommodate Mr. Robert Lowe with

    1763
    a seat in this House. On one other occasion this question was brought before the House—namely, at the time of the Redistribution Bill of 1884. The motion to abolish University Parliamentary representation was made by the Member for Aberdeen, and was not resisted on any ground of principle at all by the then Government, but I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, then the head of the Government, refrained from expressing any opinion upon the subject, because it was inconsistent with the terms of the compromise into which they had entered, and was outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore I am justified in saying that this system has never really been sanctioned by Parliament. It has never been sanctioned by the House of Commons as at present constituted, fully representing, as it does, the whole of the people of these kingdoms. Now, Sir, I shall state as shortly as I can the reasons which seem to me to justify the Resolution I am proposing. First of all, I invite the attention of the House to the fact that nine seats are involved in this Vote. There are too many Members in this House. Much of the paralysis of business is due to this; and if the number could be reduced, even by nine, that would in itself be a gain. I believe the excessive number of the Members of this House is the source of nearly all its maladies. My next point is that University constituencies are abnormally small and that they are highly overrepresented. Whereas the average number of electors in an ordinary constituency is 9,000, Oxford, which returns two Members, has only 5,799 electors; Cambridge, with its two Members, 6,500; London, 2,838 to its one Member; and Dublin is the worst of all, for it returned two Members with only 4,000 electors. The Scotch Universities do not present such flagrant cases; in fact from this point of view they are by far the most respectable. Edinburgh has 7,389 electors, and Glasgow and Aberdeen 7,454, each of these constituencies returning but one Member. Now let me take exceptions in the other direction. Ayrshire has one Member to 14,750 electors, and West Nottingham one Member to 15,252 electors, and these two constituencies, taken together, have as many electors to
    1764
    their two Members as the Universities have to their nine Members. My next point is the character of these University constituencies. The character of a University constituency is wholly different to that which was originally intended when the Letters Patent were first issued by James I. And what is now the real character is entirely different to its apparent character. The University is not represented at all. The University, with those who are engaged in the work of education and charged with the administration of great endowments, and who fulfil such noble functions in directing the higher intellectual culture of this country, is not really represented, nor mainly even its present members. It is not the University graduates who are represented in. this House, it is the past members, the clergymen, the lawyers, the doctors, and schoolmasters scattered throughout the country, and who have nothing to do with the University, who are represented. Nor is it the past members generally who are represented, but only a limited fraction. Oxford has 5,799 electors at the present moment. It has on its books 3,100 undergraduates, which means that the annual output of graduates, so to speak, is a thousand annually, and it is, therefore, absurd to suppose that the 5,799 electors fairly represent the University. What, then,. is the explanation? It is that there are two degrees. The degree of B.A., which implies something in the way of learning, gives no vote. To be placed on the electoral register it is necessary to take the formal degree of M.A., which, in regard to learning, implies nothing more than B.A., and which anyone, having taken his Bachelor's Degree, can obtain by merely paying the extra. fees. It is purely an ornamental degree. The fees amount to £20, I think, and many men who do not think it worth while to spend the money, consequently remain Bachelors of Arts. Why any do become Masters of Arts is a problem. I will give the House a little piece of. personal experience. In my time at Oxford there was an obscure, mysterious title, designated by the mysterious letters S.C.L.—Student of the Civil Law. It was noticed that those who obtained this status, a large proportion of whom were clerical gentlemen, seldom proceeded to take their degree in Civil

    1765
    Law, but rested content with these mystic letters. What was the explanation? It was that it gave them the right to wear the most gorgeous and beautiful of University garments. Very much the same thing may be stated with regard to the degree of M.A., which is purely ornamental. Taking St. John's College, Oxford, which is a fair average college, I have examined its position in regard to this point, and I find that of 252 Masters of Arts on its books, according to the last calendar, 178, or more than two-thirds, are clergymen of the Church of England. Now, Sir, it possibly may not do to condemn the University constituencies as a whole, but, while hon. Members do not represent the University graduates, they do not represent the most select of them. In fact, I do not know in the whole of our political system anything that might be more justly described as the natural selection of the unfittest than is to be found in this system of University representation. My next point is that certain only of the Universities are represented. The University of Durham has no representation here, and, after reading the debate which took place in the House of Commons 20 years ago on that subject, I am convinced that, if we are to have University representation at all, the House did a great injustice to that body in refusing to associate it with the other Universities. Nor is there any representation of Victoria University in this House, or of the Royal University of Ireland, which I understand has absorbed the Queen's University. But the Universities are not the only academic bodies in the country. There are many other learned bodies, and I am glad to say their number is increasing every year. There are at least 12 University Colleges in Great Britain—one of them situated in the town I have the honour to represent—which are discharging University functions in the great centres of population in this country. If there is any sense in University representation at all—and I maintain there is not—these great bodies are just as entitled to be represented in this House as those which already have special representatives. There are besides many other learned bodies which are discharging academic functions—functions relating to the education, either professional or scientific, of large and important bodies
    1766
    of the community. These have no special representation here. There is no special representation of the College of Physicians, of the Inns of Court, of the Royal Society, or of the Royal Academy. I might give a long list of similar bodies which have no representation in this House, but which, as far as the Government and the country are concerned, stand on precisely the same footing as those Universities which happen to be favoured by the existing system. But my main objection to the present system is that the representation of the Universities in this House is entirely inconsistent with the existing system of Parliamentary representation. That system is based on a well understood and widely accepted theory. We are here as representatives of citizens qua citizens, divided as nearly as possible into equal shares. No doubt there are inequalities which it will be our duty some day to amend. But although there are these inequalities, the constitution of the House, speaking generally, is such as I have described. Now, against this fundamental principle of Parliamentary representation, the group of nine University Members is a standing protest. They are an alien body in this House. They sit by an obsolete tenure—as obsolete as Old Sarum or Midhurst, which sent two Members to this House when it had not a single soul living within its boundaries. It is the one section of this House in which privilege continues to raise its brazen front. Historically it is a mere survival, and politically a mere excrescence on the Constitution. University representation is a distinct denial of the "one man one vote" principle, for practically all the electors of the University constituencies have votes in other divisions of the country. I do not suppose there is any constituency—not even the constituency of the City of London—where the electors have so universally a double representation as the members of the Universities. Well, Sir, is there any practical defence, is there any practical good gained by this ridiculous and unpopular system to justify the anomaly? I submit to the House that nothing of the kind is to be found. There are no constituencies in the whole country where elections are fought on. more strictly Party lines. I am not saying that I blame the electors. As a

    1767
    constituent of three out of the nine University Members, I do not hesitate to say that I have never thought for a single moment of voting in a University contest otherwise than for the best Radical candidate put forward. I cannot blame the University electors for doing what I invariably do myself. But what is the result? It is that they are not specially concerned in or competent to inform the House about University subjects. They are very much the same as the rest of us. There is nothing in their character or qualifications to justify us in maintaining a system which sends them here in defiance of the fundamental principles of this House. I think it is better that the University electors should vote for Members of this House as British citizens and not as members of Universities, and I think also it is better that all Members of this House should vote with reference to ordinary Party instincts. It would be intolerable to have in this House of Commons nine scientific wobblers, however distinguished they might be, whose votes could not be counted on with certainty by any Party, and who would be unable to make up their scientific minds on any subject whatever. So far I prefer the present system. But the fact that the University members act on ordinary Party lines, while wholesome in itself, destroys the only possible defence which has been set up for this anomalous system. I think that the defence is a bad one. I do not think that the interests of learning require any special or artificial protection in this House. I appeal to Members on both sides to say whether it is not true that at this moment the interests of learning and education command the interest and sympathy of this House to a degree unparalleled in all former times. Even the special interests of the Universities do not require such representation. A very large proportion of the Members of this House have been prepared for their duties in Parliament by a course of study at the British Universities, and these Members are not less distinguished in scientific attainments than the average University representative. I think the nine muses themselves, if they will allow me so to call them, will admit that I could produce from the rest of the House a batch of nine Members who would equal them in every academic respect, and I could
    1768
    add another similar batch of nine, and then I could go on for a considerable time naming their equals and parallels in this House. The Members for the Universities are not only Party men, but it happens at the present moment that they are all members of the same Party—the great Unionist Party—which is in a majority in this House. Even the new University constituencies, London and the Scotch Universities, have gone over to the Unionist majority. I am bound to say I think the Liberal Party, in deserting Liberal principles by consenting to the creation of the new University constituencies of London and Scotland, have met with the fate which I trust will always attend them when they desert Liberal principles. The action of the University Liberal Members reminds me of the action of the Peers created by the Liberal. and we know what that is. When the Liberal Party so far forgets itself as to send one of its adherents to the other House, we know what is going to follow. After a decent interval, in which to make a show of political gratitude and fidelity, the noble Liberal seizes the first opportunity of turning tail and running into the camp of the enemy. If he does not do so, it is perfectly certain that his immediate successor will take that course. It seems to me that the fate of the new Universities has been in all respects parallel to that of the Liberal Peers. The new University seats were created as a set-off to the old Conservative seats in Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and they have rewarded their creators by joining the great Conservative majority in this House. Although that fact may be highly complimentary to the hold upon the intelligence of the country of Gentlemen representing the Party opposite, yet from our point of view it is equally gratifying. For what does it mean? It means that we need have no scruple or compunction about sentencing them to death. I should deeply regret if the University constituencies were nearly equally divided between the two Parties in this House. We shall know the exigencies of the political situation, and we know that no Government would feel itself impelled to remedy an abuse of this sort, infinitesimal as it may be in some respects, when the first effect of so doing would

    1769
    be to sacrifice four of its own seats. That, I take it, will be accepted as justified by the ordinary character of human nature on both sides of this House. But as it is our hands are full. We can lose no political advantage by giving effect to the demands of political justice, and I sincerely hope and trust that in the Parliament which is to follow the present the political colour of the University representation will remain exactly what it is now. If that is so, I do not hesitate to prophesy that, whatever may be the fate of this Motion tonight, whatever the amount of support I shall receive from the Liberal Party in this House, in the first Parliament in which the Liberal Party has a majority the principle which my Motion commends to the House will be adopted. Let me, in a single sentence, sum up my objections to the present system. I say it is in its origin surreptitious and of doubtful legitimacy; it has never been deliberately ratified by Parliament, and never ratified at all by Parliament as at present constituted; that it adds superfluous members to an already overcrowded House; that the Universities are hugely and absurdly over represented, and are not legitimate constituences; that the University Members do not represent the Universities at all, and do not even represent the graduates, who alone have the right of voting; that an invidious distinction is drawn between the Universities and other learned bodies; that the system violates the accepted and fundamental principle on which the rights of representation in this House rest; and finally, I say that the Universities fail to provide for the Members whom they send to this House any special representation of the interests of learning, science, or education. For these reasons I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, ' in the opinion of this House, the privilege possessed by certain of the Universities of returning Members to Parliament ought to be discontinued.'"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson,)—
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    *DR. FARQUHARSON: I well remember the im-
    1770
    portant debate we had on this question in 1884. Well, we are now in the cold shades of Opposition. The House is now much more representative of the Motion, and a much more democratic House than it was in 1884. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] I mean on our own side. I am sure Members on this side will welcome this opportunity of expressing their opinion on a condition of things which seems to be a survival and remnant of the bad old times of the past, which is opposed to many of the most cherished convictions of the Liberal and Radical Party, and which is no better than the old fancy franchises. One of the reasons given for the special representation of Universities is that in past days the franchise was more restricted than it is now, and that the present system gives a vote to many who would not otherwise have one. That reason has now entirely disappeared because in these days every capable citizen has the franchise. We are also told that these University seats provide an entrance to this House for certain personages who might not otherwise easily get seats. We know perfectly well that in these days no person of distinction who goes the right way to work can fail to obtain admission to this House. There is also the sentimental defence to deal with. The sentimental ideal has such an arcadian charm of simplicity about it that if the ideal were carried into practice, men would not he readily found to disturb such an arrangement. The ideal is that the ordinary, rough mass of the fighting politicians should be leavened with something of the sweetness and light that comes from the higher culture, and that a certain number of Gentlemen in this House should be kept apart from the rough work of ordinary politics, but should come down occasionally from their Olympian heights of calm contemplation to instruct us on special questions, and that they should he a sort of assessors in matters of Art, Literature, and Science. That is a very charming ideal, but it is just a little bit too fragile and delicate for use in this rough and practical world of ours. I think the day has rather gone past for what we may call lofty and independent political isolation. Constituencies in these days prefer to be represented by strong party men, and distrust indepen-

    1771
    dent politicians. It often seems to me that the University members must be placed on the horns of a dilemma if they try to carry out the ideal scheme by indulging in the erratic pedestrian exercise of going first into one Lobby and then into the other. They are apt to get into trouble with their constituents if they refrain from voting on important occasions, and still more so if they do not vote on Party lines. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) was the type and ideal of a University representative. He did not take much part, when a University member in ordinary political discussions, but contented himself with treating questions of science and education, on which he was an acknowledged expert. Well, towards the end of the Parliament of 1884 he got a very plain intimation from his constituents—in fact a warning that he had better clear out and make room for a gentleman who would, physically at all events, fill the seat more effectually. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) is also a good type of University representative. I read in the papers that a large and representative body of his constituents came to him here the other day and remonstrated with him upon his procedure respecting the Irish Question in this House. We have here also another very distinguished man, whom I am proud to see here to-night and whom we are, I think, all proud to sit in the House with—the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Professor Stokes), a gentleman of high scientific distinction and who is no doubt in many respects a highly qualified and almost an ideal University member. On turning to Dod, I find that he is a Conservative, but represents the University rather than any Party. At the same time, I learn that he is opposed to Home Rule and the Disestablishment of the Church and that he expresses opinions on several other important Party questions. If the hon. Gentleman thinks he can take an independent part in politics, I would ask him to come over to this side of the House and give an independent vote just for once. I would recommend him to utilize the Sugar Bounties Question fur the purpose. Now I would mention two other representatives. There is the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart); he is a
    1772
    man eminent in his University, but he, with all his scientific acquirements, was beaten by a man who is no doubt an admirable politician, but who ought not to have beaten our Professor in competition for University representation. Still worse was the case of Professor Munro, a distinguished educational authority, but he was beaten by an excellent politician, but a purely Party man, having no claim to any distinction of any kind. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has told us, these University seats are fought on purely Party grounds and held by purely Party men, and so it has come to this that they are nothing more or less than pocket boroughs belonging to the Tory Party. I do not want to say anything offensive, but they have become what I may call refugees for the destitute in this way: that when a Party politician of distinction—they are all men of distinction—holds an office under Government, it is very important that he should have a seat in the House, and when the prospect of this is very bare the Government find an open door to the House through a University and pop him securely into the seat. Another pernicious custom has grown up. In two of these seats—Dublin, and Edinburgh and S. Andrews —a very objectionable principle of hereditary succession has been established, succession, I mean, not of individuals, but of officials. For what happens? When a law officer of the Crown in Ireland is unable to find a seat elsewhere he finds a door opened for him in the Dublin University. And so, also, I am sitting opposite a very valued friend of mine, whom I am glad to see in the House, but I am bound to say that if a University door had not been flung open to him he would have lost the opportunity of sitting among us tonight. I say, therefore, these are pocket boroughs for the Tory Party, and in these two cases have become hereditary seats for certain classes of Government officials. In trenching a little upon personal considerations, I speak with some hesitation; but, looking at the question in a practical manner, these University representatives are supposed to sit in the House for the purpose of guiding and instructing us in matters of education, science, and other questions of that kind, a little outside or separate from ordinary Party

    1773
    and political questions. Now, we have had debates lately on educational subjects and one on vaccination, but I did not get from University Representatives on those occasions that "light and leading" we might have expected from those Gentlemen. To whom do we go when we want information on such matters? Not to University Members, but to the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir H. Roscoe) and the right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), and others on this side, who, when occasion offers, come forward and give us the information we are sorely in need of. My hon. Friend has anticipated me on one point I intended to bring forward, and he has done it much better than I could. Why single out the Universities for this particular form of political representation? If Universities, why not the great public schools of Eton, Harrow, and Rugby? The Royal Academy has been mentioned, and I am sure we should be all the better for listening to the polished eloquence of Sir Frederick Leighton; and the College of Physicians, and I am sure Sir Andrew Clark would be a great addition to our debates. I cannot understand why the Universities were picked out for this special form of representation when other public bodies have no such recognition. My hon. Friend has referred to another anomaly. Of course, the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin are great and important institutions, but there is not much work done by either of these towards popular education. My own University of Edinburgh does a great deal more of the ordinary educational work among the people—the masses, not the classes—but Edinburgh gets half a seat, while oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin have two seats each. Another point is that which I recollect the hon. Member for Stockton put in the former debate, and he did it very effectively. I wish I could recollect his words. He said it was impossible for anyone who represented these old Universities as Members to represent the living University—that is to say, the actual working body, the very small, very consolidated University life—for that has no power in the election. It is overborne by the great mass of outsiders, the clergy and others, who vote, not knowing the wants and wishes of the University—gentlemen whose original
    1774
    connection with the University was very slight, and who are now out of touch with their Anna Mater, having little knowledge or interest in the matter. There is no healthy political life in these elections; they are simply worked by wirepullers, and the caucus who issues instructions how to vote on sheer Party lines. A few instances were given by the hon. Member for Stockton, and Professor Stuart is a practical instance of selected candidate of the living body of the University, the actual teaching and organizing workers, but whose candidature was simply overborne by the inert votes of outsiders, sent up with very little knowledge of, or interest in, what was going on. My hon. Friend has spoken so clearly and so ably on this question that I do not propose to weary the House with more remarks. To sum up and recapitulate my objections to this old form of fancy franchise in our present system, it is a mischievous anachronism, and any reason that formerly existed for the retention of these seats has passed with the lapse of time; these seats do not carry out even the most sentimental or any of the reasons upon which they were originally founded, for the right class of men are not sent to the House, they are simply worked on Party lines, and the necessity for these seats has disappeared; and finally the gentlemen elected cannot be said in any way to represent the real living and working University. On these grounds I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion, and I hope that, at all events from this side, we shall have a large and solid vote in favour of the abolition of an antiquated and worn out system.
    *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLIN,): I hope it will not be thought presumptuous if I, the latest recruit to the ranks of University Members, desire to say a few words before the hon. and learned Gentleman succeeds in persuading the House to pronounce upon us a sentence of death. No man can be more aware than I am that my right hon. and honourable colleagues in the representation of Universities possess personal qualifications for defending our position to which I can lay no claim. Some have high academic distinction, others have

    1775
    a great Parliamentary position; all have rendered signal service to the cause of education. I can lay claim to none of these qualifications; and I do lay claim to nothing but this, which I hold in common with all Members of this House, the desire to render faithful service to the constituency which has done me the honour to send me here. There is something perhaps peculiarly embarrassing in my own personal position, because this Motion to-night has been proposed by one of my constituents and seconded by another; and my only consolation is that of these hon. Gentlemen are of opinion that I ought not to represent the Universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen, they are equally strongly of opinion that nobody else should. I must return thanks to the hon. and learned men of Dundee because he has gone so far as to express a hope that I may continue to represent him in the next Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen has played the part of the candid friend by saying that if I had not obtained my present seat, I would not have obtained anyother. Well, I will not argue with him on that point. All I will say is that I owe my seat to the kindness and forbearance of 5,000 members of his own profession. But all these personal questions are really of comparatively small moment, because I take it that this is a question which ought to be decided on principle, and not upon the personal merits or demerits of those who happen for the time being to be representatives of the Universities. Now, I think I am entitled to say that this is not a practical proposal It is an abstract Resolution, and it is an abstract Resolution not intended to be immediately followed by legislation, and for which there is no popular demand. I venture to think that the two hon. Gentlemen on the other side have not taken to heart the doctrine frequently propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, reiterated not long ago in this House, that abstract Resolutions are things to be deprecated, and that you ought not to invite the people to live on your promises rather than on your performances. I venture to think that not only is it a Resolution open to this objection, but it is one for which there is no hint or sign of popular demand.
    1776
    I observe it has not as yet attained the dignity of being comprised in the list of questions set out in the handbook of political subjects by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton), although that most useful treatise runs down the whole gamut of political science—from Home Rule to cremation. I should even doubt if the constituents of the hon. Member for Dundee have any very strong opinion on the question; for the City of Dundee, I am glad to think, will in all probability very shortly become intimately associated with the most ancient University of Scotland. and I should think the people of Dundee would not regard this as a very opportune time for making an attack upon the position and influence of Universities. There is this further objection to the Resolution, that there are not at the present time any constituencies knocking at the door of Parliament and clamouring for these nine seats which the hon. Member is asking the House to take away. Indeed, the hon. Member is sensible of this, and does not propose to allocate these nine seats at all. The hon. Member apparently hopes to make a great revolution in the condition of Parliament and to advance its business by reducing the number of its Members by nine, but I rather fancy that if all he is going to do is to strike out the nine Members for the Universities, he will not do much in that direction, for I rather think that whatever may be our other shortcomings, we are not particularly talkative, and in this Session at all events have not done much to obstruct that business which the hon. Member and his friends are so anxious to forward. But I have no wish to shelter myself under the plea that the time for making this proposal is inopportune. The case of the representation of Universities from a Parliamentary point of view seems to me to be absolutely unique in its strength. Not merely has it the sanction of great antiquity; it has also the sanction of recent and deliberate enactment. The hon. Member gave the House the outlines of its history, and gave them, I think, correctly. But after all, what does it come to? The representation of the English Universities is about 300 years old; that of Dublin about the same. In 1832 a Liberal Government confirmed the

    1777
    principle of University representation by restoring one of the Members to Dublin University. Then in 1868 a Conservative Government, with the approbation of the Liberal Party, conferred representation upon the Universities of Scotland and of London, and in 1885 both political parties deliberately united in preserving that state of matters. Now, can anything be stronger than that? Is it not idle for the hon. Member to talk of some original flaw by which this representation was set up? Can you go back upon an original flaw to which no objection has been made during a period of 300 years? If lapse of time will not satisfy hon. Gentlemen, surely they will bow to the decrees of Parliament, and confess that a representation that survived the reforms of 1832, of 1868, and again of 1885, has as strong a Parliamentary position as any question can have? But I am quite ready to accept the ground the hon. Gentleman has taken up and to oppose the argument he has presented on its merits. I do not propose to defend the representation of Universities merely on the ground that it benefits the Universities themselves. I think there can be no doubt it does benefit the Universities; but I think I may also say without contradiction that if it has been of benefit to them, they have used their advantage with signal moderation, for University Representatives have never claimed more than their fair share of the time and attention of Parliament, and, what is still more important, they have never attempted to dip deep into the National purse. There is no country in the world where Universities receive less support from the State than here. The great Universities of England do not ask any State support at all; and the Universities of Scotland, which unfortunately have very scanty endowments of their own, are subsidized to an extent that such countries as Germany and Holland would consider altogether insignificant. Therefore, I say that if the Universities have derived benefit from Parliamentary representation, they have used their advantage with moderation and fairness. But I desire to base the cause I am upholding on the advantage not to the Universities, but to the Nation at large, and I say it is for the good of the Nation at large that there should be some variety in the representation of the
    1778
    people. I say, moreover, that this principle of variety has always been found in the Constitution, and is a necessary principle, if Parliament is to be the mirror of the Nation, if it is truly to represent all the great interests of which the Nation is composed. This great principle was formerly attained by a difference in the size of the constituencies, and now it is secured by a difference in their composition. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I say to him surely the effect of your single Member districts, which were established with the assent of both parties, is to produce that variety which is essential to the working of our political system. In one district there is a preponderating representation of manufacturing industry, in another of agriculture, in another of commerce, and nobody has any objection to make to that. I suppose no man is bold enough to challenge the great advantage which is derived by the State from the representation of the City of London? Yet the City of London is, as everybody knows, mainly composed of the great merchants of this country. When you have great classes or interests aggregated in particular localities, it is easy to apply the principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman says is the ruling principle of the Constitution as it now stands. But it is impossible to apply that principle of locality to the great professional classes. They are scattered all over the country; they are always and everywhere in the minority, and if you want to arrive at their mind on a particular question, it is impossible to group them as you group the merchants of the City of London, or the artisans of the East-end, or the agriculturalists of Wiltshire; and therefore the only way to get at their real mind on public questions is by some such expedientas University representation. Well, then, the answer is made that you do not require special representation, because you have the professional classes, the interests of education, of literature, of science, sufficiently represented by other Members of this House who do not directly represent these interests but who are eminent in various walks of intellectual effort. I admit that to the full; I admit it with pride and pleasure, and I should be exceedingly sorry as a University representative if we had not the benefit, as I believe we have, of the

    1779
    filial devotion of University men like the hon. Member for South Manchester, and the distinguished scientist who preceded me in the representation of the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's, the right hon. Member for South Leeds. I believe that all these Gentlemen, although they do not happen to represent a University, do regard their University with as much devotion, with as great and as warm an interest, as if they did. But then that is not the point, because it is surely an advantage that you should have a certain number of Members in the House who are specially charged with the duty of looking after the interests of education, of science, of literature, and of the professional classes, and whenever you want to ascertain what is the real mind of these classes on the great questions of the day you look not to the chance representatives of science and literature who may happen to sit in Parliament, but you look, as you are entitled to look, to the chosen representatives of these interests in the House. My hon. Friend who seconded the Resolution seemed to complain that Universities did not select their representatives on purely academic grounds. In this particular he was rather in conflict with the mover of the Resolution, but whatever might be the case in peaceful times, I think it is vain to expect in a time like the present, when the country is absorbed in one particular question, that these constituencies should renounce their duty as citizens, and not do as others do and record their vote on the leading question of the day. It is idle to complain of them on that account, and, therefore, we return to this, that if it is desirable to ascertain the mind of these classes at all, you can only do it by some such means as University representation. Now I am tempted to ask what have Universities done to deserve this condemnation? It is quite clear that the Scottish Universities at all events are exempt from many of the charges brought by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The constituencies of the Scottish Universities' are large; they consist of all graduates, who are admitted to the constituency without payment of any kind —except a small charge which really has nothing to do with registration—and they at all events are not open to the charge of being in any way exclusive or aristo-
    1780
    cratic. No man who knows the Scottish Universities as the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Motion does can fail to know that it is very often from the cottage on the hillside, from the back shop in the village street, that the students come, and he and I know with what pluck and perseverance and under what tremendous difficulties they push forward through their academic career, and at last are able to rise to positions of honour and distinction. These men form that very middle class which the Liberal Party used never to be tired of holding up to admiration. Is it altogether wise of the Radical Party to direct public attention to the fact that the middle class has turned against them? The Universities have, I admit, committed the unpardonable sin in the eyes of the hon. and learned Member of disagreeing with him and agreeing with the majority of the householders of this country, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone that the House is gravely asked to pronounce upon them a sentence of condemnation. I venture to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, and those who think with him, another question. I suppose they agree that these are times when education is not only much more widely diffused and more highly thought of than it used to be, but that it is also a time when education is becoming of vital importance to the future of this country, and I ask is it wise at such a time to do anything to discourage or depreciate education in the eyes of the country? I say it is impossible, if the House passes a Resolution of this kind, to avoid flouting and contemning the cause of education, because the moment you strike a blow at the strength and prosperity of the Universities you strike a blow at that which Universities embody and represent. Sir, I venture to base my defence of University representation not merely upon the ancient usage of the realm, but on the broad ground of public policy. I say that this proposal is retrograde and Philistine, and I ask the House to reject it.
    *MR. HALDANE: It was not my intention to take any part in this discussion until I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. There were certain statements in that speech which, I think deserve a word of notice from a Scottish Member, who like myself

    1781
    is connected with the Scottish Universities. The hon Gentleman has just told us that opposition to University representation is an opposition which must call in question the influence of that middle class which he accuses us of not sufficiently regarding. He says that the middle class from which the University constituencies are recruited, is a class which has turned against the Liberal Party, and he warns us to take note of the attitude of this class towards us. Well, I think we on this side of the House can take care of ourselves in this regard. But if it were necessary to comment on the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman that comment is to be discovered in his own statement made in the earlier portion of his speech, that he owes his own election not to the middle class in Scotland, not to the sons of shepherds and other people who have been able to give their children a University education, but to 5,000 members of the medical profession, the bulk of whom reside on this side of the Tweed. That was the argument by which the hon. and learned Gentleman meets the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson). Now what is this University representation—what is this education, and this science, and literature and art of which we have heard so much to-night? Of this flower of the House collected on the benches before us four sit as Members of the Government. These representatives of education and literature and science and art, whom we have not only the advantage of listening to, but of constantly seeing before us, are the Postmaster General, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland—for whose powers I have the greatest admiration, but whose ability to secure a constituency north of the border other than a University contituency, I very much doubt—and who so far as I am aware, is not especially connected with academic interests either on this or the other side of the border —the right hon. Gentleman whose brilliant oratory it delights us all to listen to on those rare occasions when he favours the House with a speech, the senior Member for the University of Dublin—a gentleman of great eloquence, but not in the cause of science, and great culture, but not specially representative of literature,
    1782
    and connected with that minority in Ireland which can only find a refuge in the University—and the Solicitor General for Ireland, whom we are glad to see here and to listen to when he favours us with his legal lore, but whose speeches I am bound to say I have listened to in vain to discover in them those references to science, art, and literature which we are told the right hon. Gentleman represents. Suppose we go a little further. There are nine Members who represent Universities. Two of these, and two only, can be said to represent University subjects. There is the hon. Gentleman who represents London University (Sir J. Lubbock), and who at the same time so brilliantly represents science; and there is the hon. Gentleman who sits opposite (Professor Stokes), one of the most distinguished mathematicians whom this country has ever produced. But even two swallows do not a make a summer, and the characteristic of University education in these days is to present to Parliament less and less of that element we should desire to see if there are to be University representatives. It would be idle for me standing as I do on this side of the House to say that I do not approach this question with a considerable amount of Party bias. It is a fact, and a painful fact, that the representation of the Universities has been a representation, which in late years has been more and more adverse to the interests of the Radical Party. There was, I think, up to 1885 one University Member who sat and steadily voted with us —I mean the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, but he afterwards left us for reasons I am not here to discuss. What is a University? A University consists of the teachers, lecturers, heads of colleges, and—but not for voting purposes—of the undergraduates. If they were to be enfranchised it is impossible to say what change would take place. But the House has declared against it, and the result is that the representation of the Universities is in the hands of the graduates of a certain class. We have, for instance, five or six thousand non-resident clergymen who have nothing to do with the Universities except that they are entitled to send in their votes from time to time to return representatives to this House. These gentlemen possessed an exceptional privilege in the mode in

    1783
    which they vote through the post, and the result of the system on which University Members are returned—a system which would not be tolerated anywhere else—has been that the University representatives play, not to the University, but to the gallery of their constituents. They play to the Tory Party and the Carlton Club, whose nominees they are in large measure. I do not complain of that, but let them not come and tell the House of Commons that the Members of Parliament so sent represent science and literature and art, or fulfil anything that may be legitimately described as an academic function. One has only to look at the history of this matter to see how completely it has failed in its purpose. Whatever may have been the case in times past, we have learned that the only basis upon which representation in this country can be justified is the basis of democracy, and that fact must be faced in its full consequences. The principle of University representation stands condemned on two grounds. In the first place, it is contrary to the principle which the House of Commons has recognized and has acted upon. The Solicitor General for Scotland told the House a few moments ago that the principle of University representation was sanctioned as recently as 1885. I had not the honour of a seat in this House at that time, but I have a vivid recollection of the discussion that took place. I remember the speech of Sir Charles Dilke; and what did he say? He said he was heart and soul with the spirit of the Motion, and he condemned the principle of University representation as indefensible. Then there was the famous speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who did not defend the principle of University representation or say that it was to be preserved because it carried with it the representation of a special interest which deserved special consideration. On the contrary he pointed out that to amend the Bill as suggested would be to do something not within the scope of the Redistribution Bill of 1885, and to violate the agreement come to with the opposition and the House of Lords—which was as good as saying that if the Bill was to pass it should pass on the basis of the representation being retained, which was the lesser of these two great evils. But it is not alone on
    1784
    principle that this proposition stands. It stands also on practice, because we have seen over and over again that the University representation has become not the representation of science, literature and art, but of the Tory party in its most ordinary fashion and form. These. University seats have become in England places for finding seats for Cabinet Ministers who are unable to find them elsewhere, and have become in Ireland and Scotland refuges for the destitute. Therefore there is nothing left for us on this side of the House but to vote in favour of this Motion as one embracing principles to which the Liberal Party is bound to give its warm support.
    *MR. MOWBRAY: Though this discussion may be somewhat of an academic character it appears to me that, after all, there are other Members who have a right to speak upon it besides University Members themselves. I venture to think that the Motion affects not only the representatives of the Universities, but the constituents who send them to this House. I therefore, as a constituent of the University of Oxford, feel bound to protest against the Motion. The hon. Member who has just sat down complains of there being four University Members on the Treasury Bench. I should have thought it was an argument in favour of University representation that we are able to find four University Members sitting on the Front Bench of the House of Commons, on either side. At present I am glad to say they are on this (the Ministerial) side of the House. If this Motion is to be carried it ought to be shown that this representation is injurious, either to the constituencies themselves, to the House, or to the country; but that has not been done. As to the constituencies we have heard to-night a good deal about the difference between the resident bodies of the Universities and those who send Members to represent them. But is the hon. Member who introduced the Motion able to produce from the resident Members of any of the Universities a petition in its favour? And if there is no petition on the other side the reason is because the resident bodies apprehend no danger whatever from this attack. They are not prepared to raise their hands in self-defence until they see that they are actually exposed to some danger. We

    1785
    heard from the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion a good deal as to the anomaly of this representaion and the size of these constituencies. The hon. Member was perfectly right in saying that these constituencies are small. But it appears from a Return which I have here, and which has been presented to Parliament, that in two English and one Welsh county, in 32 English and five Welsh boroughs, the number of the constituents is smaller than in the two older English Universities. In Scotland the case is still stronger, because the Scotch Universities embrace a larger proportion of the population, and 14 counties and 12 boroughs in Scotland have a smaller number of constituents than the Scotch Universities. In Ireland one county and four boroughs have a smaller number of constituents than the Dublin University. I think that disposes of the argument as to the size of the constituencies. If we were discussing the question upon the basis of anomalies there are other anomalies which could be shown to exist. When the Redistribution Bill of 1885 was going through, Sir C. Dilke admitted that Ireland had more Members in proportion to her population than England, and that Wales had more Members than Ireland. If we are to deal with anomalies we must deal with the question all round. We have been very much pressed with the argument of one man, one vote. But it should be remembered that that principle has not been adopted in the House or in the country, and if it were it does not follow that persons who have a University Vote would not desire to retain it, and to vote in their present constituencies in preference to any other. As to the effect of University representation upon the House, I will only say this. If the House were to vote by ballot to the nine Members whom in its own interest it would wish to see excluded, the nine University Members would not, I think, be the first to be excluded. No doubt all University Members cannot be presidents of the Royal Society, or address the jubilee meeting of the British Association, but it is something that two out of the nine have reached such distinction. But, after all, the principle upon which this question was to be decided is not the interests of the Universities, or the interests of the House, but the interests of the country.
    1786
    I entirely agree with the remark of the Solicitor General for Scotland as to the importance of the element of variety in the constituencies. We have attempted to get that variety by the system of single-membered constituencies, but in carrying that principle out we are running into another great danger. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Aberdeen in the House, because I am going to refer to a book of the hon. Gentleman's which is a storehouse of facts and a treasure house of experience. In his Book on the American Commonwealth, the hon. Member refers to the deterioration of representation in America, owing to the pressure of local considerations. Happily we have not suffered from that in this country up to the present, but everyone knows that local considerations in the choice of Members are becoming greater and greater every day. One of the great values of University constituencies is that they form an element in this House not necessarily confined to local connections. That, sir, is to my mind an additional argument, derived from our experience of foreign countries, why we should maintain the existing system under which the Universities are represented in this House. But though we have heard to-night a good many plausible arguments against this system, I think the hon. Member who opened the debate and the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House have "let the cat out of the bag." They have shown that they approached this question in a spirit of political bias, because they have told us that the Universities return a solid body of Unionist representatives No doubt it is very annoying to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this should be so, and probably it is all the more so because for the last twenty years or so they have been doing everything they could to throw the doors of the Universities open wider and wider by abolishing tests and encouraging the middle classes to seek the benefits of a University education. and now, notwithstanding all that has been done during the whole of that period, I venture to say there never was a time when a candidate supporting the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) would have had so poor a chance as at the present moment of being returned for either the Universities.

    1787
    This is doubtless very annoying to the hon. Member opposite and his friends, and I cannot but think that in this respect, as in many others, the hon. Gentleman has forfeited or changed his old Liberal principles and doctrines. If the hon. Gentleman had been true to his old Liberal traditions he would have proposed to win the University seats by argument and not to destroy them by what used to be considered the old Tory weapon of force. But it is because the hon. Member and those who sit by him know that the spirit of educated intelligence in the country is in favour of the Unionist cause that the hon. Member is so very anxious, if he cannot win nine seats by argument, at all events to cut off by one stroke nine Members who sit on the other side of the House.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I shall not stand between the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan) and the House, but I hope that under the circumstances the House will allow me to say a few words in reply to the Resotion, for although the University Members are naturally interested in this matter, I think they may at the same time be allowed to bring forward such arguments upon it as they think may have weight with the House. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Resolution referred to the origin of University representation as surreptitious. Whatever may have been the case with regard to the old Universities, although I do not wish to be supposed to admit the allegation, this certainly does not apply to the University of London and the Scotch Universities, which owe their seats to the deliberate decision of the House. The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the size of the University constituencies and although upon that point it is hardly necessary for me to say anything, as that argument has been destroyed by the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Mowbray). If not among the largest, the University constituencies are certainly far from being the smallest, and if the lesser constituencies are to be disfranchised, the Universities have very little to fear from the result, as it would certainly be some time before we came to them. But my hon. Friend has asked, if the Universities are represented why should not other academical bodies be represented also—why should not the colleges be represented. But the hon.
    1788
    Gentleman seems to forget that the colleges are represented through the Universities. For instance, University College and a great many other colleges are represented through the University of London, while the whole of the Scotch and Irish Colleges are represented in a similar way. Who are the voters at the Universities? They are the graduates. But this is complained of by my hon. Friend, who made it a grand accusation that those who vote in respect of the Universities are the graduates of the Universities. The colleges prepare the graduates for the Universities, and those who study with success and distinction at the colleges, go on and take their degrees at the Universities, for which they then become electors. It is the same with regard to the College of Physicians and the other great colleges; a large proportion of their members obtain representation through the Universities. Then the hon. Gentleman complained that the University Members had gone over to the Unionist Party. [Mr. ROBERTSON: No.] The hon. Gentleman says he did not complain of that, but, at any rate, it was one of the reasons he gave in support of his Motion.
    MR. ROBERTSON: I mentioned it as a regrettable fact. I am quite sure the hon. Baronet does not desire to misrepresent me.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: Whether the hon. Gentleman used it as an argument or merely stated it as a fact I deny it. I say that we have not gone over to the Unionist Party, because we have always belonged to that Party, and belong to it still. It is not we who have gone away and deserted our party, it is our friends who have gone away and deserted us. Then, Sir, my hon. Friend said the University Members had no special connection with the Universities they represent. That certainly does not hold good as a general statement. I may be allowed to say that I have been on the Senate of the University of London for nearly a quarter of a century, and that I was for several years its Vice-Chancellor. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge again is intimately connected with that University. It is, moreover, a mistake to say that the Universities are all Tory. Certainly not a quarter of my constituents are Tories, though an overwhelming

    1789
    majority are Unionists. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman spoke with some contempt of the University constituencies as being composed of lawyers, doctors, schoolmasters and clergymen. I have yet to learn that a constituency is any the worse for being so composed. Surely it is not undesirable to have in this House a few Members whose special function it is to keep in touch with those professions in order to represent their wants and opinions. We have Members of this House who represent constituencies that are mainly composed of miners, and others whose constituents are mainly agricultural or commercial; and in fact it may be said that most of the occupations in which the people are engaged have their representatives in this House. So that when the hon. Member says that the University constituencies are mainly composed of lawyers, clergymen, doctors, and schoolmasters, I cannot regard that as a valid argument against University representation. Another argument brought forward was that it sometimes happens that the Government find a difficulty for the moment in finding a seat for a distinguished man whom they wish to put into the Ministry, and that they employ the Universities for this purpose. I do not remember many instances of the kind, but even if there be such cases I cannot help thinking that that is an argument for retaining seats which can occasionally be put to such a useful purpose. The hon. Member for Haddington has lastly, objected to University seats as contrary to the spirit of democracy; but it is not contrary to democracy in the true sense, but to that narrow, unfortunate, and mistaken ideal which in the history of the world has so often brought democracy to discredit and to failure.
    *SIR G. TREVELYAN, who rose together with Mr. W. Redmond, who, however, gave way: I am sorry to stand between an Irish Member and the House [Ministerial cheers]—well, I suppose those are University manners. I am sorry to stand between an Irish Member and the House, because on this question the majority of the people of Ireland suffer specially. The hon. Member for London University told us we are mistaken in thinking that men belonging to certain colleges are not represented, because they are represented by the Universities to which the colleges are affiliated. That
    1790
    is very true of this country, where a large number of isolated colleges are represented through the London University; but it is not true of Ireland. One of the great grievances of Ireland is that the University which is the special University of the religion to which the enormous majority of the people belong has no Parliamentary representation whatever. The Solicitor General for Scotland, in what I believe to be his first speech on a general political question, has shown us that in his case we have a very real addition to the debating power of the House. He has put forward all the arguments in favour of University representation. He has put their case forward fairly and ably; he has made the best of it: and a poor case it is. But, first, he objected that this is an abstract Resolution, forgetting that abstract Resolutions have preceded legislation on many subjects, including electoral reform, the ballot, the lodger franchise, and the redistribution of seats. It need not be feared but that in this case, too, the passing of an abstract Resolution will be followed by legislation. At any rate, the Opposition desire to take the sense of the House, because for special reasons the Division of 1885 did not represent the collective sense of the House. It was one of the objects of an abstract Resolution to put arguments before the country and to create a popular demand; and that demand already existed so far as evidence was furnished by the meetings that Members of the Opposition were in the habit of addressing. Of course I do not affirm that that is the experience of hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches. This I maintain to be the clearest use of privilege which exists; it is plural voting in an obtrusive and unadulterated form. In other cases plural voters are scattered about the constituencies; but here you have nine constituencies consisting of plural voters. Every one of these electors has a vote for the constituency in which he lives, but in addition to that he has a second vote for his University, and sometimes for a University in which he has not resided. In one of the Scotch Universities there are a thousand voters who have not been educated there, but who, simply by paying fees, have obtained a fagot vote. This is privilege. A plural vote at the University is worth a great deal more than a plural vote else-

    1791
    where. The plural vote is chiefly exercised in the counties, where there are on the average about 9,500 voters to every Member, whereas in the Universities there are 34,000 electors and nine seats —that is to say, one member for 3,800 electors. But the Scotch Universities have between them 15,000 electors with only two seats, so that in the English and Irish Universities there are seven seats to 19,000 electors—that is to say, one Member to 2,700 voters. The plural vote in one of the Universities is equal in value to three or four times the plural vote anywhere else. Then plural voters in other constituencies — with the exception of Hornsey, I believe, where voters who have property in the City can vote at the Guildhall—have to take the trouble to go and give their votes; but the University voter, if only he can get within reach of a British Justice of the Peace, may sign his voting paper and vote quite comfortably. Plural voting is a great abuse, and the mode of voting for Universities, which I have described, is a great injustice to other classes of voters. Members for the Universities are sent to Parliament to discuss Bills which refer to the Universities. Has it been of advantage in the past to have University members to discuss Bills restating to the Universities? The most important Bill affecting the Universities is that which threw them open to all the citizens of the country, whatever faith they professed; and against that Bill all the University Members voted. That was the result of having privilege. Then University Members opposed the abolition of slavery, the reform of Parliaments, Catholic emancipation, and other great measures which were approved by both sides of the House, and which the whole country agree to have been measures but for the passing of which the country would have been in a much worse position. Now, Sir, the abuse of having these University seats has been very much aggravated of late years. There really was a great deal to be said for them at the beginning of this century, when a great number of Members were returned to Parliament by very small constituencies of 15 or 20 electors, who were absolutely in the pocket of one man. There may have been 170 Members returned by such constituencies in those days, and it was therefore a good thing
    1792
    to have constituencies which, like the-Universities, had a public opinion of their own. I do not hesitate to say that, if Scotland were in the same condition as she was before the passing of the Reform Act, if there were only 1,500 voters in the Scotch counties and only 1,200 in the Scotch boroughs, I should be very glad to have Members allotted to the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. But now the whole-country is cut up into districts each of which has a public opinion of its own, and the reason for maintaining the University constituencies has vanished. Again, constituencies in olden days were very impure; an enormous amount of expenditure was required to get into Parliament—of even what was called legitimate expenditure, while there was still more illegitimate expenditure. In those days, then, it was something to have a constituency which was not susceptible to bribery—at any rate in the coarser form. In those days there may have been some inducement for the Members of a University to vote for a. Minister for the sake of what he could get, but the constituents at any rate were pure. And though perhaps every constituency in the country now is not thoroughly pure, yet, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman who sits on my left (Sir Henry James), much improvement has been effected in that direction, and I shall always feel the deepest gratitude towards him for his labours in the cause of electoral purity, labours given with an amount of energy and minute industry and enthusiasm such as is generally only given to one's personal affairs. There is now, then, no necessity to keep up the University constituencies on the grounds that they are exceptionally pure. Again, in olden days the University constituency was in many respects, superior; it was a self-contained community in which the men who voted lived together, exchanged their views, had common objects and had individual opinions about their Members. Those were the days in which men were elected for other reasons than that they belonged to a given party. In the course of this debate allusion has been made to St. John's College. I think with respect to that famous College, it cannot be called an average College—I mean St. John's, Cambridge.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: My reference was to St. John's, Oxford.
    *SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: Well, I remember that when Lord Palmerston was a young man, although he did not take honours degree at Cambridge—he could not, being a nobleman—yet two years running he came out at the head of St. John's in the annual examination. When he stood for Parliament he was elected for three reasons. In the first place he got the votes of the Whigs. In the next he was a man of fashion, and he therefore induced other young men, who were masters of art in London, to come down and vote for him; and in the third place he was a Johnian. He was therefore said to be returned by the Dandies, Johnians, and Whigs. St. John's was a strong Tory College, but the Johnians had in those days a patriotic feeling for their College which was stronger than even their feeling for their Party. But in these days, if a young man distinguishes himself in his college, if he prove the most able and most eloquent of men, he would not have the slightest chance of being returned to Parliament unless he belonged to one particular Party in the State. The Solicitor General for Scotland, ignoring this fact, has suggested -that what we want in this House is variety, and to have that he says we must keep up the Universities, while, as my hon. Friend behind me has pointed out, these seats are looked upon as useful on each side of the House as affording constituencies for Members of the Government who have been unable to get elected elsewhere. Now I consider that these defences of University seats are opposed to each other. Why should the Government, on one side of the House, always be able to seat a Minister or Law Officer, while we on this side of the House are forbidden to do that, because you will not grant Parliamentary representation to the three Methodist training Colleges? The defence which has been running all through this debate breaks down. It is not the case that University members are different from other Members in this House. People talk as if University Members were a class apart; as if they were something to wise and good for human nation's daily food. Why after all they are men of the world in the right sense of the word. and they make most excellent candidates for any constituency. Just look opposite, for instance, at the right hon. Gentlemen the junior Member for Cam-
    1794
    bridge and the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunkett), whom any constituency of their political views would be proud to elect. Nor can it be said that it is the University Members who pre-eminently devoted themselves in this House to the question of education, or are specially consulted on these matters. I wonder whom the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale consulted when he was specially interested in the subject of technical education. Do you want special constituencies to return men who have the cause of education at heart when you have such men as the hon. Member for Rotherham, for Aberdeen, and for South Manchester, or on the other side of the House the hon. Members for North Wiltshire and for Blackpool. Other constituencies besides the Universities are glad to get men of high education if they can to represent their opinions. Look, for instance, at the representation of Leeds. The commercial centre of Leeds is represented by five Members, sitting on both sides of this House, who are admirable specimens of practical ability and culture. Read the list and see how this great place of commerce returns a veritable galaxy of cultivated and able men. I do not think it is necessary to keep up these privileged constituencies. I do not think that Universities profit by their representation. I support the motion on the ground of electoral justice as against privilege, and because the representation of the Universities is unfair to the country at large. Nor can I forget how educational reforms have been retarded, and educational abuses kept up by the Universities in which men do not stand up as they ought, side by side, for educational interests, but are divided as much as elsewhere by political differences. Equality is the only principle which should be applied in electoral matters, and I hope that all Members who are pledged to that principle will vote fen the Resolution, and show that the University seats are moribund and condemned.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. H. C. RAIKES,): I think, perhaps, that this debate has hardly realized the expectations which were formed, for the speeches which have been delivered, although interesting, have not added very much

    1795
    to the information previously possessed by Members. But my right hon. Friend who last spoke never speaks without adding to our information; he always contributes something which, if it does not bear scrutiny, at any rate amuses the House, I am sure that the House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for having inspired some life into the debate. I cannot, however, but feel a little grudge against my right hon. Friend in respect of his reference to Lord Palmerston, because he clearly indicated a possible candidate for Cambridge at the next election. When my right hon. Friend said that Lord Palmerston was supported by the Whigs, dandies, and Johnians, I feared that he was stirring some little ambition in the breast of the Chairman of Committees. I, therefore, personally enter a caveat against that embarrassing suggestion. I make no objection to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I had expected some fresher contribution to our knowledge of the subject. The hon. Member pointed out that the representation was created in the reign of James I., and cited the charter as requiring that the Members elected should be men skilled in the Imperial laws. That certainly was a new point in this discussion, and I think the charter showed a disposition on the part of the King and Government when it was granted to give to the University representation a wider and more general character than had commonly been attributed to it. Then in 1867 three new University seats were created, because the Liberal Party deemed them a set off to the dominance of the other Party in University representation. The hon. Member quoted Mr. John Bright as being unfavourable to to these additional seats. I think it very probable that this was so, because Mr. Bright opposed giving a seat to the University of Durham, and the hon. Member admitted that it was an illiberal proceeding on the part of the Liberal Party to oppose the granting of a seat to Durham. Now I come to the four grounds on which the hon. Member for Dundee supported his Resolution. He first said that it would be a good thing to reduce the number of Members by nine. That might be so, but it does not follow that the reduction should be at the expense of the Universities. The hon. Member has been good enough to say in regard
    1796
    to the Irish question, that the necessity of a reduction in our numbers is apparent. Probably it occurred to many Members at the time that if a reduction is to be made, it would be to Ireland that it ought to be applied. Then the hon. Member said that the representation of the Universities had never received the sanction of Parliament. I should have thought that the prescription of nearly three centuries was sufficient sanction. We have, during the last quarter of a century, had the express recognition given by Parliament to University representation. I refer to the Reform Settlement of 1867. We have heard something about the number of University constituencies, and attention has been called to other constituencies less numerous. But, Sir, although the actual number may be as low as that given, yet the graduates represent a larger body of persons who, had they chosen to taken the trouble, might have been added to the constituencies of the respective Universities. It is not too much to say that the 6,000 electors of Oxford or Cambridge represent not less than 30,000 persons who might have taken their degree and become electors had they chosen. Then we have had the objection to the character of the University constituencies, and have been told that the residents are not represented. I will give you no mean authority on such a matter. Oscar Browning told me that there were only 13 Home Rulers among the residents in my University. At any rate there were not more than 33, and when you remember that there are 400 or 500 residents, I think we may claim that the residents are represented by an enormous. majority. It is not because the Universities have turned their backs on the Liberal Party, but because the Liberal Party has turned its back on the Universities, that the latter have abandoned them. A few years ago the Liberal Party was in a majority in both. of the Universities so far as the residents were concerned. Then we had the reference to the clergy. If we have the clergy scattered over the country their fluence on public affairs would be nil; at least all the influence they would have would be derived from their character and calling. One of the strongest arguments that can be put forward in favour of the maintenance of University representation, is that it gives to clergymen of the Church

    1797
    of England a voice in this House that they are unable in their own persons to exercise. But I do not think the hon. Gentleman's figures with regard to the Universities at large are correct. I do not think that at the present time anything like two-thirds of the University electorate consists of clergymen. I very much doubt if half of it consists of clergymen. We know that in the University of London the clergymen form a very small minority, if indeed there are any worth counting at all as a matter of fact. If, as the lay element in the University constituency increases, the Liberal Party dwindles, it cannot be supposed that it is because of clerical influences. It is a consequence, or if it is not a consequence it is a sequence, of the Liberal legislation of the last few years that at the present moment, when the Universities have been thrown open to all classes and denominations, the Conservative feeling in the Universities is infinitely stronger than it ever was before. We have also heard that there are other bodies who are equally entitled to be represented, but I do not suppose the House wishes to go into that question now, nor do I suppose the House wishes to consider now the details of a University Reform Bill. If the argument of the hon. Member in this connection is worth anything, it is clear the Universities instead of having only nine Members ought to have a dozen and a half. The main objection which the hon. Member frankly admits he takes to University representation is that it is inconsistent with the existing basis of representation. We have no doubt accepted for the present generation a system by which the constituencies have been rendered much more uniform than in the past, but the House of Commons is not necessarily a body exactly akin to a national assembly. The House represents diverse communities and diverse interests. Although from time to time it has been found necessary and desirable to assimilate constituencies which return Members to the House, it has never been laid down that the time has come when all constituencies must be reduced to the same level, and that the representation of different interests and communities, which was the raison d'être of the House of Commons, is to be for ever obliterated. I do not believe that that is the opinion of the House of Commons and the country, and I expect we shall have a good
    1798
    many years to wait before we find that bald and naked democracy installed in the place of our ancient and mixed constitution. I pass on to the hon. and learned Gentleman's best point, which is like the postscript of the lady's letter, because probably it contains the meaning of the whole, and that is that University representation is objected to because all Members who now represent Universities are Members of the Unionist Party. This is a curious evidence of the simplicity and honesty with which the hon. Member approaches this question, and I wish that every hon. Member on these benches was as careful as the hon. Gentleman not to endeavour to mislead the House. The hon. Member has thus made it a question which it is difficult for us to argue, but at the same time he has cut away from his own arguments any basis they might otherwise have, inasmuch as he has let us know the motive principle which led to this motion being brought forward. If my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Stuart), had succeeded in obtaining the suffrages of the University of Cambridge, and had been at the present moment occupying the position which it is my privilege to enjoy, I think it is extremely probable that this Motion would never have been submitted to the House. My learned Friend is absent—he is not often absent—perhaps on this occasion he would have found some difficulty in addressing the House. Now is it not a little unreasonable for hon. Members opposite who have taken an active part in University contests, is it not ludicrous for them, because they have lost the game, to go into the Lobby to-night and vote for depriving the successful party of the fruits of a victory which they would have been only too glad to monopolize themselves I noticed in the speech of the seconder of the Motion (Dr. Farquharson), a point which deserves some consideration. The hon. Gentleman referred to the extraordinary position taken up by Sir Charles Dilke at the time the last Reform Bill was before the House. Sir Charles Dilke stated in his place in the House that he was entirely opposed to the bases of the compromise on which the Government were able to pass the Reform Bill, and was prepared to re-open the subject. I remember the painful sensation produced in the House when Sir Charles Dilke made that speech.

    1799
    Such a speech, I imagine, had never before been made by any Cabinet Minister in regard to a Cabinet Motion, and I was surprised to find the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) was candid enough to refer to it as an argument in favour of his position. Now my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Trevelyan) has said that one of the Scotch Universities admits persons to its medical degrees merely for the payment of a sum of money. I think that my right hon. Friend has been imperfectly informed on the subject. The fact is that the regulations of the University of St. Andrew's permit the degree of M.D. to be conferred upon any registered medical practitioner, who, on examination, satisfies the examiners as to the sufficiency of his medical knowledge. The number of persons allowed to obtain this particular degree is limited to ten in each year.
    *SIR G. TREVELYAN: How long has the regulation been in force?
    *MR. RAIKES: I believe for nearly 15 years.
    *SIR G. TREVELYAN: I was informed, rightly or wrongly, that there was a year of grace in which a large number of these gentlemen were admitted to the degree.
    *MR. RAIKES: I am only speaking of the constitution of the University at the present time. There may have been some abuses in the past. Another argument which my right hon. Friend was pleased to lay stress upon, was that on matters relating particularly to Universities, the Members for Universities had sometimes been found in the minority. But if so it does not at all follow that Members for Universities did not fairly represent the opinions of the Universities. It does not at all follow that if this House thought proper to make a change in the constitution of the Universities, that change was necessarily acceptable to the Universities. It is the duty of Members for Universities to represent the opinions of their constituencies, and when the House of Commons and the Universities differ, the Members for Universities are not to be blamed for doing their duty. When the Universities were last reformed, who were the Members who brought forward the Bill? The present Lord Cross, who was himself an eminent Member of the University of Cambridge, and Mr. Walpole, who was at that time
    1800
    the Member for the University of Cambridge. That I think is sufficient evidence that on matters really relating to the interests of the Universities, the Members for Universities are the very best authorities, and I trust and believe that as long as the representation continues, they will be regarded as authorities upon questions upon which it is their duty to be informed. We have been told that Members for the Universities opposed the Emancipation of Slaves, Catholic Emancipation, the great Reform Bill, and other beneficial measures. [Cheers.] It is quite true that they may have done so, but do the hon. Members who cheer remember who were the Members for the Universities in those days? Are they aware that every Prime Minister of England within the last 40 years, with the single exception of Lord Beaconsfield, who, not being a University man, was not qualified, has been a University Member? Sir Robert Peel, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and Lord Palmerston, were University Members. It is true that throughout their careers they did not continue always to represent Universities. (Opposition cheers.) Yes, I was quite prepared for that cheer. We have been told that the Universities are such slavish constituencies that you can always find a seat in them for any Minister who wants a seat, but it is a proud distinction of the Universities that, in the plentitude of their power, they have rejected three Prime Ministers. Constituencies who have returned Peel, Palmerston and Gladstone may well outlive the sneers of hon. Gentlemen whose sympathies do not carry them back beyond the last 20 years. If there is one part of the representative system which, judged from the utilitarian point of view, has rendered a good service to the country, it is the Universities, and I do not think that the real Liberal party will countenance to-day or to-morrow, or for many years to come, what seems to me an attempt to enfranchise ignorance and to disfranchise education.
    MR. W. REDMOND: It is remarkable that nobody has defended the system of University representation but the Representatives of Universities. But perhaps the most remarkable fact in this debate is the absence of any defence of the representation of Dublin University. I am not at all surprised

    1801
    that the two Gentlemen who represent Dublin University in this House should sit silently upon the Treasury Bench. I suppose they are extremely anxious that nothing should be said about that institution. And in speaking of the representation of the Dublin University, I wish to find no fault with the Gentlemen who represent that constituency, but merely wish to complain that an electorate of 4,000 in the Dublin University possess the privilege of returning two Members to this House, while all other constituences in Ireland, with vastly larger electorates, have only the power to send one Member. I desire to ask hon. Members who are prepared to argue that Universities are entitled to a certain amount of representation in this House, what argument they can advance to prove that Universities are entitled to double the representation of constituencies with vastly larger numbers of electors. The history of the Dublin University representation is an extremely curious one, and if Her Majesty's Government would be candid in the matter they would defend the representation of that institution in the House not on the ground of the University having the right to representation, but because Dublin University is the only place South of the Boyne from which the Government can get Conservative Members. The Government feel it is absolutely necessary to maintain this constituency as a hot-bed for Tories. In the name of goodness what would have become of the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) if he had not had Dublin University to supply him with the seat in this House? It would have been painful to see the hon. and learned Gentleman scouring about Ireland to see if any constituency would take pity upon him and give him a seat in order that he might hold the office which the Government has given him. University representation affects Ireland very differently to England. The Universities of England are national institutions. In England men of all positions can afford to go to the Universities, but in Ireland that is not so. Dublin University is by no means a national institution. It is, and always has been, an institution of the ascendency party. I do not wish to put the matter upon the sectarian ground, which I am sorry to see introduced in
    1802
    any debate affecting Ireland, but it must be remembered that Dublin University is an institution which the great mass of the Irish people do not support because it is monopolized to a great extent by people who hold religious opinions differing from those of the majority of the people. There is a Catholic University which is largely supported by the people, but it has not the right to send a single representative to the House of Commons. I am not in favour of either the Protestant Institution of Trinity College or of the Catholic University in Ireland, or of any University, having direct representation, but I contend that is manifestly unjust that whereas Trinity College, which is an institution which the great bulk of the Catholic people of Ireland do not utilize or patronize, has the power to send two Members to this House, the other University, which is supported by the great bulk of the people, has not the power to send a single Representative here. If University representation is good for the institution of the minority, why has it not been extended to the institution of the majority? In the opinion of nine-tenths of the Irish people the representation of Dublin University is retained simply in order to convenience the Government whenever they want to send gentlemen to this House to occupy official positions, such as that of Solicitor General for Ireland. Now, it has been said in debate that it would be a great pity if Universities were not represented in this House, and that they have special claims to that distinction. But the Solicitor General for Ireland will not, I am sure, think I wish to say anything offensive at all if I maintain that he himself cannot claim that he is in the House for the purpose of representing the culture or the education of the Irish people, or even the electorate of Trinity College, Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman is here not as the representative of University culture, he is here as the Solicitor General of the Irish Government, and it is perfectly absurd to maintain that he sits here in order that Dublin University culture may be represented in the House. The Solicitor General for Ireland, I believe, wrote an exceedingly dazzling and highly interesting pamphlet on "The Registration of Deeds and Mortgage Judgments," but I do not

    1803
    think that he himself will claim that by this achievement he received a passport or established a claim to the representation of a University. I think it would not be right for this debate to close without at least one Irish Member entering a protest against what is, after all, an absurdity and an injustice—the allowing a small knot of men the right, which elsewhere in Ireland is accorded only to the largest constituencies, of returning two Members. It is said we object to this because the University has returned Unionist Members. The University of Dublin returns two Conservative Unionists; but it may be said that the University of Dublin is the only place in that part of Ireland that returns a single Unionist; and it should be remembered, in discussing the question of the Union, that, but for this privilege given to 4,000 men in Trinity College, Dublin—who represent no class of the people, for it is only landlords and people of that class who send their sons there, and utilize the University, and who represent the ascendency class—but for this privilege of sending two Members to the House, the magnificent Unionist Party, who make such a triumphant display here, would have only sixteen Irish representatives. But I maintain it is not on the question of Party politics that this ought to be decided. Those who are prepared to maintain this absurdity must show why, in the case of 4,000 men inside the walls of Trinity College, they should be allowed to send two Members to Parliament, while 10,000 outside in the City of Dublin are only allowed to send one representative to this House. If you are not prepared to abolish University representation altogether, you ought to cut it down to one Member, for that would adequately represent the electors of Trinity College, Dublin. As I said before, I do not make any protest on personal grounds, and the senior Member for the University (Mr. Plunket) is very popular in this House; but I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who after all is an Irishman, must be keenly alive to the opinions of his own countrymen, and would not be sorry if he had a legitimate constituency instead of the hot-house, artificial constituency of Trinity College, Dublin. That is the position of these two unfortunates. I do not wish to be offensive,
    1804
    but imagine the feelings of these two Gentlemen from the Government Bench when they arrive in Dublin. They have to pass through streets where almost every person they meet is a Nationalist and Home Ruler, and throughout the whole of that part of Ireland they cannot feel a breath of Tory atmosphere until they get within the walls of Trinity College, Dublin, where there is a Tory garrison. That is a position they do not find exceedingly comfortable, I am sure. Though they support the Government to-night, in their hearts they must know they are giving a vote for a thing that is unjust, and they must know very well that the time will very soon come when this class, as well as other classes, of privilege will be swept away by the advancing tide of democracy and Home Rule. The hon. Member for Prestwich Division, the single exception among Members who support the Government and is not a University representative, though nearly related to one, said there was in Ireland a constituency smaller than Dublin University. I do not know where this is.
    *MR. MOWBRAY: The constituency of Kerry, which numbers 3,780, while in Dublin University the electors are 4,094.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Yes; but the hon. Member forgets that South Kerry returns but one Member, and the 4,000 of the University return two. The hon. Gentleman was also good enough to say that if changes in representation are to be made, then change should take the direction of reducing the number of Members for Ireland. I was extremely surprised to hear that from the hon. Member, for it would be breaking or smashing one of the fundamental articles of that Act of Union of 1800 his Party have sworn never to destroy, for under that Act we are entitled to the representation we now have. However, I agree with the hon. Member, it might not be unwise to reduce the number of Representatives in the House, and going so far with him, I hope he will join in the attempt to reduce that number by two.
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. R. D. PLUNKET,): The hon. Member for North Fermanagh, who has just sat down will admit he has hardly dealt justly with me, for while in the first sentence he complained that none but University Members had

    1805
    taken part in the debate—in which, by the way, he was not quite correct—the next moment he rated me because I had not spoken; and now I think I have reason further to complain that he has left me but very few minutes to reply to the important speech he has just delivered. Let me point out when the hon. Member expresses so much pity for my hon. and learned Colleague and myself, that the course of my hon. and learned Friend at Dublin University was a brilliant one, and that his success at the Bar has won the confidence and admiration of all his constituents. The hon. Member expresses sympathy for our forlorn condition in that we have only the limited number of 4,000 constituents to return us to Parliament, but the hon. Member only had the support of 3,128 votes, and secured his return by a majority of 266.
    MR. REDMOND: I am loth to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and hope he will excuse me. He says I only got 3,000 odd to vote for me, but he will remember he had only 1,800 supporters.
    *MR.PLUNKET: That is to say that I had to ask my friends to cease voting as there was no occasion to continue, seeing that after several days polling my opponents had succeeded in obtaining 60 votes altogether. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his pity is misplaced. But I do not think the House will, at this hour expect from me that I should go over the general grounds so well covered by hon. Members on this and the other side in opposition to this Motion. I must say that I have never heard so grave a proposition as that contained in the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee, however ably and forcibly he himself endeavoured to advocate it, supported by arguments so slender and unsatisfactory as those we have heard to-night. The proposal is to make a change in the constitution of Parliament; a change that would affect an institution which has existed for two and a half centuries, the representation of Universities in this House. That principle adopted so long ago has on every occasion when Parliamentary representation has been reconsidered, been re-affirmed, and sometimes extended. The hon. Member who introduced the Resolution tried to explain these various occasions, but how does it come about that whereas at the beginning of the century there were only five University Members, there are now nine?
    1806
    It is because Parliament, having repeatedly revised the representation of the people since then, has thought it wise and in the interest of the community that the number of University Members should be increased. So it was that in the great Reform Bill of Lord Grey, a Member was restored to the University of Dublin, who had been taken away by the Act of Union. So it was that in 1868 two University Members were given to Scotland, and one to London, which had no such Members before; and so it was that in 1885, when the question was fully debated from every point of view, and every argument brought forward to-night was urged with greater force against University representation, the proposal was scouted in this House by a majority of more than three to one. On a subsequent occasion there was even a more remarkable incident, in which the late Prime Minister re-asserted and vindicated the principle of University representation, and to this I shall refer presently. What are the kind of arguments adduced in favour of this great change? We are told there are too many Members in the House, and that the Irish difficulty might be solved if University Members were taken from the House ! And some of the great obstacles to doing business would be removed! This was one of the first arguments of the hon. Member who introduced the Motion. Then we were told that the University Members did not really represent the Teaching University. Well, I have heard that argument before, and I must say a more bogus argument could not be advanced. Can anyone tell me there is any man more acquainted with the teaching staff of any University than myself? Do I not whenever I can get away from other duties, live amongst them, and do I not personally and intimately know every member of the teaching staff, and a multitude of my constituents as well? It is absurd to urge the House to destroy this representation, only because the Member who represents the University is not himself a member of the teaching staff. It is indeed impossible to be both at the same time teaching there, and representing the teaching staff here. Then it is said that if we do not represent the teaching body we ought to represent the graduates and then there might be a

    1807
    fair representation. Well, I do not know how it may be in other Universities, but in mine it would not, I believe, make the slightest difference in the Members returned whether it was the teaching staff alone, or the graduates, or the Masters of Arts who had the voting power, or even the undergraduates, though they might be a slightly unruly constituency at times! I do not think this is a very serious argument. The real argument, whatever force there may be in it, is that of Party interest put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, there are only nine, he said, but that might make 18 in a division, and then the hon. Member went on to say he hoped they would all remain Tories, for otherwise the University representation would not be destroyed even in the next Liberal Parliament. After that I think it is hardly worth while to follow this argument further. But I want the House to bear in mind the proposal is not to reform University representation; that is not the proposal before us to-night, it is destruction pure and simple. It is not to transfer the representation to any other constituencies, it is not to provide for some great commercial centre of population, or for some large working community that has no Member now. No, if this Motion is carried, no new seats will be provided for any constituency it will be simply sweeping away nine Members because of their political views, the hon. Member would "rob us of that which not enriches him, but makes us poor indeed." Only one more point will time allow me to refer to. In 1885 the question was fully thrashed out and what was said then has been said again now, and the Motion similar to the present was rejected by a great majority. But it is said that that was the result of a compromise and that the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister did not express an opinion in that debate, but there was another occasion only a year afterwards on which this question came up again, when in 1886 the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Home Rule Bill. How did he deal with the subject in that Bill? The whole question had been fully debated the year before; everything that could be said had been said against University representation, had especially in reference to the University I have the
    1808
    honour to represent. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? Did he propose to disfranchise the University of Dublin by his Bill because such representation was wroug on principle—because we had not true University representation, because we were non-national or non-Liberal, or because we were not worthy to be represented in the Irish House of Commons of the future? Nothing of the kind. This is what he said:
    "I ought to say a word about Dublin University. We do not propose to interfere by any action of ours with the existing arrangements of Dublin University in one way or another. But certainly we could not ask the House to adopt a plan at our suggestion which would double the representation of Dublin University. We propose to leave it as it is, but, at the same time, to empower the legislative body, if it should think fit, to appoint a corresponding representation by two members in favour of the Royal University of Ireland. There would be no compulsion to exercise that power, but it would be left to the discretion of the legislative body.'
    Now that may be a good argument for pressing for the representation of the Royal University of Ireland, but it is, so far as the weight of the authority of the right hon. Gentleman goes, a conclusive argument against the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. That was no hurried Resolution in the House, it was not the result of an agreement between parties by way of compromise, it was the ripe fruit of mature deliberation when the right hon. Gentleman had to create a statutory Parliament in Dublin and launch it forward as an assembly to govern the destinies of Ireland in the future. I am sorry that time does not allow me to treat the subject as I would. The argument last referred to cannot be confined to the Irish case alone, it affects University representation in England as well as Ireland, and I maintain that no argument has been brought forward that should lead the House to take any step in the direction of altering this old established principle embedded in the Parliamentary representation of this country except the merely partizan argument which no doubt will weigh with some few that at the present time and probably for some time to come University representatives happen to be and may continue to be opposed and sturdily opposed, to the party from whom the Motion has come.
    The House divided (Division List No. 105). Ayes 217; Noes 126.
    House adjourned at five minutes after One o'clock till Monday next.