Commons Sitting of 25 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough, of Great Grimsby, in the room of George Doughty, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Mr. William McArthur.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. [H.L.]
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and Referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto (have been complied with, namely—

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  MESSAGE TO ATTEND THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
  The House went, and, being returned,
  MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to—
  Societies' Borrowing Powers Act, 1898; Canals Protection (London) Act, 1898;
  1106
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898; Post Office (Guarantee) Act, 1898; Poor Law Unions Association (Expenses) Act, 1898; Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898; Ex-Officio Justices of the Peace (Scotland) Act, 1898; Statute Law Revision Act, 1898; Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898; Pharmacy Acts Amendment Act, 1898; Greenwich Hospital Act, 1898; Union of Benefices Act, 1898; Land Drainage Supplemental Act, 1898; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1898; Education Department Provisional Orders Confirmation (Barnes, etc.) Act, 1898; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Commons Regulation (Runcorn) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Edinburgh Improvement Scheme Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Military Lands Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1898; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1898; Leith Burgh Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1898; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Gas) Act, 1898; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Housing of Working Classes) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders, Confirmation (Poor Law) Act, 1898; Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Londonderry and

  1107
  Lough Swilly (Letterkenny to Burtonport Extension) Railway) Confirmation Act, 1898; Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways) Act, 1898; South Western Railway Act, 1898; Staines Reservoirs Act, 1898; Belfast Harbour Act, 1898; Blackpool Improvement Act, 1898; Sheringham Gas and Water Act, 1898; Carmarthen Improvement Act, 1898; Northam Urban District Water Act, 1898; North Warwickshire Water Act, 1898; London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Act, 1898; Gainsborough Gas Act, 1898; Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway Act, 1898; Southend Waterworks Act 1898; Southwark and Vauxhall Water Act, 1898; Saint Thomas, Southwark, and Saint Saviour, Southwark, Act, 1898; Yeovil Corporation Act, 1898; Bideford and Clovelly Railway Act, 1898; Ilford Improvement Act, 1898; Great Eastern Railway Company and Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee Act, 1898; Great Eastern Railway (Pensions) Act, 1898; Cranbrook District Water Act, 1898; Crawley and District Water Act, 1898; East Ham Improvement Act, 1898; Wishaw Water (Additional Supply) Act, 1898; Liskeard Corporation Act, 1898; Norwich Electric Tramways Act, 1898; Cardiff Corporation Act, 1898; Dundee Corporation (Tramways) Act, 1898; Buenos Ayres Northern Railway Company's Act, 1898; Colonial Bank Act, 1898; Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1898; Cromer Gas Act, 1898; Drogheda (Corporation) Gas Act, 1898; Wigan Corporation Act, 1898; Dover Harbour Act, 1898; London Building Act, 1894 (Amendment) Act, 1898; Crystal Palace Company's Act, 1898; Plymouth Corporation Act, 1898; Turnchapel Quays and Wharves Act, 1898; Stirling Gas Act, 1898; Barry Railway Act, 1898; London County Council (Acton Sewage) Act, 1898; Mumbles Railway and Pier Act, 1898; London, Chatham and Dover Railway Act, 1898; Halifax Corporation Act, 1898; Folkestone Water Act, 1898; City of Norwich Waterworks Act, 1898; Corporation of Foreign Bondholders Act, 1898; Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Act, 1898; Hamilton Water Act, 1898; Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Act, 1898; Kettering Water Act, 1898; Clergy Mutual Assurance Society Act, 1898;
  1108
  Kew Bridge Act, 1898; Bacup Corporation Water Act, 1898; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water (Amendment) Act, 1898; Dublin Southern District Tramways Act, 1898; Glasgow and South Western Railway Act, 1898; Matlock Urban District Council Act, 1898; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Act, 1898; Felixstowe and Walton Water Act, 1898; Midland Railway (West Riding Lines) Act, 1898; Newtown Water Act, 1898; Great Northern Railway Act, 1898; Blackburn Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Act, 1898; Bristol Tramways (Electrical Power, etc.) Act, 1898; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Act, 1898; Neath, Pontardawe and Brynaman Railway Act, 1898; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Act, 1898; Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1898; Walker's Estate Act, 1898.

BILLS ADVANCED.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION GAS BILL
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  On consideration of Lords' Amendments to Dublin Port and Docks Bill—

  CLAUSE 14.
  "Page 10, line 38, after 'services,' insert 'as he may render in connection with the preparation of such lists and the signing and delivery thereof.'"—(Mr. Carew.)
  MR. CAREW: I beg, Sir, to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be added stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL. [H.L.]
  MR. H. LEWIS: I wish to offer a few remarks before this Bill is accorded a Third Reading, although I may say that I do not intend to oppose the Third Reading. This is the second of two Bills introduced for the purpose of widening a portion of the Chester and Holyhead line, and relieving
  1110
  the congestion of traffic. In itself that is a most desirable undertaking, and if carried out with due consideration for the interests of the traders of North Wales and those of the local authorities in the districts where the widening of the line interferes with public rights no one could raise any objection to it. The Bill in its original form lacks several necessary provisions to secure the rights of the road and other authorities whose interests are affected. Prolonged negotiations have taken place between those bodies and the railway company, with the result that fairly satisfactory arrangements have been arrived at. The Flintshire County Council has, however, had an immense amount of trouble to secure free and unimpaired access to Mostyn Quay, one of the most important ports on the river. It is essential that nothing should be done to prevent free and fair competition between the sea and the railway, and had it not been for the action of the county council the facilities of access to that port might have been very seriously curtailed. But there still remains unredressed an undoubted grievance on the part of the general body of traders on the Chester and Holyhead section of the London and North Western Railway. In 1896 an attempt was made by the county councils of Flintshire and Carnarvonshire to obtain a reduction of the maximum rates charged on this section. There can be no doubt that the rates that prevailed were more appropriate to a branch line than to one of the main lines of the London and North Western Railway Company, and a number of witnesses were brought to London to give evidence as to the high rates charged on this section of the railway. It is a remarkable and significant fact that, rather than face that inquiry or the action that might follow that inquiry, the railway company decided to withdraw their Bill for that year, and the evidence was therefore never published. The Bill was reintroduced in 1897, and in the meantime the company, having made concessions to individual traders, although not to the general body of traders, and the local authorities being unable to undertake the great cost of a fight on rates, and a great and powerful company has an enormous advantage over a small community

  1111
  in this respect, did not raise the question, nor has it been raised in connection with the Bill introduced this Session. But before the present Bill passes into law I think it right that a protest should be made against the existence of higher maximum charges for the carriage of goods under Table A than are charged on other portions of the main line, up to North Western Company's system. Here is a company whose traffic on a section of its line is so heavy that it is obliged to lay down two extra pains of rails, insisting upon maximum charges which up to 20 miles are 25 per cent, higher than on other portions of the main line up to 50 miles, 32 per cent, higher, and beyond 50 miles, 60 per cent, above the charges on many other parts of the main line. The Chester and Holyhead section is the most profitable line of the company. It carries the enormous Irish traffic of the company, and if there were neither goods nor passenger trainee on this railway, it would be well worth their while to maintain it for the sake of the Irish trade alone. In the early history of this railway it was right and proper that it should be allowed to charge exceptional rates; but the justification for such an imposition upon traders and the public has long ago ceased to exist. I have listened very carefully to the reasons given by the counsel who appeared for the company in 1896, why these exceptional rates should be maintained, and to every statement made on behalf of the company since then, but they have entirely failed to establish a case for special rates. The first reason assigned for their maintenance was that the question had been settled by the Joint Committee of both Houses which sat in 1891. Unfortunately the North Wales traders were not separately represented in a collective capacity before that Committee; only one trader appeared, and his interests were chiefly those of a branch line in Carnarvonshire. The traders on the Chester and Holyhead Railway were not represented, and a perusal of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of 1891 will show that there was no adequate presentation of their case before that Committee. The next argument was that the gathering ground of the Chester and Holyhead Railway was on one side of the line only, and that the
  1112
  sea prevented the company from having that amount of traffic which it would receive if it passed through the interior of the country. I will deal with that reason, and very briefly. ["Hear, hear" from the Ministerial benches.] Yes, but this is an important matter to North Wales, and I am trying to deal with it with every possible consideration to the London and North Western Railway. There are reasons which, in the case of the Chester and Holyhead Railway, make this argument absurdly inapplicable. The fact that the railway runs along the coast line has induced manufacturers to establish large concerns which would never have been started but for the convenience of water carriage, and those concerns have added very largely to the land traffic of the London and North Western Railway. Moreover, it is the presence of the sea which has caused the rapid rise of watering places on the North Wales Coast, which contributed largely to both the local and the through traffic of the line, and the very ruggedness of the coast lime, which the company put forward as a reason for exceptional rates on account of the increased cost of construction and maintenance, is an inducement to tens of thousands of holiday seekers to use their railway. But the question of exceptional cost of construction does not really arise, because the line has been bought by the company at a low price, and because the company has been allowed to charge very high rates for a very long period. Owing to the construction of the line along the coast the North Western has obtained all the positions of vantage, and it has become difficult for any other company to construct a parallel line along the sea front. Moreover, this line forms the chief connecting link between England and Ireland. It confers upon the North Western. Company the largest and most lucrative share of the Irish traffic. The fact that the company has come to Parliament for powers to widen their line shows that the volume of traffic has increased enormously; it also indicates that they are determined, if possible, to preserve their monopoly in North Wales. It is too expensive an undertaking for any public body in North Wales to fight the question of rates with a powerful and wealthy

  1113
  monopoly like the London and North Western. It is quite evident that the public are helpless in the matter, and that the only hope of removing a grievance from which the public of North Wales will continue to suffer is the entrance of a competing company into this very promising field. That event may not, perhaps, be very far distant, and it will probably be very considerably hastened by the determination of the company to maintain the maximum rates under Table A in the present unfair position. A conference of representatives of North Wales county councils has taken place, at which other great railway companies have been urged to extend their systems into North Wales, and that is only one of many indications of public opinion in the same direction. I speak without any feeling against the company, from whose officers in the country I have invariably received every consideration. It is simply a matter of business between the company and the public, who through Parliament have granted the company an extremely valuable and lucrative monopoly. I do not intend to vote against the Third Beading of the Bill, because the widening of the line is necessary to relieve the congestion of traffic. My only object in speaking is to protest against the continued existence of excessive maximum rates on the most profitable section of the main line of the London and North Western Railway.

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made—
  "That Standing Order 73 be suspended in the case of the Military Lands Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.], and that the Examiners have leave to sit and proceed forthwith."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made—
  "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill [H.L.], Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237, be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made—
  "That, in the case of the Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.], Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to

  ST. MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I shall not call upon the honourable Member for Carnarvon to move his Instruction, as I understand that the Committee has already reported the Bill to the House. Neither can I, for the same reason, call upon the honourable Member for Bolton.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon): I rise, Sir, to a point of' order. I understood when I came down to-day that this Bill had been passed through the Committee stage on Friday last. II submit to you, Sir, that that is a very unusual proceeding—even if it is

  1115
  not against the rules of the House; but I should like to get your ruling upon that point. There were two Instructions down which were placed on the Paper on Wednesday. They were on the Paper on Thursday, and the promoters of the Bill knew perfectly well that they were on the Paper. An appeal was then made to the honourable Member for Marylebone, who is in charge of the Bill, as to whether he would postpone the discussion upon the two Instructions until Monday—that is to-day. He very readily assented to do so, and he exhibited the utmost courtesy in the matter. In the meantime—and I trust without the knowledge or consent of the honourable Member for Maryiebone—the promoters of the Bill have passed it through Committee; in the face of the fact that these Instructions were down for discussion, they passed it through Committee as an unopposed Bill. I submit, Sir, that the action is contrary to precedent, that it is against the rules of the House, and, in any event, I venture to characterise it as a thoroughly disreputable trick which is only possible to, and is generally associated with, ecclesiastical proceedings in this House.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I desire to say that I have had nothing whatever to do with the Bill since it was read a second time in this House. Of course I have no control over the forms of the House, nor, indeed, should I have attempted to have done anything to hurry the Bill through out of the ordinary course. I must confess, however, that I am surprised at the language of the honourable Member with regard to the course the Bill has taken, which I understand to be the usual and natural course.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I should mention that I quite understood that the honourable Member for Carnarvon was not referring to any Member of this House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly, Sir. I expressly disclaim any intention whatever of referring to the honourable Member.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I must remind the honourable Member that the Instruction was put down on Thursday's Paper, but not having been on the Paper before, it
  1116
  could not, of course, be taken on that day. In the ordinary course it would have been taken on Friday, and it was by the desire of the honourable Member himself that the Instruction was deferred from Friday till to-day. I can only say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I look upon it as simply deplorable that this Bill should be obstructed in the manner in which it is being obstructed at almost every stage, and I should like to ask the House to allow the Bill to proceed in as rapid a manner as is possible, having regard to the rules of the House.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I entirely acquit my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone of having had anything to do with this proceeding.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of private arrangement, and has nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether these Instructions can be moved now. It is quite clear that they cannot be moved now, because the Committee has reported on the Bill. As regards the alleged private arrangement made between the honourable Member for Carnarvon and the honourable Member for Marylebone, I can only say that if there has been any misunderstanding it is unfortunate, and if the honourable Member considers that he has a grievance in this respect there is no other way of bringing the matter again before the House except by moving to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading. He may have that opportunity, if he chooses to avail himself of it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already given notice of that.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Is the Instruction standing in the name of the honourable Member for Bolton in order?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The proper time to decide that will be when the Instruction is called on.
  MR. HARWOOD: I shall give notice myself to move to re-commit the Bill on that Instruction.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONFIRMATION) (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 10 of the Bill, to insert in the Schedule—
  "Plan No. 10.
  "A piece or parcel of land situate in the parish of St. Giles, Camberwell, in the county of London, and comprising eight houses, forecourts, gardens, and premises on

  Names.

  Owners or reputed Owners.

  Lessees or reputed Lessees.

  Occupiers.

  Mrs. Esther Estella Johnson

  …

  …

  …

  Alexander Brodie

  …

  …

  …

  Francis William Pixley, trustee

  …

  …

  …

  Cumberland Henry Woodruff, trustee

  …

  …

  …

  Edwin Lovell

  …

  …

  …

  Thomas Robinson

  …

  …

  …

  John McMillin

  …

  …

  …

  James Edward Peryer

  …

  …

  …

  Edward Lindsell

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Miriam Watson

  …

  …

  …

  George James Holton

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Eliza Job

  …

  …

  …

  Arthur Manger

  …

  …

  …

  Matthew Macateer

  …

  …

  …

  Henry Ambrose webber

  …

  …

  …

  Charles Biddle

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Marian Lovell

  …

  …

  …

  Mrs. Jessie Carnie

  …

  …

  …

  Edward Cheney

  …

  …

  …

  Daniel James Elliott

  …

  …

  …

  MR. LOUGH: In connection with this Bill there is a Motion in my name on the Paper which I desire to call attention to, because there seems to me to have been rather a flagrant breach of what we understand to be the Rules of the House. I have endeavoured to get some explanation of the circumstances which I am about to explain to the House, but I can get no information at all, and therefore I am forced to make the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. The Bill is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order moved by the London School Board, and approved by the Education Department, for the acquisition of 30 sites for new schools in the neighbourhood of London. It was introduced into the House of Lords on
  the north-eastern side of, and being Nos. 29 to 43 (odd numbers), both inclusive, Cuthill Road. House, garden, and premises (with entrance-way) No. 11, Love Walk, situate at the rear of the last-mentioned premises. Also a house, garden, stabling, and premises known as 'Cornwall House,' in Love Walk, the whole containing 48,680 square feet, or thereabouts, as the same is described in the Plan No. 10, and distinguished by the Nos. 1 to 11, together with all and singular the messuages and tenements and buildings now standing or being thereon with their appurtenances. The names of the owners, or reputed owners, lessees, or reputed lessees, and occupiers of the said piece or parcel of land and hereditaments, are as follows—
  the 1st of May, and passed through, amended as regards one site only, on the Motion of Lord Wandsworth. No Motion was made in the House of Lords with regard to the site No. 10, dealing with land in St. Giles, Camberwell, and in Love Walk, for the reinstatement of which site I now move. The Bill was unopposed in the House of Lords, and passed through all its stages, and came up to the House of Commons on the 1st of July. There was no opposition to the Bill in this House on its Second Reading. No petition whatever was presented against the Bill, and therefore it was at once referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee. It came before the Committee dealing with unopposed Bills last Tuesday. On that occasion the

  1119
  representative of the London School Board attended, but there was no opposition whatever to the Bill, and it passed through that stage also without any Amendment. On the next day (Wednesday) the Bill appeared on the Paper which deals with the proceedings of this House with this statement—
  "It was reported to lie on the Table as amended,"
  and it was to be considered on Thursday. Now, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Bill had not been amended neither on the Second Reading nor when it was before the Committee, and what the origin of this Notice was, which appeared on the Paper for the first time last Wednesday, the London School Board has been entirely unable to ascertain. The Bill was called on Thursday, and then it was arranged that it should be taken this day. No explanation has been given as to when this site No. 10, which is referred to, was struck out of the Bill, and it is an explanation of that that I wish to obtain from the Education Department today. I ask the House to think for a moment upon the circumstances I have described. The Bill started as long ago as eight months, when it was brought by the School Board before the Education Department. It passed entirely without opposition through the House of Lords, and also through this House practically unopposed. I must, however, here refer to one exception. On the 16th of July there appeared on the Proceedings of this House a notice by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich with regard to this site. The Motion was that the Bill should be re-committed, so far as sites Nos. 10 and 23 were concerned. This Motion never came on, the Bill was not re-committed, and nothing more has been heard of any discussion with regard to either of the two sites, and when it came before the Committee again there was no discussion there as to the possibility of striking these two sites out of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain what became of his Motion, of which nothing more was ever heard. I have put the House in possession of all the facts, and I say that the only mention of site No. 10 in this House was in connection with the Motion of the noble Lord, and that was never dis-
  1120
  cussed by the House. I think, Sir, that on the facts that I have stated and brought before the notice of the House I have established a case of some very serious defect in the procedure of the House. If this sort of thing can be done behind our backs, I do not see the necessity of the House enforcing private Bills to go through all the various forms which they are now made to go through. The Motion I have put down on the paper is that site No. 10 be re-inserted in the Bill. The details of this site are given on page 27 of the Order Paper, so that I need not explain them beyond saying that they give the details of the site of a school in the parish of St. Giles, Camberwell. My only object in bringing this forward is to call attention to the way in which the Bill has been treated, and in order to give the Vice-President of the Council an opportunity of explaining these matters to the House; and the House will know how to treat his explanation. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,): This site No. 10 was struck out of the Bill by the Government, who were in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether the honourable Member is satisfied with that statement.
  MR. LOUGH: Certainly not.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: The School Board knew perfectly well what was done, and it was done. This is not the first year in which this particular site has appeared on the School Board Papers. It was put into a Bill in a previous year, and at that time a very great deal of discussion and consideration was given to this particular site, which was proposed and supported by the London School Board. The matter was very fully considered and discussed, and then the Education Department decided that the site must be struck out of the Bill, and that the School Board for London should open a temporary school in the neighbourhood, and that the temporary school should be carried on for a year or two, and then we could see whether there was any necessity for a school on the site that was struck out of the Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: Who by?
  MR. SIR J. GORST: It was struck out by the Government who had charge of the Bill. The London School Board did open a temporary school at this place, but they also inserted this particular site which had been struck out in the previous year. In their Bill last year there was no opposition of any kind to it, although, the parties received notice in accordance with the law; but they were told that they might rely with perfect confidence on the word of the Education Department that they would be allowed to remain quiescent. There being no' opposition to the Bill this year, the fact of the site having been re-inserted was never brought to the cognisance of the heads of the Education Department; they came to the conclusion that they were bound by their decision of the previous year not to allow this site to be acquired by the London School Board until the temporary school that had been established had been there a sufficiently long time to satisfy the Education Department that a permanent school was wanted or not; accordingly, as soon as ever the heads of the Education Department were aware that this site had been put into the Bill they directed it to be struck out.
  MR. BUXTON: I do not think that the explanation given by the right honourable Gentleman is very satisfactory. What we complain of is not so much of this particular site being struck out of the Bill, but that this House has never had an opportunity of discussing the question as to whether or not this site should be struck out. The explanation given by my right honourable Friend is this: that this Bill, up to the very last stage, was treated as an unopposed Bill. As a matter of fact, I am informed that it actually passed as an unopposed Bill, and I am also informed that the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means actually signed the Bill as an unopposed Bill before this Amendment was made. What we object to is, not so much that the Education Department, who are entitled to have a voice in these matters, should have struck out the site after consideration and discussion of the matter with the London School Board, but that without acknowledge of the School Board them-
  1122
  selves, without any opportunity of allowing this House to have any voice in the matter, the site is struck out. I am bound to say that on the merits of this case it seems to me that the Education Department has not behaved very well to the London School Board. The right honourable Gentleman said that the School Board knew perfectly well why the site was struck out. I have here a copy of a letter written to the Education Department by the School Board under their authority, stating that they have no knowledge as to why this site had been struck out, and that they were surprised to find at the last moment that this site to which they attached some importance should be struck, by the Government, out of a Provisional Order Bill. I must say that" whatever may be the merits of this particular case, whether the site ought to be included or not, I for one strongly object to the system which-is being used as a precedent, under which the Education Department, acting on their own initiative and without any control of any sort or kind, strike a site out of a Bill. After all, the Education Department have themselves sanctioned this site. 'The London School Board is an elective body, and apparently the electors of London are to be treated in this hole-and-corner way. I cannot accept the explanation of the Vice-President as in any way satisfactory. I very much regret that the Education Department, either through ignorance, through mismanagement, or through some other reason, should have got themselves into such a position as they have by striking this site out of the Bill. I repeat that the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President is not at all satisfactory, and I very much regret to find the right honourable Gentleman placed in the position in which he is.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I submit, Sir, that what has been done on this Bill not only should not be done, but cannot be done. It contravenes the rules of the House. First of all, as I understand, the Bill passes through Committee as an unopposed (Bill. After it has passed through Committee,' an Amendment is effected in it by some authority, I don't know who, but not by the Committee. The Bill has been reported as an

  1123
  unamended Bill to the House after it has left the Committee.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: No! That is not so.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I submit that, as a matter of order, it is not competent for any authorities afterwards to amend the Bill in any sense.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: May I say that the honourable Member is completely mistaken. The Bill did not pass through the Committee as an unamended Bill, but it passed through Committee with an Amendment, and it was reported to the House. The honourable Member will see, if he looks at it, that it is reported to the House with Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not this Amendment.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, with this Amendment.
  MR. LOUGH: The point taken by the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees is the same point as that taken by the Vice-President. Some representative of the School Board was before the Committee last Tuesday, and no opposition was made at all.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The point is whether this Bill was reported with Amendments; that is all I can look at.
  MR. LOUGH: Is not this the question, if I may be allowed to say so, is it not a question as to what was the origin of this Amendment? At any rate, that is what I want to get your ruling upon.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member must see that I cannot give a ruling upon a disputed account of an occurrence.
  MR. LOUGH: The fact is not disputed that the Bill passed without Amendments through the Unopposed Bills Committee on Tuesday last.
  MR. LORD H. CECIL: I will not detain the House on the merits of the question, but I understand that the honourable Member, in the course of his speech, seemed to think or to suggest that there was something suspicious
  1124
  about the Motion which I put down with regard to two of these sites. But if he had read it he would have seen that it was a proposal to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading, and in consequence it has not been brought, and could not be brought, till the Third Reading came on. Practically, the Government in Committee struck out one of the plans to which my objection was directed, and I, naturally, in the ordinary course, withdrew my Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, which was not to have arisen until the Third Reading. I must ask the honourable Member for Poplar, was this done in a hole-and-corner way, and did it prevent the House from having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it? On the contrary, I say that it was literally and strictly the only way by which the House could have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon, the matter. If it had been struck out before the Bill was presented to us, nothing more would have been heard about the matter at all, and the only way by which the House could have been able to put the site into the Bill is by its having appeared in the Bill and been struck out in the Committee stage, and thus having the attention of honourable Members directed to it. So far from the Government having adopted any hole-and-corner method, they have adopted the only method by which the matter could be brought to the notice of the House. I desire to acknowledge very fully the very great fairness and justice which the Government have shown in striking out this plan, against which a very strong case could, I believe, be made out, and to say that I feel sure that the friends of Voluntary schools all over London will recognise that they have exercised a fair and impartial judgment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: After the statement of the right honourable Gentleman we do not seem to be in a position to say what has happened. I understood that this Bill had actually passed through Committee without any Amendment, and that this Amendment was inserted afterwards, if I understand the Vice-President of the Council aright, by the Education Department.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: The Amendment was struck out in Committee on the Bill on application to the officials of the House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The defence of the right honourable Gentleman is that this is a Government Bill. Technically, of course, every Provisional Order is a Government Bill, but really it is not. Provisional Orders are promoted by municipal corporations, by local authorities, by boards, and so on. Nominally, they are promoted by the Local Government Board or the Education Department, but really they are promoted by the persons who are responsible for them and not by a Government Department. It is not the Education Department which retains counsel in order to defend them; it is not the Education Department upon whom the expense falls. In this case that will fall upon the London School Board. Supposing this Provisional Order were being opposed by some landowner, by the lessees, or by the owners of property which he has proposed to take. In that case it would not be the Vice President of the Council that would defend the Provisional Order, it would be the School Board for London, who would instruct their solicitor, who would retain counsel and get together the evidence. Substantially, the parties who are responsible for the promotion of these Orders are not the Government at all, but the local authorities, and the Vice-President, when he gives that answer, is not giving an answer which is perfectly sincere, because he knows perfectly well that these local authorities are responsible; and yet, without consulting the School Board for London, and whilst that body were under the impression that the Provisional Order was unopposed, without communicating with them in any way, the Vice-President takes it upon himself to withdraw this clause from the Bill Why? The noble Lord has let the cat out of the bag. This is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools. I say it is a very serious thing indeed for a. Government Department to allow themselves to be nobbled, bullied, and terrified by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich is doing things which I venture to say no Government Department has ever done before in a private case of this kind. I say that neither the Local Government Board, nor the Board of Trade, nor the Education Department has a right to insert provisions of this
  1126
  kind, or to omit them without giving notice to the promoters of the Bill. It is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools, and is another little ecclesiastical trick.
  MR. BANBURY: I am afraid that the honourable Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Last year or the year before a large number of people in Camberwell, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, objected to the site in question being taken, and it was cut out of the Bill. It was scheduled again this year, but my constituency knew nothing about it. As soon as they knew that the site had been reinserted in the Bill, they approached me on the matter, and I pointed out to the Vice-President that this very site had been struck out two years ago, and that therefore it was an irregularity to reintroduce it without some strong reason being shown for so doing. The striking out of this site has nothing whatever to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Voluntary schools.
  *SIR C. DILKE: A curious point was raised by the last speaker. I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees whether or not the usual notices were given in this case; otherwise I do not see how it could have been brought forward.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I presume that the Bill went before the Examiners in the ordinary course.
  *SIR C. DILKE: The honourable Member has made a statement that no notice was given.
  MR. SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a most important point in the proceedings of this House, and I think we are entitled to a fair statement upon the matter now in question. Here is a Provisional Order. Who is the promoter of that Provisional Order? I understand it is alleged that, practically speaking, the School Board for London are the promoters of this Provisional Order. If that be so, it undoubtedly is a thing that requires explanation, more especially if it be also a thing, as alleged, that this Bill has been altered in a

  1127
  material particular without any notice to the promoters. That is a point upon which I should like to have information, because in it the whole procedure of the House is involved. I should like to hear from the right honourable Gentlemen the Chairman of Committees and from the Vice President of the Council whether that is or is not a correct statement of the facts; because, when promoters of a Bill in the responsible position of the School Board for London have a clause in a Bill which affects their pecuniary interests, and those whom they represent, altered in a material particular, without notice, in order, as the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich says, to oblige the Voluntary schools, that is not a proper proceeding; and if those are the facts we ought to know why this irregularity has been committed. We ought also to know if they are not the facts; but we certainly ought to have some authoritative explanation which will clear up the Parliamentary situation.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I will not deny that there may be some difficulty in always being certain as to who the promoter of a Bill is. But it has always been the custom to treat the party which introduces the Bill, and whose officer comes before the Unopposed Committee, as the promoter of that Bill. In that way all the Local Government Board Provisional Orders are brought before me by an officer of the Local Government Board, and I make Amendments in those Bills at his request. In the same way, in regard to the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Education Department. The officer of the Education Department appears before the Unopposed Committee, and at his instance Amendments are made, if they are made, in the Education Department Provisional Orders.
  MR. SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I must address my question to the Vice-President of the Council. If the Education Department is to be treated as the pro-

  AYES.

  Allen, W. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Curran, T. (Sligo, S.)

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Burt, Thomas

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Dunn, Sir William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Colville, John

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Caldwell, James

  Crombie, John William

  Fenwick, Charles

  moter of this Bill, I must ask the Vice-President whether he gave any notice at all to the London School Board, who are substantially the promoters of the Bill, that he intended to make a substantial alteration in the Bill.
  MR. SIR J. GORST: It is always understood that the Provisional Order Bills are entirely in the power of the Education Department. In this case the alterations were made in the Bill at the instance of the Education Department, and no notice was given to the London School Board.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I am not rising to prolong the discussion, but I should like to ask the Vice-President, as a matter of Parliamentary procedure, in reference to what he has just said, who pays the fee in the cases to which the right honourable Gentleman refers? I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that his, Department technically is the promoter of this Bill, but, as I understand the practice, it would be the School Board for London, whom the matter concerns, for it is the School Board for London which pays the fee. Are we to understand from the answer of the Vice-President that, because he is technically the promoter, he may, without any consultation whatsoever with the solicitors to the London School Board, and their Parliamentary agents, alter the Bill to such an extent as the alteration has been made in this Bill?
  MR. SIR J. GORST: I cannot, answer that question without notice; but I understand that the Education Department has the power to alter a Bill.
  Question put—
  "That Plan No. 10 be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 80s; Noes 168.—(Division List No. 245.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Spicer, Albert

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  McEwan, William

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maden, John Henry

  Steadman, William Charles

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W. (Yorks)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hazell, Walter

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Holburn, J. G.

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

  Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

  Woodall, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Mr. Lough and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Souttar, Robinson

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Aird, John

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leighton, Stanley

  Arnold, Alfred

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Baird, John George A.

  Drucker, A.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Flower, Ernest

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm N)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fry, Lewis

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Bethell, Commander

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Goulding. Edward Alfred

  Monk, Charles James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brassey, Albert

  Gunter, Colonel

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Butcher, John George

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Howard, Joseph

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart.M.H. (Renfrew)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  1130

  1131

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Usborne, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wylie, Alexander

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)

  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS
  DOGS' REGULATION BILL.
  Against: From Woolwich; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Gorton, Halifax (11), Penrith, Redland, Bristol (2), and East Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  In favour: From Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Newcastle; to lie upon the Table.
  SANITARY DWELLINGS FOR THE POOR.
  From Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, for alteration; to He upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  From Hull, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1894 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented of Return of all Ships ordered by the Board of Trade, or its Officers, to be provisionally detained as unsafe, together with Summaries, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND REQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Fifty-third Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (ESSEX).
  Copy presented of Resolution of the County Council for Essex dividing the Tilbury Polling District into two Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented of two Orders in Council of 18th July, 1898, entitled respectively "The Africa (Acquisition of Lands) Order in Council, 1898," and "The East Africa (Acquisition of Lands) Order in Council, 1898" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of 18th July, 1898, fixing the Engineering Establishment of the Trinity House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of two Orders in Council of 18th July, 1898, approving Pilotage By-laws made by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Berwick Harbour Commissioners respectively [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIZE COURTS ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented of Order in Council of 18th July, 1898, approving Rules of Court touching the practice in Prize Proceedings to be observed in Vice-Admiralty Courts and Colonial Courts authorised to act as Prize Courts, with Forms and Table of Fees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Registrar General, being for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
  Copy presented of Annual Report of the President for the Session 1897–98 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA (No. 2, 1898).
  Copy presented of Dispatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, forwarding Copies of the Notes exchanged with the Chinese Government respecting the non-alienation of the Tang-tsze region [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 10, 1898).
  Copy presented of Accession of the Republics of Honduras and Salvador to the Convention signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field; 16th May, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898–9).
  Supplementary Estimate presented of the further Amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1899, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
  PERMANENT CHARGES COMMUTATION.
  Copy presented of Return of Permanent Charges on the Consolidated Fund or Votes of Parliament which have been redeemed in the period between 1st April, 1893, and 30th June, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  Copy presented of Report of the Ark-low Harbour Commissioners and Statement of Accounts for 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF CARMARTHEN).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 10th February; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 316.]
  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD (SCHOOLS CLOSED).
  Return ordered "of all Schools belonging to the London School Board which have been closed, giving the names and dates of closing."—(Mr. Tallot.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the Nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill."—(Mr. Bitchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 317.]

  VIGOR'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce. Bills, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Vigor's Divorce Bill [H.L.], together with the Documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords; and that the Clerk do carry the same.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL
  without Amendment;

  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL,
  with Amendments.
  Amendments to—

  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
  NEWHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  without Amendment.

  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act relating to National Monuments in Churches."
QUESTIONS

  VACCINATION BILL.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether public vaccinators, as such, are entitled to superannuation on pension terms, under the present law; and, if not, whether they will be entitled to it if the Vaccination Bill becomes law; what is the number of public vaccinators in England and Wales; and, in the event of them becoming entitled to a superannuation allowance under the Vaccination Bill, would their previous service be taken into consideration in fixing the amount; how is it intended that the public vaccinators shall be remunerated, whether by fee per visit, or by salary, or by each vaccination and will such remuneration be payable by the local authorities; and, if so, what powers will they have to fix and alter the remuneration; whether the obligation to satisfy two magistrates as conscientious objection to vaccination, as set forth in the Bill, means that this obligation must be undertaken by the father, or that it may be fulfilled either by father or mother; and whether, if by the father alone, a child, whose father is absent from his home during the period allowed for this formality, could be contracted out of the obligation to be vaccinated by the mother appearing before two magistrates and stating her conscientious objection?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. The number of public vaccinators in England and Wales is about 3,000. With respect to the third paragraph, no matured decision has been at present arrived at, nor is it necessary, for the Act is not drawn to come into operation until 1st January nest. What is contemplated, however, is some arrangement like this: Remuneration by two methods—first, by a payment based on the number of births to cover the general duties; and, secondly, by a payment in each case of successful vaccination; the amount of these payments to be a matter for arrangement in the first instance between the public vaccinator

  1137
  and the guardians by whom the payments will be made, subject, as in the case of all the principal officers of boards of guardians, to the approval of the Local Government Board. In answer to the last two paragraphs, the obligation should be undertaken by the person in custody of the child, whether father or mother. If the father is prevented by absence or other unavoidable cause, then the duty would naturally fall on the mother.

  EX-RELIEVING OFFICER FOR BRENTFORD.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Brentford Board of Guardians refused Mr. Parsons, the late relieving officer of the union, the superannuation allowance claimed by him under the Act of 1896, on the ground of alleged misconduct; and whether the Local Government Board has overruled this decision; and, if so, on what grounds?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Mr. Parsons held the office of collector of poor rates for certain parishes in the Brentford Union, and not that of relieving officer. He recently resigned his office, and at the time of his resignation was in his 70th year, and had filled the office of collector for 30 years. The guardians having refused to entertain an application from him for a superannuation allowance, he appealed to the Local Government Board under the provisions of section 18 of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896. The Board fully considered the matter, and were of opinion that the circumstances under which he had resigned were not such that he should forfeit his claim to a superannuation allowance under the Act.

  GALWAY HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS' LETTINGS.
  MR. CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to
  1138
  the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Works refused to sanction a letting of premises by the Galway Harbour Commissioners to Mr. James Behan, and assigned as their reason for so doing that the premises had not been advertised; if the Board of Works in any case of letting previously had ever suggested or insisted upon due advertisement; if yards were let without advertisement, with the approval of the Board of Works, to the Congested Districts Board, Messrs. Hutchison, the Galway Bay Steamship Company, Mr. Worthington, Mr. John Lynch, Mr. John O'Donnell, and Mr. Holland; whether he is aware that Mr. Behan's yard was vacant, without even a gate, when he got possession; and that he is paying the same rent as the previous tenant, £20 a year, while the Congested Districts Board have theirs for £5; if he is aware that this decision of the Board of Works tends in the direction of creating a monopoly of the coal trade of Galway; and whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence between Messrs. Hutchison and the Board of Works?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R W.HANBURY,): The Galway harbour undertaking is in the hands of a receiver for the Board of Works. The Board refused to sanction the letting of a portion of the premises to Mr. Behan, because they were informed that other persons were willing to tender, and they considered it desirable, in the interests of the harbour revenue, that tenders should be invited as the best means of ascertaining the true value of the premises. The Board have not previously had occasion to insist upon tenders being invited; in some cases the Harbour Commissioners have taken that course spontaneously, and in other cases there have been special circumstances which rendered it unnecessary. Of the cases cited in the third paragraph, the leases to the Limerick Steamship Company (not the Galway Bay Company) and to Mr. Holland were granted after tenders had been advertised for; Messrs. Hutchison's was not a new lease, but a sub-lease under an existing tenant; and the lettings to the Congested Districts Board and to Mr. Worthington were in connection with works of public

  1139
  benefit to the locality. The circumstances of the other two cases cannot be stated without further inquiry. It is true that Mr. Behan's predecessor paid the same rent, £20 a year, and that the Congested Districts Board pay only £5 a year for their premises; but these facts afford no proof that £20 is the full letting value in the present instance. I cannot regard insistence upon open competitive tender as being the way to create a monopoly. Messrs. Hutchison are creditors of the harbour undertaking under a judgment summons, which they cannot enforce while the Board's receiver is in possession. Consequently, that firm have a distinct interest in the financial working of the harbour, and they were quite within their rights in protesting against the course which the Harbour Commissioners proposed to take. If, as appears to be alleged, they have also a private interest in opposition to Mr. Behan, that merely shows how ill-advised the Commissioners have been in their action. The only objection to publishing the correspondence which has passed is that it is not of sufficient importance or general interest.

  PRISON SYSTEM IN JAPAN.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the prison system of Japan; and whether any steps can be taken to ensure the treatment, in concurrence with European customs, of British subjects who may, after the coming into operation of the revised Treaty, be arrested in Japan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON, Lancashire,): Yes, Sir; the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been especially called to the question. More than a year ago the Japanese Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the mutter, and there is no doubt that they are alive to the necessity of providing suitable accommodation for European prisoners when the new treaties come into force.

  KING'S COUNTY AND TIPPERARY COUNTY BOUNDARIES.
  MR. CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Tip-perary, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrangement has been come to by the Local Government Board with regard to altering the boundary between King's County and the county of Tipperary in relation to the poor law divisions of Carrig, Clohaskin, Rathcabbin, Redwood, and Riverston, situated in the county Tipperary and at present attached to the Birr Union in King's County; whether he is aware that the guardians of these divisions, both elected and ex officio, have expressed themselves in favour of their being attached to the union of Borrisokane, in their own county, as being more convenient for them and also in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers concerned; and if he will have inquiry made with the object of having such an arrangement carried out, in accordance with the provisions of clause 44 of the Local Government Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND(Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No change is proposed in the Parsons-town Union, the portion in King's County and the portion in county Tipperary, each forming a rural district. This arrangement, which has the advantage of leaving existing boundaries unaltered, is subject under the Bill to an appeal by parties interested.

  VACCINATION IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if it is intended to propose legislation to extend to Scotland any part of the provisions of the Vaccination Bill now before Parliament?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The system in regard to vaccination carried out in Scotland has hitherto worked successfully, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot at present come under any obligation to propose legislation on the subject.
  MR. SIR C. DILKE: Are there not many now imprisoned in Scotland whose case would be met by the conscientious objection clause?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I must ask for notice.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not the case that the defaulters in Scotland represent 3 per cent.?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am not aware of the number, but there is no practical difficulty in working the Act, and that being so, there is no necessity to make any change.

  CANADIAN CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether for the last six years there has been a single case of infectious or contagious cattle disease in the Dominion of Canada; and, if not, whether he will now consent to remove the restriction upon the importation of store cattle from that country into Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of saying whether the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. With regard to the second, the law leaves me no option but to secure that all animals brought to this country from abroad are slaughtered at a foreign animals wharf at the port of landing.

  TUBERCURRY CIVIL BILL SESSIONS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Leitrim I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, is he aware that up to the present no civil bill sessions have been held in Tubbereurry, county Slige, although more than a year ago the Privy Council made an Order that such Sessions should be held in that place; can he explain the cause of the delay; and will he see that effect is given at the earliest
  1142
  possible date to the Order of the Privy Council?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The fact is as stated) in the first paragraph. Representations, however, were made as to the inadequacy of the accommodation in the existing petty sessions court-house. The matter was brought under the notice of the grand jury by the Government, but the grand jury have declined to make a presentment for the building of a new court-house, being of opinion that the expenditure involved was not a matter for them to engage, in, and that the question should be deferred for the consideration of the county council to be created under the Local Government Bill. In the absence of adequate accommodation, and having regard to the representations received by the county court judge, a further Order in Council has been passed postponing the holding of a civil bill court at Tubber-curry until the Hilary Sessions, 1899.

  SUFFOLK HUSSARS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Leitrim I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether fee is aware that some troopers of the Suffolk Hussars were recently severely censured for taking part in uniform in a procession in connection with St. Benet's Roman Catholic church at Beccles; whether his attention has been directed to the fact that on Monday, the 18th instant, at Southwold, in the same county, a procession of Freemasons to the Protestant church was headed by the band of the Volunteer Artillery corps; and whether the regulations will in this case also be enforced?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): Some troopers of the Suffolk Hussars were reprimanded for taking part in uniform in the proceedings referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. In the other ease permission to attend the demonstration in uniform was given under a misapprehension of the regulations. The matter has been properly noticed.

  "DISTINGUISHED CONDUCT IN THE FIELD" MEDAL.
  MR. CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if, when the medal for "distinguished conduct in the field" was first granted, it carried with it a gratuity of £15 to a sergeant, £10 to a corporal, and £5 to a private soldier; whether the gratuity has since been reduced to £5 for all ranks; and, if so, from what date this change took place; and how many of these medals have been issued during the past five years?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: By a Royal Warrant of 1854 this medal was instituted for, and only for, service in the then war with Russia, with the gratuities mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question. By a warrant of 1862 the medal was made (applicable to service generally, but without any gratuity. The warrant of 1887 attached to the medal the issue of a gratuity of £5, which arrangement still holds. Thirteen such medals have been issued during the last five years.

  MR. BILLINGE TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in reply to a request from the urban district council, the postal authorities undertook in May, 1897, to establish a telegraph office at Billinge, and if he can state when this will be effected?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the case that the Postmaster General, in May, 1897, arranged to establish a telegraph office at Billinge. There is a difficulty with regard to way leave in connection with the extension. As soon as this is adjusted instructions will be given for the work to be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

  ARGENTINE CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any and what means have been employed by Her Majesty's
  1144
  Government to induce the Argentine Government to make regulations to ensure the better treatment of cattle and sheep shipped from Argentina to Great Britain; and whether, in view of the fact that the loss of cattle shipped to this country from the River Plate during 1897 amounted to 80 per 1,000, and of sheep to 36 per 1,000, whilst the loss on shipments of cattle and sheep from Canada was only about 8 per 1,000, he will insist on more efficient inspection and more stringent regulations as to fittings and ventilation of ships, and to the abolition of covered or between deck cargoes of animals, with the object of lessening the sufferings of these beasts on the voyage from the Argentine provinces, which, owing to heat and length of voyage, must always be fairly large?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: We have for some time past been in semi-official communication with the representatives of the Argentine Government on this subject, and I believe that they fully realise that it would be to the interest of all concerned that the trade should be placed on a more satisfactory footing. It should, however, be remembered that the character of the cattle carried and the nature of the voyage differ very materially in the case of Canada and the Argentine, and too much weight must, therefore, not be attached to the comparison drawn in, the Question. I am in full sympathy with the object which the honourable Member has in view, and we shall spare no pains to bring about a diminution of the losses referred to. But I do not think that the solution of the matter lies in any of the directions which he is good enough to indicate.

  REPORT ON FRENCH MATCH FACTORIES
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there can be circulated to Members before Friday the Report of the distinguished expert, Dr. Oliver, on the chief match factories of France, alluded to by him on 15th July?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I will see if this can be done.

  PAUPER LUNATICS IN IRELAND.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, for the boarding out of pauper lunatics have been largely availed of in England and Scotland, to the great advantage of both the lunatics themselves and the ratepayers, the Government will, when the Irish Local Government Bill is passing through the House of Lords, cause to be inserted the fifty-seventh section of that Act among the Acts the provisions of which may be made applicable to Ireland by an Order in Council?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid the Government cannot undertake to introduce Amendments of the general law affecting lunatics into the Local Government Bill.

  REVOLVER ACCIDENTS.
  MR. E. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Richard Southey, who was received into the Armagh County Infirmary a, few days ago, suffering from a wound in the hand, caused by a shot from a revolver which he had been brandishing to the public danger; and can he state whether this man had a licence to carry firearms; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is true that the person named in the Question was under treatment for a couple of days at the infirmary in consequence of an injury to his hand caused by the accidental discharge of a revolver, but there is no foundation for the statement that he brandished the weapon to the
  1146
  public danger. The place where the occurrence took place is some 200 yards from a public road, and is moreover surrounded by a wall. The man did not require an Arms Act licence, as the locality is not proclaimed under the provisions of the Act, nor did he require the ordinary gun licence, as the spot where the occurrence took place is within the curtilage of the dwelling where he was lodging.

  BICYCLES FOR THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. PURVIS: On behalf of the honourable Member for Walsall I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction has been expressed by cycle manufacturers who were not asked or allowed to tender for the supply of the 300 bicycles recently ordered by the-Post Office; and will care be, taken in future either to make the competition entirely open or at least to allow to all well-recommended manufacturers the opportunity of tendering?
  MR. HANBURY: The machines required by the Post Office are not ordinary stock machines, but have to be made to a specially prepared specification, and the Postmaster General does not think it desirable that a contract of this description should be entirely open. He will, however, carefully consider whether on the next occasion the competition can be enlarged, and, in the meantime, will take note of the names of all well-recommended manufacturers who may wish to tender.

  COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the item of £10 in the Additional Estimate, Class VII., under the heading "S. Eateen: Compensation for wrongful conviction," will he state under what circumstances this compensation is paid?
  MR. HANBURY: Samuel Eateen was convicted on a charge of stealing coal and underwent imprisonment for 14 days in default of payment of a fine. It was subsequently established that the conviction had been obtained by perjured evidence. Eateen was granted a free pardon, and the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, agreed to award him a sum of £10 as compensation for wrongful conviction. The money was applied for Eateen's benefit under direction of the Secretary of State.

  NEWGATE PRISON SITE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of his letter to the Corporation of the City of London, embodying the terms upon which a new sessions house is to be built on the site of a portion of Newgate Prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The negotiations between the Government and the City have been as to the terms on which the City should acquire the site of New-gate Prison. The question has been a financial one only, and is now arranged. The correspondence is not of sufficient interest, I think, to lay on the Table.

  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any of the Metropolitan boards of guardians, and, if any, which of them, have passed resolutions in favour of the first sub-section of clause 1 of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund Bill, which empowers any such board to increase the salary of any of its officers on account of exceptional merit or long service, above the amount sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and to pay such increase entirely out of the rates of the union, without any claim to repayment from the Metropolitan Common Poor
  1148
  Fund; whether he has taken any steps, and if so what steps, to bring the Bill to the notice of the Metropolitan boards of guardians; and whether he has received any representations that the proposed sub-section will operate very unfairly to the poorer districts of London, and is inconsistent with the principle on which the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was established?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board has not received from, boards of guardians, since the Bill was brought in, any communication either in favour of, ar adverse to, the Measure. Prior to the introduction of the Bill, however, communications were received from several boards of guardians, including Fulham, Hampstead, Kensington, City of London, Mile End, Paddington, Stepney, Wandsworth and Clapham, West-minster, Whitechapel, and Woolwich, in favour of the principle embodied in the clause. On the other hand there were some that did not favour the proposal. The Bill was delivered nearly a month ago. It is not the practice of the Board to bring specially under the attention of boards of guardians Bills in which they may be interested. No exceptional course was taken as regards the Bill in question.

  TRAWLING ON THE NORTH-EAST COAST.
  MR.FENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the line fishermen of the North-east coast are continually subject to loss of property by the action of trawling vessels; and, if so, whether he will consent to the appointment early next Session of a Select Committee to consider the question with a view to further legislation on the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): At a meeting of representatives of sea fishery authorities over which I presided last month, reference was made (by the

  1149
  chairman of the Coquet district) to losses inflicted upon some of the Northumberland inshore fishermen 'by the action of the crews of vessels trawling in contravention of local by-laws, but I have not received any other complaints on this subject. The representation made at the meeting appeared to be not so much in favour of further legislation as in favour of more vigorous enforcement of existing by-laws. In these circumstances, I do not think that there is any need for the appointment of a Committee, but, as promised at the meeting, the means by which the by-laws of the Fishery Committees may best be enforced will receive careful consideration in each case.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.
  MR. C. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the new clause to be proposed by him in Committee on the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Bill, when he will be in a position to announce the new scale and regulations which are to be made by the Board of Trade for the carrying of boys by British merchant ships, without which information it is impossible to estimate whether the proposed remuneration is adequate. Perhaps I may also be allowed to ask the right honourable Gentleman when he intends to proceed further with the Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD TRADE: I anticipate being able, when the Bill next comes before the House, which I hope may be Wednesday, to indicate the general nature of the scale and regulations which, if the Bill passes, I shall propose for the concurrence of the Treasury.

  BRITISH COMPENSATION CLAIMS AGAINST TURKEY.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Embassy at Constantinople has
  1150
  yet sent a reply to the note received from the Porte repudiating all responsibility for the demand's made on behalf of British subjects for losses sustained by them during the Armenian massacres; whether he is aware that the reply recently given by the British Government to the representatives of these British subjects on this subject has caused much dissatisfaction; and in view of the serious interests involved, the British Government will insist upon the settlement by the Porte of the demands made?
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government will consider the desirability of obtaining satisfaction in the claims of British subjects in respect of the losses sustained during the Constantinople massacres of 1896, either by laying an embargo on the Greek Indemnity money, as France is doing, or by deducting the sum required from the money which will accrue to the Ottoman Treasury from the conversion of the Guaranteed Loan of 1855?
  MR. CURZON: The reply from the Porte has only arrived to-day, and I have not yet had an opportunity of considering its contents. The assurance given by Her Majesty's Government to the claimants was to the effect that they would use their best endeavours to obtain for British claims as favourable a treatment as is accorded to those of other nationalities. It is not possible to go beyond that statement at the present moment. But I cannot see why it should have caused much, or, indeed, am' dissatisfaction. In reply to the honourable Member for Eye I have to say I am unable to make any statement as to the particular method which may be adopted by Her Majesty's Government to procure satisfaction from the Turkish Government for the claims in question.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I understand that the British or any other Government have any right to interfere with the Greek Indemnity or the Guaranteed Loan of 1855?
  MR. CURZON: That raises a difficult international question, and I must ask for notice.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  MR. LOUGHhad on the Paper the following; Question: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education at what stage of the Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation Bill (London), and at whose instance, the plan No. 10, which, had been approved by the Education Department, and had passed the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, was struck out of the schedule without notice to the House or to the parties interested; and why the Bill, although it 'had passed the Unopposed Committee on the afternoon of Tuesday last without any Amendment, was reported to the House on the evening of that day as an amended Bill? On its being reached the honourable Member said: After the Debate this afternoon, I will simply ask why notice was not given to the parties interested?
  MR. SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of that.

  PRISONS CLERICAL STAFF.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the promotion of the clerical staff in prisons to posts similar to that of deputy governor may be taken to imply that these appointments will rank along with that of deputy governors for promotion to fourth class governorships according to date of creation, as in the case of Mr. Bartle referred to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The class of governor storekeepers to whom the honourable Member refers rank with deputy governors, and will be promoted to higher grades if they prove themselves qualified for the more responsible charge.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE INSPECTORS.
  MR. A. H. A. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as the ser-
  1152
  geants and constables of the Metropolitan Police are provided with a uniform of a light material for summer wear, he will be good enough to inquire if a similar provision could be made in favour of the inspectors, who are at present obliged to wear both in summer and winter alike the same thick regulation uniform?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Inspectors are supplied with a light serge jacket for office wear, and the question whether it can be adapted for outdoor duty as well, during the summer, is being considered.

  NEWBLISS MAGISTERIAL BENCH.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the vacancy recently caused in the Newbliss, county Monaghan, magistracy, by the death of Mr. Daly, who was a Roman Catholic, was filled by the appointment of a Roman Catholic, or was Mr. Daly's successor a Protestant?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that there has not been any justice of the peace named Daly in the Newbliss petty sessions district. With respect to the general question raised by the honourable Member, I can only say that such appointments are governed not by considerations of religion, but of fitness for the office.

  WELWYN TUNNEL FATALITY.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident to a man named George Freeman in a tunnel near Welwyn, Herts, on the Great Northern Railway; whether he is aware that the deceased was booked on duty for 12 hours at a stretch, which the majority of the coroner's jury considered too long; and whether he will take proceedings; under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893,

  1153
  to prevent such protracted hours of duty on railways?
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the circumstances disclosed at the inquest held on George Freeman, an employee of the Great Northern Railway Company, on Tuesday last whether it is the fact that Freeman, in discharge of his duty as flagman to bricklayers repairing Welwyn Tunnel, was on duty for 12 hours in the tunnel without relief; whether the Board of Trade was represented at the inquest; and whether, having regard to the facts disclosed, and the opinion expressed by the jury that 12 hours in a tunnel without being visited was far too long, he will take action under the Act of 1893 to have the hours of such railway servants reasonably reduced, and recommend further precautions to the company concerned?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I will reply to the two Questions together. The Board of Trade have not yet received the coroner's return, but should it turn out that Freeman was a servant of the railway company, and that the facts are as stated, the Board will communicate with the company under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893. The Department was not represented at the inquest, as the coroner did not ask for the assistance of an assessor. Since I have been in the House I have received a communication from the company to the effect that Freeman had been off duty for 36 hours previous to commencing work at 6 p.m. on the 17th instant. There was no mental strain upon him, and no complaint had ever been made by him that the hours were too long. Consequent upon this accident having occurred, the company have under consideration the steps best adapted for preventing the recurrence of a similar accident.

  CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, seeing that the Crown right of reply whether witnesses are
  1154
  examined or not is in England confined exclusively to the law officers of the Crown, and its exercise is subject on the responsibility to Parliament attaching to the holders of law offices of the Crown, he will direct for the future that the Crown's right of reply by both the law officers and their representatives now in force in Ireland be not exercised by the representatives of the law officers in Crown cases when witnesses are not called for the defence?
  MR. ATKINSON: The right of reply mentioned is in Ireland only claimed or exercised where the Attorney General or Solicitor General conducts the prosecution in person, or where it is conducted by some person appointed by the Attorney General, and for whose conduct the Attorney General is responsible. This has always been the practice in Ireland, and, in my opinion, a change in it is not desirable.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the fact that prosecutions in Ireland are uniformly conducted by the Attorney General or his representative, and that private prosecutions are unknown?
  MR. ATKINSON: It is so generally, but not always.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Could you mention two such cases?
  [No Reply.]

  ASHELDHAM (ESSEX) POOR RATE.
  MR. MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Rating Act the Treasury undertakes to pay half the poor rate on land, and that for the parish of Asheldham, Essex, the half amounts to £19, half-yearly; and why it is that only £9 10s. has been received instead of £19?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: In reply to the honourable Member's (Question as to the discrepancy between £19 and £9 10s., the £9 10s. does not take into account the share of

  1155
  the parish of Asheldham in the grant paid to the county council, although the charge for county rate is included in the £19. Again, the poor rate in the parish for the year is not the same in each half-year. It is higher during the current half-year than it was in the last half-year. The grant, on the other hand, is a fixed one, based upon the rates taken to be raised in the year before the passing of the Agricultural Rates Act, and it is paid twice a year in equal instalments. Further, the grant being a fixed one, any increase in expenditure falling on the parish since the 31st March, 1896, has to be paid in full without aid from the grant. For instance, there was an increase in the expenditure of the guardians for the union of £395, and of the rural district of £966, of which the parish of Asheldham has to bear its share. It is also to be remembered that there is no grant in respect of the overseers. The honourable Member will find, I think, that in this way the discrepancy is practically accounted for.

  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF IRELAND.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, will he explain why the Report of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland is presented to the Department of Science and Art in January, but does not reach the public until August; and if he will take steps to secure in future that this Report is published within a shorter time of its presentation?
  MR. SIB J. GORST: The Report in question forms part of the annual Report of the Science and Art Department, and cannot, therefore, be published before that Report. The annual Report for this year is already published.

  PROPOSED PIER AT RENARD POINT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1156
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an application was made to the Congested Districts Board by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to build a pier at Renard Point, near Cahirciveen; that negotiations have been going on since the railway was opened; and that the railway company offered a substantial amount towards the completion of the pier; and whether the Government will give a grant in aid for this work, seeing that there is no accommodation for the deep sea fishing boats for landing their takes at a place where railway transit is available?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A proposal was made to the Congested Districts Board by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in 1893 relative to the construction of a pier at Renard. The board offered to contribute a sum of £1,000 towards the erection of a pier, provided the balance of the cost were contributed by the neighbouring proprietors and the county authorities. The railway company, however, considered the board's offer inadequate, and as the board declined to increase it, the negotiations fell through. There has been no communication with the railway company on the subject since January, 1894.

  CAHIRCIVEEN AND DINGLE BAY FISHERIES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what was the result of the application to the Congested Districts Board for the building of a boat-slip at Rhodes, Cahirciveen, which application was to be considered by the Congested Districts Board at their meeting on Saturday, 16th July? I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that repeated applications were made to provide a pier for the fishing boats at Kells, Dingle Bay, to which the answer was given that the matter was under consideration, he can state if it is likely to be commenced at once?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No decision has yet been arrived at by the Congested Districts Board in the matter of the suggested construction of boat-slips at Rhodes and Kells.

  TELEPHONES IN GUERNSEY.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Guernsey States Telephone Committee has declined to connect their telephone exchange system with the head post office in Guernsey in consequence of the refusal of the Postmaster General to allow such a connection, if made, to be used by telephone subscribers located outside the town of St. Peter Port, for the purposes of telephoning telegrams for transmission over the post office telegraphs, for telephoning messages to be written down and posted as letters, and for calling for the services of express messengers as provided for by section 7 of the Treasury Minute, dated 23rd May, 1892; and whether, seeing that such refusal is a denial of the facilities authorised by the said Treasury Minute to all the telephone exchange subscribers except those in St. Peter Port, he will take steps to have this connection made?
  MR. HANBURY: The States of Guernsey have not up to the present time connected their exchange in St. Peter Port with the head post office, and it may be that they are influenced by the reason mentioned by the honourable Member. There is no desire to exclude from the facilities at St. Peter Port any subscribers outside the town directly connected with the exchange there, and the States have been informed that subscribers are at liberty to use the facilities. But what it is understood that the States require is, that subscribers connected with other exchanges in the island should enjoy these facilities at St. Peter Port instead of at their own local postal telegraph offices. This would not be in accordance with the practice which has hitherto obtained throughout the United Kingdom, and the Postmaster General is reluctant to alter the existing practice in
  1158
  any respect until he has had the advantage of considering the Report of the-Committee of this House which is now inquiring into the whole subject.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, on what date the National Telephone Company applied to the Postmaster General for permission to attach wires to the post office from, the telephone exchange they commenced to erect in St. Peter Port, Guernsey, in, 1896, and on what date the permission to do so was granted; and on what date the States of Guernsey Telephone Exchange applied to the Postmaster General for the same privilege, and on what date he granted it?
  MR. HANBURY: The National Telephone Company applied to the Postmaster General on the 18th May, 1896, for permission to connect their exchange in St. Peter Port with the head post office, and permission was granted on the 20th May, 1896. The first formal application from the States of Guernsey for permission to connect the exchange which they were constructing in St. Peter Port with the head post office is dated the 31st May, 1898, and permission was granted on 28th June, 1898, but the letter conveying this permission also dealt with the question of the establishment of a postal telegraph office at the White Rock Pier, and with the rules which governed the use of the proposed connection with the head post office—matters about which the States entertained views which were not in harmony with those of the Department, and about which there had been separate correspondence.

  ARMY RECRUITING.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the highly unsatisfactory state and outlook of recruiting, the Government will bring on the Army Estimates at an early day, and under such conditions as will allow of a full discussion of the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my honourable and gallant Friend I have to say that, as I think I stated in the House on Friday, we shall take the Army Estimates on Thursday next. In giving this reply I ought to guard myself from any supposition that we agree with the gloomy forecast the honourable and gallant Gentleman has made with regard to recruiting.

  FOREIGN OFFICE VOTE AND THE CHINESE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Report on the Foreign Office Vote will be taken; and if the Government propose to make any statement to Parliament as to the position of the China negotiations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: While we are perfectly prepared to defend our action and policy in China if it is called in question, we do not contemplate making any statement in Parliament or laying any Papers on the Table before the Session closes other than those relating to the agreement as to the Yang-tsze provinces. The reason of this is that negotiations are still in progress and have not reached a stage when either a statement or a communication of Papers is possible.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is not the fact that no Papers on China have been laid before Parliament since the month of April? Does the right honourable Gentleman not propose to give us any Papers relating to affairs in China generally during the months of May, June, and July, before the rising of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD UF THE TREASURY: No, Sir, I gather that there have been no Papers relating to China, except such as refer to pending negotiations.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the House to understand that no further information will be given to the House before the recess either as to the Government's intentions in regard to Wei-hai-Wei, or as to the French opposition to the opening of Nan-ning as a free port?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There are no Papers to be laid before the House, but if questions are put to me, or to my right honourable Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, they will be answered, so far as it is compatible with the interests of the public service.
  MR. GRETTON: When will the Papers relating to the Yang-tsze assurance be presented?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right honourable Friend informs me that the Papers have already been laid in dummy, and he hopes that they will be circulated either to-morrow or the next day.

  LOANS TO CHINA.
  MR. YERBURGH): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to undertake the sole responsibility of guaranteeing a loan of 16 millions to the Chinese Government; whether there is any precedent for such a guarantee, and with what object it was to have been given; and whether, if the Government were prepared to guarantee such loan, they will, in view of the vast importance to our trade in general and to the trade of Lancashire in particular of developing and opening up markets in the Yang-tsze region, guarantee such schemes of railway enterprise by British subjects in that region as they may be advised are requisite?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Papers already presented to Parliament contain full information as to the character and objects of the loan which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to make to China in January last. Such a loan would be much more

  1161
  secure than any guarantee of a railway on foreign soil could be, and having a national character, it would be on a different footing from the guarantee of a railway undertaken by private enterprise.
  MR. YERBURGH: Can the right honourable Gentleman answer the second paragraph and say whether there is any precedent for such a loan?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not remember at this moment any precedent.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The Turkish loan?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, yes; I suppose the Turkish loan would be.
  MR. YERBURGH: But on the sole responsibility of the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That, I am afraid, makes no difference.

  CHINESE INTERNAL WATERWAYS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to inform the House as to any further facilities granted to foreigners in respect to internal water communication within the Chinese Empire?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin has reported by telegram that the amendments demanded by him have now been agreed to by the Chinese Government, and that revised regulations are in course of preparation, and will be promulgated very shortly.

  TELEGRAPHIC RATES FOR PRESS MESSAGES.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state in what part of the Parliamentary Regulations, as presented
  1162
  to this House in 1879, the Post Office is authorised to charge the full rate to each newspaper in a multiple address message, even when a separate pass is handed in for each newspaper; whether he is aware that the regulations provide for the full charge being made only in eases where a single pass is handed in and the other addresses are paid for in cash or stamps; and whether he will undertake that the full rate will not henceforth be charged on multiple addresses when a separate pass is handed in for each address, especially in view of the fact that when cash is paid the reduced rate is allowed?
  MR. HANBURY: The authority to charge the full rate to each newspaper in a multiple address message when a separate pass is handed in for each newspaper is given by Regulation 19 of the Press Message Regulations of 1879. The honourable Member has not accurately interpreted the regulation referred to in the second paragraph. As regards addresses for which there is no pass, the messages must be paid for at the full rate. The Postmaster General, as at present advised, does not see his way to give the undertaking the honourable Member asks for.

  COMMERCIAL ATTACHES ABROAD.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Commercial Attaches appointed by Lord Salisbury to assist British commerce in the principal countries of Europe are entitled to correspond freely with all persons interested in the trade of the countries to which they are accredited, as well as with chambers of commerce, and are provided with properly equipped offices wherein they are readily accessible to British manufacturers, merchants, and their agents, independently of the social and epistolary ceremonies of diplomacy?
  MR. CURZON: The Commercial Attaches are not only entitled, but are instructed to correspond freely with all persons interested in trade. Accommo-

  1163
  dation is provided for them in Her Majesty's Embassies to which they are attached.
  MR. COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the post of Commercial Attach to the Embassy at St. Petersburg is now vacant, and has been practically so for some time past, although the salary has been voted by Parliament; and, in such case, if, having regard to the damage resulting to British trade in Russia by the growing competition of France, Belgium, and Germany, steps will be taken to appoint to this important post a person thoroughly conversant with British commerce and its opportunities in all the Russia from the Vistula to the Pacific?
  MR. CURZON: The post of Commercial Attaché, held by Sir E. Law, which was not confined to Russia, but included some of the smaller European States, has now fallen vacant owing to his appointment to another office; and Her Majesty's Government are considering what steps can best be taken in the interests of British trade in the countries concerned, in connection with the filling of the vacancy.

  COLONEL LANGTRY.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Colonel Langtry has been passed over for promotion to the rank of major-general, although he has 37 years' good service, and is eligible under the terms of the Royal Warrant, 1897 (paragraph 44); whether lie is aware that Colonel Langtry took part in the Abyssinian Campaign, both advances to Kandahar, operations in Yarkistan, and the Boer Campaign, was selected to command Sir Michael Biddulph's escort for the first reconnaissance into the Zhob Valley, and was strongly recommended) by the various generals under whom he 'served; whether purchase officers, among whom was Colonel Langtry,' were assured that they would not suffer either pecuniarily or in promotion;
  1164
  whether one colonel who has superseded him has never commanded a regiment; and whether, looking to these facts, further consideration will be given to Colonel Langtry's claims?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Colonel Langtry was not promoted major-general because he was not considered by the Army Board to possess the qualifications required in a general officer. Colonel Langtry was a captain when purchase was abolished, and has no claim to promotion to the rank of major-general on that score. I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that his case will be reconsidered.

  1ST BANFF VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what sum Gunners H. Watson and T. Downie, of the 1st Banff Volunteer Artillery, must pay before they can obtain their discharge applied for on 29th January last; and, if they do not pay, whether it is the intention of the War Office to retain them as Volunteers against their will for an indefinite time?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The officer commanding the 1st Banff Volunteer Artillery has dismissed Gunners Watson and Downie for absence without leave from the annual inspection. If the fines due from them, to cover the loss to the Corps occasioned by the non-efficiency, be not paid by the 1st December, proceedings will be taken to recover them before a court of summary jurisdiction in accordance with the corps rules made under the Volunteer Acts.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that those two gunners hold certificates of proficiency, and are willing to serve in a rifle company?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I should say not, because through their inefficiency the corps lost money.

  RENARD AND WATERVILLE RAILWAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations were in progress between the Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to extend the recently constructed light railway from Renard to Waterville, through a district in which Government relief works have been opened this year; whether he is aware that resolutions in favour of this extension have been unanimously passed by the presentment sessions, the poor law boards, and grand jury, and that all classes of the community in the district demand it; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will immediately consider the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No negotiations have taken place between the Irish. Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the subject of the extension of the line of railway from Renard to Waterville. Upwards of two years ago, however, proposals were made to Government in this direction by a number of gentlemen locally interested in the project, and the decision of Government was communicated to the honourable Member for South Kerry for the information of those interested.

  CARLISLE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the difference between the percentage of higher grants in the Carlisle district as compared with that in the north western division as a whole, and to the allegation frequently made in the Carlisle district, that this is due to the abnormally high standard adopted by the local inspector, he will favourably consider the suggestion that the senior chief inspector should visit the Carlisle district, in order to secure greater uniformity in assessing the Government grants?
  SIR J. GORST: The chief inspector of the district has been directed to make inquiries into the matter.

  IMPROPER ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. CHANNLNG: I beg to ask the MR. Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the facts disclosed in the recent trial of Doctor Collins, and in many previous trials of similar character, and the use made in the St. Neot's case of a notorious advertisement; whether he is aware that an enormous number of advertisements inciting to criminal offences of this nature are regularly being inserted in the metropolitan and provincial Press, and that a vast amount of social mischief and crime is alleged to arise from these advertisements; and whether he will introduce or support effective legislation to prevent the insertion in the Press or other distribution of advertisements of this class, and strengthen the law in dealing with incitements to these offences?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am fully aware of the character of these advertisements, but legislation on the subject would be a matter of great difficulty, and I am not prepared at present to give any undertaking to introduce it. I will, however, bear the matter in mind.
  MR. CHANNING: In consequence of the reply of the right honourable Gentleman I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity next Session I will myself introduce a Bill on the subject.

  LOANS TO COLONIES.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Aberdeenshire I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury which, if any, of the Colonies, protectorates, or protected States to which the Colonial Loans Bill applies has had practical difficulty in recent years in obtaining loans on reasonable terms under the present system;

  1167
  and what loans have been raised by these Colonies or States, and on what terms, during the last 30 years?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not possible, within the limits of the answer to a Question, to enter into the conditions under which particular Crown Colonies have borrowed during recent years, but it may be stated, generally, that they have suffered material disadvantage from the system of individual issues of comparatively small amount, which are distinctly less marketable than any form of combined stock. The information asked for in the second part of the Question could be given in the form of a Return, but it will take some time to prepare.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it intended to proceed with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund Bill to-night?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: And with the Vaccination Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not propose to take either of those Bills to-night.
  MR. SIR H. H. FOWLER: Will the whole of Thursday be given to Army Estimates, or is the latter part of the evening to be devoted to the Post Office Vote?
  MR. BRYCE: When will the Board of Trade Vote be taken?
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: Do the Government intend to proceed with the Lunacy Bill, which has been sent down from the House of Lords?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give an answer as to the last Question at present With regard to Thursday, I hope to take other Votes besides the War Office Vote—the Post Office Vote and some others. I cannot at present say when the Board
  1168
  of Trade Vote will be taken. I do not see any chance of taking it this week; but I will put it down on Friday.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Do the Government intend to proceed with any Scotch Bill to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No Scotch business will be taken before to-morrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill be taken to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I do not think we shall be able to proceed with either of these Bills.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the Shops Club Committee be moved to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We must see what progress we make with business.

  NORTH AMERICAN COMMISSION.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the protest of Canada in October, 1890, against Newfoundland being allowed to negotiate separately with the United States upon the fisheries questions, and the then admitted importance of obtaining unity of action on the part of the Colonies interested, Newfoundland is now to be represented on the Commission for the settlement of questions pending between the United States and Canada, so far as these include the subject of the North American fisheries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBEBLAIN,): The answer to the right honourable Member is in the affirmative. It has been arranged that Sir J. S. Winter, the Premier of Newfoundland, shall represent the Colony at the proposed conference.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL. [H.L.]
  The House entered upon the consideration of this Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Add after the names of the commissioners the words 'and two other persons to be appointed by Her Majesty.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
  MR. HARWOOD: I rise to move the Amendment that stands in my name in regard to the constitution of the Commission. The London University is undoubtedly a great examining organisation, which at the present time examines more than 6,000 candidates a year. The London University receives its candidates not merely from England, but from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and the House will therefore realise the delicacy of the problem. We are dealing with a great problem, and we have to look first to the authority which is to deal with this problem. It has been said that the powers and duties of these authorities are very directly laid down, and that therefore it is not a question of persons as of carrying out the instructions. But anyone who considers the matter will find that that is not so at all. The Commissioners are empowered to carry out the recommendations of a Report, which is a Blue Book of 60 pages. The 10 recommendations are omitted from the Bill altogether. I ask the House to realise the importance of having a Commission thoroughly capable and adequate. I do not mean for one moment the question personally of the commissioners. There are seven men, some of whom I know by repute are persons admirably qualified for the task which is committed to them. But six out of the seven are associated with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and I question whether these gentlemen, saturated with the traditions of the old universities, are the best men by themselves to deal with problems not on the lines of Oxford and Cambridge, and properly to treat the existing London
  1170
  University, which is doing so great a work. I ask the House whether this number of seven is adequate to perform this function? I ask the House to add two names, and I suggest that those who are proposed should not be so closely bound to the traditions of the old untversities.
  SIR J. GORST: The number of commissioners is a matter that has been carefully considered, and the Standing Committee support the Government in thinking that the numbers in the Bill were the best. I quite admit the difficulty of the task, but I do not think it is so difficult as the honourable Member suggests. I do not know that it necessarily follows that the appointment of a larger number of commissioners will decrease the difficulty. I hope the House will endorse the number proposed in the Bill.
  SIR H. FOWLER: I wish to say one word on this question, and that is with reference to the constitution of the Commission. Nobody would say a word against the seven names mentioned in the Bill, but there is a feeling that the legitimate claims of Nonconformity have not been recognised in the constitution of this Commission, and that at least one member of that Commission should have been selected from the ranks of the very distinguished men who have won very high honours in the University of London, as representing the denominational colleges outside the Church of England. Of course, if the Government say "No," we have no power. I only wish to state that I hope, before the Government and the right honourable Gentleman give a final "No," they will reconsider that point, whether there is or not that representation of English Nonconformity which I think there ought to be, having regard to the original founders of the London University, and its present constitution.
  MR. HALDANE: There was considerable discussion on this subject, and no suggestion was made that the representation of Nonconformity wanted any special addition. It, is an idea that occurred later, but it did not occur to anyone who took a part

  1171
  in the formation of the Commission. I point out to my honourable Friend that there is no serious danger in not having any more representatives of Nonconformity on it. This Commission is not a roving Commission; it is a Commission to carry out certain very definite instructions given to them. I do not think it is a good thing to appoint a Commission representing conflicting interests. The Government have done wisely in forming a workable Commission of a judicial character, and I believe that it will be found that every point, of view which ought to be represented will be adequately provided for.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: In the Committee I moved an Amendment to increase the number of the Commission, and I still think, having regard to the importance and the difficulty of the work entrusted to this Commission, and to the absence of any direct representation of the external students, that it would be desirable to have some additional representation. The answer to that made by my honourable Friend opposite is that it has been a matter of compromise. I am quite sure that no one could give greater force to a compromise of this sort; but, after all, the point before the House is, whether that compromise arrived at is a right one, and whether it would not be in the interests of the university to enlarge the Commission. Only one gentleman it assigned as at all representing the external students. Now, of the chairman of convocation not a word can be said in regard to his general qualifications; but it should be remembered that convocation is a composite body composed of many persons connected with the various colleges which form part of the university. The chairman of convocation himself is a member of one of these colleges—namely. University College; at any rate, he graduated from one of the colleges. On the other hand, I would like to point out that the vast majority of the students of the university are distinctly at present external students, yet only one such representative yet can be said to be assigned to them by the compromise. The crux of the whole problem is undoubtedly the possibility of reconciling the interests of the external and the internal students. That is the great question that has been
  1172
  the subject of conflict in convocation, which, I say, is by no means composed of external students. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter on behalf of an important element—namely, the present university external students.
  MR. GRIFFITH: The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has referred to the Nonconformist aspect of the question, and the honourable Member behind me has spoken of a compromise, and stated that it must stand in the Bill. He has said that he has settled the matter by this compromise, but who gave the honourable Gentleman authority to settle the question? This House has not. There is this additional point: in its initiation this was a Nonconformist university; it was the only university where Nonconformists could take their degree in the old days of tests. We want to maintain this aspect of the University in full force. I think there ought to be some safeguard in the interests of Nonconformists in this matter. The honourable Gentleman has referred to the present external students. It is admitted that upwards of three-fourths are external students, and that only one member of the Commission represents external students, but I doubt whether that is so. There is no one among these seven commissioners who represents the external colleges, and why in the world should they not be represented in this Bill? Again, there are the teachers in our elementary schools, who have a, great interest in this Bill. Hundreds of them owe their position to the benefits they have derived from this University, and there is nobody amongst these commissioners who represents in any special way the teachers in our elementary schools. Therefore I hope the Vice-President will see his way to come to an agreement on this point.
  MR. BRIGG: I venture to support what has been said. A very large proportion of those who have been students in the London University come from the provinces, and their representation is exceedingly meagre, if they are represented at all. I do think the Vice-President might have seen his way to admit a larger represen-

  1173
  tation of those who we may call country people, I could very easily add three or four names to that body of men who would have some knowledge and business capacity, and know what is going on in the outside world. I think that, out of deference to those who form the bulk of the students of the University, there ought to have been a stronger representation given to them. It is rather a suspicious circumstance that the very people who have the largest interest in this University should be scarcely represented at all. Therefore I very strongly recommend the right honourable Gentleman, as far as he has the power, to take that course. I believe in Committee upstairs it was felt that the Government have no power. I do not know exactly what may be the weight of that statement, but if they have the power I certainly, looking at it from the outside point of view, and as representing a very large number of country people who are now dreading the loss of the university, think the least we can do is to take What power we have in our hands and see that their representation on the Commission is increased. I beg to support the Amendment.
  SIR W. PRIESTLEY: A great deal of sympathy which has been expressed for what are called external students is due to the erroneous supposition that the majority of people in the country who have taken great pains to qualify themselves for the examinations of the University of London are private students. But that is really not the case, because I gather from the memorandum which I hold in my hand, which is drawn up by the Registrar of the University of London, that in 1897, of 140 candidates who graduated II.A., 45 were entered under private study only (most of these were certainly tutorial), whilst 81 were entered under some college or school. Of 98 candidates who graduated B.Sc., only 10 were entered under private study; and of 133 candidates who graduated M.B., not a single one was a private student. Therefore, a very large proportion of the students who come up to the University of London have undergone more or less collegiate education,
  1174
  apart from mere private study. I hold that the external students proper are amply represented on the Commission. It should not for one moment be supposed that the Interests of internal and external students are antagonistic, nor are the Commissioners, I take it, likely to regard the interests of one class of students in preference to those of the other.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: My honourable Friend who has just sat down tells us that at a given examination there were out of 140 candidates only 45 who were private students, and he assumed, therefore, that these were the only external students. Under this Bill the external students will not only be those entering under private study, but all the students in country colleges. At the present moment the University of London examines candidates from as many as 200 institutions scattered all over the country, and except a small minority from certain London colleges these will all be external students. Now it is because the University of London differs so very materially from the other universities that I think it is important that there should be mi the Commission a larger number of Gentlemen who are cognisant with the manner in which the university is conducted. I agree with all that has been said about Mr. Busk and Professor M. Foster: but the majority of the present Commission, however eminent, have not the same special knowledge, and I hope the Government will add two other Commissioners, not to represent any special interest, but thoroughly conversant with the affairs of the university.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I wish to take this earliest opportunity to associate myself with the honourable Member who has moved the Amendment, although I rather prefer an Amendment of a similar nature which stands lower down in the Paper in the name of an honourable Gentleman representing a Yorkshire constituency [Mr. Brigg], but which will, I understand, be excluded from consideration.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I wish to reiterate the complaints which have been made of the

  1175
  non-representation, of Nonconformists on the Commission. I observe that the representation includes one of the most eminent of the bishops. For my part, I should prefer that no ecclesiastic should be a member of this Commission, in order to avert all suspicion. But if it is necessary to appoint a bishop I should have thought it would have been much better not to have appointed the Bishop of London, because he is officially connected with King's College, which is a sectarian institution. The Noncon-
  formists, Sir, are largely interested in this University of London; very many of their ministers have obtained their degrees there; they are proud of the university because of its unsectarian character, and they are naturally anxious that nothing should happen which would deprive the institution of its unsectarian character.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 186.—(Division List No. 246.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Henderson, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hornby, William Henry

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Howard, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Smith, James P. (Lanark)

  Drucker, A.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Smith, Hon.W. F. D. (Strand)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Leighton, Stanley

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn- (S w'ns'a)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Pinch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lowles, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Flower, Ernest

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fry, Lewis

  McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm N)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Monk, Charles James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William George

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FPR THE NOSE—

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 26, after 'London' insert 'and two graduates of the University of London to be recommended by convocation.'"—(Mr. Henry Labouchere.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: On behalf of the honourable Member for South West Bethnal Green, I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in his name. I have no personal objection to any of these gentlemen, and possibly they know a great deal about the subject. But, Sir, with the exception of one gentleman, they really have no connection whatever with this university. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Univer-
  1178
  sity of Edinburgh has told us that a vast number of the young men who gained degrees were educated in the university itself. I think he makes a mistake there, for I believe that the real number is about one-third.
  SIR W. PRIESTLEY: I did not make that statement.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, the honourable Gentleman gave me that impression. But that is not the question, for what we want, and what we are anxious to do, is to secure that there should be some representation of London upon the University of London, and we find that that is not the case as

  1179
  regards its present constitution, or as regards Mr. Henry Busk, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, and Chairman of the Convocation of the University of London, for this gentleman has something to do with another university, and he has made himself very prominent in supporting this Bill. Therefore he cannot be said to take an absolutely impartial view on account of his status and the position he has already taken up. Therefore he could not decide impartially whether they should be examined as at present, or whether in other ways they should obtain those degrees. Sir, it appears to me that the Amendment of my honourable Friend meets the difficulty to a very great extent, and I cannot see what the objection is to it. It does seem to me that the Government ought not to use their position and power as a Government in order to induce all their followers to come in and vote against this Amendment. We know perfectly well what it moans when the Government take a Government view on the matter, because a very large number of Members will hurry into the House and vote as the Government dictates. At present the Government, I need not say with their majority, keep a House at the end of the Session, and the Government can do precisely what they want to. I believe that on this side there are a large majority of honourable Members in favour of two of these additional gentlemen being appointed. Now, we have already had one Division upon this question, and it is, therefore, all the more desirable that the Government should meet the requirements of this case by accepting the Amendment. I cannot help feeling that this is an attempt to crush out the University of London as it exists at the present time, and I cannot understand my honourable Friend from Scotland taking such an active part in this matter. My honourable Friend is an able man, but he is a Scotchman, and I cannot understand wiry he has decided to come meddling with the University of London. He, as a Scotchman, ought to say, "I will join with those who wish to maintain this as a university for the whole country." But, putting aside the interests of Scotland, he tries to turn it into a little "hokey-pokey" University
  1180
  of London. Why, you are proposing to take away the essential principle which has made the University of London what it is. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment standing in the name of my honourable Friend.
  SIB J. GORST: I desire to point out that the arguments used in the Debate on the last Amendment against increasing the number of the Commission are equally applicable to the present Amendment. But there is a still further objection to this Amendment, and that is that if additional appointments were snown to be necessary, to increase the number by appointing two graduates of the University of London, it should be increased by appointments made by the Crown. There is another question—that of allowing the University to appoint themselves. There were no grounds for that course at all, and it was not done in the case of Oxford or Cambridge, or the Scotch universities, and it is, there fore, against all precedent to do it in the present case. The honourable Member for Northampton and others have spoken with alarm as to the destructive effect which this Measure will have upon the University of London. Now, I think that if they will look into the Bill, they will find that every possible precaution has been taken to prevent such a result from ensuing. I may remind the House that this particular constitution of the Commission has been submitted to the consideration of the Senate of the University of London, and also of Convocation, and they have both approved of the Commission as at present constituted.
  *SIR C. DILKE: I am astonished to hear the right honourable Gentleman say that this was not done in the case of Oxford and Cambridge. They were by the Act almost exactly in the same position as is proposed by this Amendment. I should have thought that the treatment of those institutions formed exact precedents for this Amendment—Commissioners' vote added for each college affected. I do not know exactly what the right honourable Gentleman means by his reply.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: I think the right honourable Gentleman has been misinformed as to there having been any

  1181
  compromise upon this point. When the question of the composition of the Commission came before the Senate of the University of London, I challenged it, and the question was reserved for decision in Parliament, and nobody was committed upon that question.
  MR. J. BRYCE: It is not the case that persons are appointed under the Bill by the general assent of the Commission. All that happened when the Commissioners who were appointed by this House were dealing with the question was that they were considering a particular policy in which property was involved, and that does not apply to the case of universities. The university authorities did not appoint any Commissioners to sit on these university affairs, and there is no parallel between these cases at all, because there is no property to be dealt with. I hope that the House will not in this case disturb the composition of the Commission, which has not only been very carefully considered, but has received the approval of the Senate of the University of London, and also of Convocation.
  MR. GRIFFITH: I cannot agree with the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen that Convocation is in favour of this Bill.
  MR. BRYCE: The question was submitted to Convocation, and they approved.
  MR. GRIFFITH: Convocation was not in favour of the Bill, and Convocation, more than any other body can, does represent the external student, whom we wish to protect. It is for that reason we say that Convocation should choose two men and add them to the Commission. If these two gentlemen are chosen they will represent not only the external student, but the colleges outside the 30 miles radius, and the interests of the teachers will also be safeguarded.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: My right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council of Education says that all the arguments against the previous Amendment apply to this,
  1182
  but, practically, the only argument brought forward was the analogy from the Commission in the case of Oxford and Cambridge. But it has been shown that in those cases any college affected was represented on the Commission. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen says that in the cases of Oxford and Cambridge the question arose of the property that was affected, but surely there is something higher than property to be considered in thesa educational matters? There is no doubt that the majority of colleges in London are in favour of this Bill, but the great bulk of the members of Convocation are in the country. [Cries of dissent.] Yes, they are; and it is the external student who will be affected by this Hill, and I agree with, the statements of the honourable Member for Islington [Sir Albert Rollit] that those who are really affected by this Bill have shown by the recent senatorial election that they are in favour of the Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: I very much regret that the Yice-President of the Council has not seen fit to assent to this Amendment. In a matter of this kind the outside students ought really to be represented, and at the present time no one on the list represents them. No one could say a single word against the present members of the Commission—one of them had great experience of teaching, and was a member of both a Scotch and an English University—but someone was wanted on the Commission to represent the teacher and the external student.
  MR. STUART: Whatever the rights or wrongs of the proposal before the House. I believe that this Amendment is a desirable and proper one.
  *MR. E. GRAY: I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Council whether a compromise has been effected. If a compromise has been effected, surely those representing the external interests ought to be parties to it. So far as I can see, Sir, the only body which can represent the interests of the external colleges and

  1183
  the external students is the Convocation of the University of London; and the Convocation has pronounced, with no uncertain voice, dead against these proposals. I should like to see this Bill deal not only with those within the 30-miles radius, but with the whole of the students who look to London as the goal of their academic career. I believe the Commission can be strengthened with advantage, and have a wider area for its activity. I happen to know that the outside colleges have a great interest in this Bill, and are looking forward to its provisions, as at present sketched out, with no little alarm. Therefore, I very

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ambrose, R. (Mayo, W.)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

  Asher, Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Roberts J. H. (Denbighs)

  Baker, Sir John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Bowles,Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Brigg, John

  Holburn, J. G.

  Spicer, Albert

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Steadman, William Charles

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leese Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Wayman, Thomas

  Colville, John

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Crombie, John William

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Maden, John Henry

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Davies.M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Norton, Capt. C. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Duckworth, James

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Mr. Labouchere and Mr.Pickersgill.

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Mailey, William

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Aird, John

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bethell, Commander

  Burt, Thomas

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Butcher, John George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Bill, Charles

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Birrell, Augustine

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W.(Leeds)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. J.B. (Clackm.)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Chamberlain.Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Brassey, Albert

  Charrington, Spencer

  much regret that the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment. I am bound to admit that we have been beaten; but had the vote been taken of those who heard only part of the Debate, the majority would not have been anything like what it was. When it is known throughout the country what the Bill is, and that the interests of the provincial colleges are bound up in it, there will be a considerable difference of opinion exhibited towards it.
  Amendment put.
  The House divided:—-Ayes 81; Noes 198.—(Division List No. 247.)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hazell, Walter

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Holland, Hon. L. R.

  Purvis, Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hornby, William Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Howard, Joseph

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanark)

  Drucker, A.

  LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D.(Strand)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Finch, George H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Leighton, Stanley

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lough, Thomas

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowles, John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fry, Lewis

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Garfit, William

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm,N)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcsh., N.)

  Goschen,RtHn. G. J. (St.G'rg's)

  McEwan, William

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R (Bath)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyndham-Quin. Maj. W. H.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  More, Robert Jasper

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gunter, Colonel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Morton, A. H. A (Deptford)

  Young, Commander (Berks.E.)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Mount, William George

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL. [H.L.]

    CLAUSE 2.
    MR. HARWOOD: Sir, the Amendment I have now to propose is on section 3, clause 2, page 2, line 21, to leave out "three" and insert "five." According to the Bill, three Commissioners are to be empowered to carry out the work, but it seems to me that if the House refuses to enlarge the Commission we will be reduced to an absurdity. The great consideration is to inspire confidence in the university. We all know quite well that where three prsons are brought together—even the three most
    1186
    perfect persons—they have each a peculiar characteristic, and we do say that the public has a right to have a proper safeguard, and I do not think there should be any objection to five forming a quorum. I beg to move that "five" be substituted for "three," on the ground that "five" is quite a small enough number to inspire confidence.
    SIR J. GORST: I think the House will see that three members are not enough; It would be inconvenient to have a small quorum having regard to the amount of formal and routine work that must be done by the Commissioners. I

    1187
    think, therefore, that three is not quite adequate.
    MR. BRIGG: I really think it would be desirable that a larger quorum than three should be named. I support the Amendment of the honourable Member who moved that "five" should be substituted for "three."
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I admit that three is undoubtedly a small quorum, but I think we may fairly assume that the names of the Commissioners is a guarantee that important questions will be properly considered.
    MR. GRIFFITH: It seems to me that three is too small a number for a quorum, because it is an actual minority of the Commissioners, whereas if it was four we would have a majority of the Commissioners present.
    Question put and Division challenged.
    Mr. SPEAKERput the question the second time after Members had returned, and at this point the Amendment was negatived without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 33, leave out 'five,' and insert 'six.'"—(Mr. Brigg.)
    MR. BRIGG: Sir, I think the Amendment standing in my name is a very much more important one than the one just under consideration. Sir, seeing the importance of the work that these commissioners have in hand, and especially at the commencement of their work, and that the Statutes and regulations made for the government of the university are likely to endure for a long time, it does seem to me of the highest importance that we should have the full authority of every one of these eminent gentlemen whose names we have down; and we have endeavoured in this House to-night to increase the number of these people, and to increase the variety of the information which ought to be brought to bear in the formation of a university of this kind. Each one of these gentlemen are proposed to represent some very important branch, and in the discharge of their duty, some important function bearing upon their work, it seems to me
    1188
    a very undesirable thing that they should be reduced down to five, and still that their work should be valid. The Amendment I move is that there should be not less than six of these commissioners at the same time. I have had a little experience in a matter of this kind, and I can assure the House, as well as the right honourable Gentleman, that the rule worked exceedingly well; that is, on a very large trust having to deal with a very large amount of money. One rule is that no act of any kind whatever shall be confirmed or passed by those trustees until the full number are elected. The consequence is that when death occurs, or a vacancy arises, then immediately steps are taken to fill up the number. I think there should be the same number in this case; and I feel that, having regard to the considerable importance of the functions of these gentlemen, each of whom represents a separate function and a separate constituency, it would be undesirable that they should be allowed to dwindle down as low as five. There seems to be no special clause, as far as I have been able to ascertain, for increasing the number, and it seems that they may stand at the number five for an indefinite length of time. That seems a very undesirable condition of things. I may have overlooked a clause in the Bill providing that whenever the number is below seven they shall be increased, but I am not aware of it. At the present moment I merely suggest that there should be not less than six of the commissioners for the work they have in hand.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: Many of us feel with my honourable Friend opposite that six would be quite few enough for this Commission, upon which there is no direct representation of the external students, against which I have strongly, though in vain, protested; but we are bound to remember that the subject was fully discussed in Committee, and, if I remember rightly, we proposed to take a Division upon it. My right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council, however, met us by way of compromise, and five, I think, was generally assented to. I still retain the opinion I held on the subject, but in view of the Committee compromise I should suggest to my honourable Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment.
    *SIR. J. LUBBOCK: As the number five was a compromise in Committee which I myself suggested, and my right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council was good enough to accept it, I feel I am bound to support it. I would, therefore, support my honourable Friend the Member for Islington in expressing a hope that my honourable Friend opposite will not press the matter to a Division.
    MR. BRIGG: Under the circumstances, and having regard to what the two honourable Gentlemen have just said, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 3.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 36, leave out from 'London' to 'in' in line 38, and insert 'subject to the provisions contained.'"—(Sir Chas. Dilke.)
    *SIR C. DILKE: The Amendment which I rise to propose, Sir, raises the question of the form of the Bill, and especially the form of the schedule of the Bill. The Amendment is to be taken in connection with one on this very page, and which is consequential upon it, and which, will make clause 3 read—
    "The commissioners shall make statutes and regulations for the University of London, subject to the provisions contained in Part I. of the schedule of this Act."
    And then the next sentence would remain a separate proposal. The effect, there fore, Sir, of the Amendment is to substitute the provisions of the schedule as directions for commissioners for the directions now given, which are of a most curious and complicated character. As the Bill stands, the matter is not left to the discretion of the commissioners. They are told to carry out the Report of the Gresham Commissioners, but they are to carry it out subject to several pages of schedules, so that you cannot possibly arrive at any conception of what the commissioners ought or ought not to do, or as to the nature of the new university
    1190
    which is to be established, without reading together 63 pages of the Gresham Commissioners' Reports and seven pages of schedule to this Bill; because, if you do not read the two together, you are tripped up at every moment. This is a most extraordinary form of legislation by reference—much more serious, much worse than the ordinary form of legislation by reference1—because you have to read these two very lengthy documents together. I have found that although Members in this House are supposed to have made themselves familiar with the Gresham Report, it has; not been in very great demand in the last year or two, since this Bill has been before Parliament. On the Standing Committee we were told that no one ought to express an opinion on any point of this Bill unless thoroughly familiar with the whole of the Gresham Report. Now, Sir, I find there has been no demand for it in the Vote Office, and in the Library here, the volume containing this Report—it is a curious one, because the Report is sandwiched between one on electrical communication with lighthouses and another on horse breeding—this Report, I find, has not been in any considerable demand. Yet it is perfectly true that you have to read this Report of 63 pages and seven pages of schedule before you find out what the 33111 means. I should have thought that if the Bill is to pass, it should give clear and definite directions to the commissioners, however sketchy some of the directions may be. It will be impossible, no doubt, to give clear and absolute directions on every point, and you must leave a good deal to their discretion; but they may be, and are, directed on a great many points. But why the long Gresham Report should be Superadded to the schedule I cannot understand. Really, if we, arcs driven to the choice,—if it is impossible to reform the schedule—I would rather leave it at large to the commissioners than ask people to consider these two documents together. I beg, Sir, to move the. Amendment which stands in my name.
    SIR J. GORST: Sir, this is an Amendment which, if adopted by the. House, would require a very complicated and a very serious modification of the schedule of the Bill. I do not see that the honourable Baronet makes any alterations of

    1191
    the schedule, and if they were not made it would leave the commissioners with very incomplete instructions indeed as to the course they are to adopt. It seems to me that the Bill as it stands is perfectly clear—gives perfectly clear instructions which the commissioners are to carry out. They are to form a scheme in general accordance with the Gresham Commission. The Report of the Greaham Commission contains a very clear recommendation as to the particular scheme which the commissioners are to carry out, and, according to the Bill as it stands, the commissioners would carry out that scheme subject to the restrictions which are found in the schedule, which by no means deals with the whole of the scheme, and subject to the alterations which have taken place in public opinion in London in connection with the University of London since the date of the Commission's Report. I do not think that the instructions are quite so clear as they would be if all were set out in the schedule, but they are perfectly clear enough for the commissioners to carry out those made; and I do not think they will have any difficulty whatever in determining what it is they are to do. If the honourable Baronet's Amendment were accepted, those instructions which the commissioners would derive from the Gresham Report would be cut out altogether, and they would be required to prepare a scheme in accordance with the schedule of the Act, and that would be a very imperfect instruction. I think it is rather late in the day to have a reconstruction of the Bill in the form suggested in this Amendment, and I hope the House will not sanction it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, it is never too late to do a good thing, and if we want to mend the Bill, surely we ought to do so. The position of my honourable Friend is this: that the House of Commons and the public outside know very little about this Measure; in fact, the only person who knows anything about the Bill is my honourable Friend the Member for Haddington. I heard something about a compromise just now, and I said, "Who compromised?" and they said, "The honourable Member for Haddington." It seems to me that this Bill is muddled up altogether between my
    1192
    honourable Friend the Member for Haddington and the Vice-President of the Council of Education. Sir, we know very little about this Bill, and we ought to know a great deal. There are a great many persons who think—and my honourable Friend the Member for Haddington rather encourages this view—that this is going to establish a great university in London, something like the University of Paris, or the University of Berlin. It is going to do nothing of the sort. It is going to amalgamate a few colleges in London, and 30 miles round, but it is not going to be a national institution. The great object we have in view is to retain this university as a great national centre of the education of the country, where anybody can go, where anybody, by passing certain examinations, and in no other way, can acquire a degree under this university. That is my honourable Friend's object; but he has muddled up his object because he allows a great deal to be done—his university degrees to be obtained and called by the same name, as is the case with men who already have them, without passing those degrees. I only point to this to show how little any of us know what the Bill is. I hope the honourable Member will specifically explain it. He has got Scotch universities on the brain, and he does not understand at all what we want in London. We have got at present practically what we want, and we do not want any change in it. That, really, Mr. Speaker, is why I support the views of my right honourable Friend. No doubt he will make an alteration in the Bill; no doubt we shall have to expand the schedule; but that is precisely what we want. The Amendment of my right honourable: Friend puts in clear and definite form the object which we are coiltending1 for at the present moment, and in these circumstances I shall certainly support the Amendment of my right honourable Friend.
    MR. GRIFFITH: Sir, the objection I have to the Bill as it stands, and this particular clause, is that it not only embodies, a schedule of seven pages, but also a Blue Book of 63 pages; and I think if anybody will look at the Gresham Report they will sec there is nothing answering to the name of

    1193
    scheme in that Report from beginning to end. If that is so, why put in the phrase that the scheme is to be in accordance with the Gresham Report? But that is not all. It will be found that in that Report there are dissentient notes. Several commissioners dissent one from the other; and when you are asking this Commission to legislate in accordance with a Report in which there are dissentient notes, you are, asking them to choose from many contradictory views. In these circumstances, I think the House has a right to be informed what part of the Blue Book is going to be inserted, and what part is going to be omitted, in the Bill. Surely we have a right to ask under what general principles this university is going to be established. As I have said, there are dissentient reports, dissentient notes; and some who have signed the: Report have only signed it subject to several modifications. No>v, have we not a right to ask the honourable Gentleman in charge of this 33111 what are the general principles on which this university is to be established? Do not let us refer, Sir, to a Blue Book of 63 pages, but put in the schedule the principles under which this university is to be established. The right honourable Gentleman has already seven pages of schedule; why should he not have more to carry out this scheme properly? There is also the additional point that once the commissioners have a Blue Book consisting of contradictory views, really there is no control whatever over anything they may do; when we give such powers to seven commissioners, I think we are entitled to ask what are the general views on which they are going to act, and the general principles on which they are going to found this university. Until these are in the schedule I think we should resist this attempt to hand over these powers to commissioners, however eminent they may be.
    MR. HARWOOD: Sir, this scheme we are told is to be in accordance with the general scheme of the Report—that is, I presume, with the scheme in this Blue Book. Well, if honourable Members will turn to the summary, in addition to the dissentient notes in this Report, they will find there are general suggestions made as to the proposed Statutory Commission,
    1194
    and I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that many of those suggestions have not been taken the least, notice of in the Bill, or in the schedule. On page 53 of the Report of the commissioners, they state—
    "We have, therefore, to recommend that the Statutory Commission should be appointed for such a period as may be thought necessary, with the following powers and duties: (1) To determine in what mode and under what conditions any property now held by the University of London should continue to be held by the university."
    But there is nothing of that kind in the Bill. When we turn to this Report, in harmony with which the commissioners are to act, the very first recommendation is about property, and yet it is urged that we have nothing to do with property. If that be so, we have a right to ask what has become of it. Is "in general accordance" picking and choosing? Out of 10 definite recommendations summarising this book, recommendations in regard to the Statutory Commission, seven of the 10 are not mentioned in the Bill, and five of the 10 are not even alluded to. I think the House has a right to protest against being led in this blindfold manner. Is this Report going to be acted upon or is it not' Are these specific recommendations going to be followed, or are they not? If they are not, which are, and which are not, going to be followed, and why are they not going to be followed? The Report also says—
    "It should also be the duty of the said Commission to make such recommendations as they may see fit in respect to any grant of funds which Parliament may provide for the endowment of the university, and for mating an adequate provision for scientific research."
    There is nothing of that kind at all—no mention of that. Then, again, there is another thing. The Commission are to determine—
    "whether any institution is to be admitted as a whole to be a school in the university; and, if not, in respect of what department or departments it is to be admitted."
    I think we have a right to know what are these institutions. There is a list in this Report, it is quite true; in fact, there are two lists, one much larger than the other. Which are we going to follow? I think we ought to have it in

    1195
    some way. The Commission are to act in accordance with, the Report, yet we find that half of the definite recommendations are not taken notice of, and many of the leading recommendations we are told are not to be dealt with. This Bill is a mere phantom, a vague, boneless Bill, and when we ask that some bones and constitution should be put into it it is refused. I do think "in general accordance with the Report" are words much too wide.
    MR. BRIGG: I agree as to the extreme vagueness of this clause, and I do think we ought to have some attempt made to give some sort of limitation to the powers we are to entrust to this body. I cannot see how anyone with a legal mind could possibly draft such a clause as this, giving as it does an exceedingly vague and roving authority. They are to frame their Statutes in general accordance—those are not exactly legal terms—in general accordance with the Report of the Gresham Commissioners, and, further, to bear in mind any other modifications which may appear to them expedient after consideration—here is another vague point-—after consideration of the changes which have taken place in London education of a university type since the date of the said Report. They are to base their regulations and statutes upon these facts. They are also to take notice of the representations1 made to them by, or on behalf of, the Senate or Convocation. Anything more free and open on the point of the powers of these commissioners it would be very difficult to conceive. I, for my part, cannot imagine any more free and open set of conditions being placed on anybody, conditions which, I may point out, may lead to trouble, for those who object to these regulations will have very good ground, inasmuch as the ground on which they are based is so extremely vague. On that account I very strongly support the Amendment of the honourable Member for the Forest of Dean.
    DR. CLARK: I do not know, Sir, why these vague words are to be put in. I suppose they are put in as a general direction; but those who drew the Bill, I take it, have not read the Report of the Commission, because in the first schedule of the Bill, or rather in Part I., you find an entirely different scheme and plan—
    1196
    not in the Report at all. I take it that as the clause is now drafted the Commission will be unable to go back to the Senate proposed by the present Commission—that they will be compelled to take the new Senate, not the old one—and that all the other changes which are made: contrary to the Report of the Commission will be tried. Why do you want to give them powers? And, if you do give them powers, will they be limited only to the recommendations of the 13 commissioners, or, rather, seven of them? Or are they to be able to carry out the views of six out of the 13, the recommendations signed by the dissentients, and not by the whole? Sir, it seems to me that these words are very ambiguous, and are tying the hands of the Commission to this Report instead of giving them freedom. Therefore, what my honourable Friend proposes is that in your schedule you shall lay down the conditions. For instance, take the most important thing. You form a Senate. Now, the Senate of the Bill is an entirely different body from the Senate of the Commission, and the Senate is the most important portion of the Bill. They recommended a very wide Senate, because they thought it still retained its imperialistic aspect, and they recommended that the commissioners should be selected to represent the Colonies, because the London University has been doing Colonial work. One was to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and another by the Secretary of State for India. There are a number of institutions here—the Royal Agricultural Society, the Institution of Civil Engineers—there are 10 or 12 persons recommended by the Royal Commission who are entirely ignored by the Bill as it stands. Under the circumstances, I think what you ought to do is to lay down in your first schedule all the things that they are to do, or rather all the things that they are not to do, and that they cannot change. In Part II. of your schedule you give them a free hand. You say among the matters for which provision must be made—
    "the adequate protection of the interests of all classes of students, whether external or internal, collegiate or non-collegiate,"

    1197
    and so on. I think these words are not required, because you have practically done the work; you have cut out all that you think is valuable in the recommendations of the Commission; you have considered that in the first schedule, and then you tie their hands. Then in Part II. you lay down the special matters they are to make regulations for; you indicate to them what they are to do; and I think in this case you ought not to tie them to the Report made by the commissioners, seeing that you have yourself cut and carved the Report, and objected to a very large part of it. You give them a free hand on the four subjects mentioned in Part II. of the schedule; they must make provision in respect of those four subjects; and 'n doing this you ought to give them a large discretion, and not tie them down to a Report which you yourself have con-

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Gretton, John

    Asher, Alexander

    Clarke, Sir K (Plymouth)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Bagot, Capt. J. F.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Hardy, Laurence

    Balfour.Rt.Hon.A. J. (Manc'r.)

    Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Balfour,Rt.Hon. J. B. (Clackm.)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hazell, Walter

    Banes, Major George Edward

    Crombie, John William

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)

    Henderson. Alexander

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Curzon. Viscount (Bucks)

    Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

    Beach, Rt.Hon. SirM. H. (Brist'l)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Holland, Hon. L. R.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Howard, Joseph

    Bethell, Commander

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Howell, William Tudor

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Bigwood, James

    Drueker, A.

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Birrell, Augustine

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

    Bond, Edward

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Knowles, Lees

    Bowles, Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lafone, Alfred

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    FitzWygram, Genaral Sir F.

    Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Butcher, John George

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbvsh.)

    Fry, Lewis

    Loder, G. W. E.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Garfit, William

    Long, Col. C. W. (Eveshum)

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lowles, John

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Gosehen,RtHn.G. J. (St.G'rg's)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Maclure, Sir John William

    siderably departed from. I support my honourable Friend's Amendment on the ground—first, because, the Report has been cut and carved in the first part; and then because in the second part I do not think you should tie them. I have much pleasure in supporting my honourable Friend, and I conceive it reasonable enough that these words should go in. By this phrase you are leading them back again to the Report, and when you go back to the Report you find out a lot of the things in that Report cannot be carried out. I think they should have a free hand, and should not be referred back to the Report of the Gresham Commission.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 44.—(Division List No. 248.)

    McArthur, G. (Liverpool)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm,N)

    Rutherford, John

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Monk, Charles James

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Sharpe, W. E. T.

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Mount, William George

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshure)

    Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)

    Pienpoint, Robert

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Smith. J. Parker (Lanark)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Stand)

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Purvis, Robert

    Souttar, Robinson

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Strutt, Hon. C. H.

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Baker, Sir John

    Harwood, George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Banlow, John Emmott

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Labouchere, Henry

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Carvill, P. G. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Colville, John

    Lough, Thomas

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Doogac, P. C.

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Duckworth, James

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Dunn, Sir William

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)

    Dr. Clark and Mr. Brigg.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 38, leave out from 'Act' to end of sub-section, and insert—
    "Where the Commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation under this Act abrogating, varying, or affecting the existing rights, powers, or privileges of Convocation, they shall, one calendar month at least (exclusive of the months of August and September), before adopting any final resolution in that behalf, communicate the draft of the proposed statute or regulation to the clerk of Convocation, who shall thereupon immediately submit the same to the members of Convocation, for their approval or disapproval, to be signified as at a Senatorial election.
    "No such statute or regulation, disapproved by a majority of the members so voting whereon, shall have any force or effect, and no ouch statute or regulation, approved by a majority of members of Convocation so voting, shall be subsequently alterable by the Senate without the consent of Convocation."—(Sir J. Lubhoch.)
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: The object of the Amendment which, I now have the
    1200
    honour to move is to preserve the present rights of the Convocation of the university under the present charter. No change can be made in the constitution of the university, excepting with the consent of the Convocation, and that is a right which my constituents value very highly, not from any personal motives, but for the sake of the university itself. In the Standing Committee upon this subject I moved an Amendment somewhat more far-reaching in its character, and, in my opinion, preferable to the one which I now have the honour to move. Speaking from 30 years' experience as a member of the Senate, the replies did not seem to me to be framed with a full knowledge of the working of the university. At the same time it was urged that my Amendment went somewhat beyond the present rights of Convocation. I did not think so, but, at any rate, I have been very careful upon the present

    1201
    occasion to make it quite clear that we do not wish to put it too high, and I have expressly limited the Amendment to these rights. If the Commission pro-pare a wise scheme I am satisfied that Convocation would agree, and the graduates who are members of this House will, I am sure, confirm that statement. I do not wish to put the rights of my constituents too high. If the Commission prepare n, good scheme and Convocation rejects it, a most improbable, nay, almost impossible, contingency, still, if it did happen, Parliament would no doubt be justified in passing if over the head of Convocation. At the same time I would submit to the House that it is very unusual to interfere with rights given by Royal charter, unless it can be clearly shown that those rights have been abused. No one will allege that the university is not doing good work, greatly to the benefit of the community. I will take two tests. I will not trouble the House with many figures, but merely take the numbers of certain years. In 1860 our candidates were 800; in 1870, 1,450; in 1880, 2,570; in 1890, 5,000; and, lastly, in 1897, 6,300. Now, I think that the House will see from those figures that the University of London is a very progressive institution, is greatly appreciated by the country, and is doing a great work, that the constant increase in the number of candidates shows that it is not an effete and obsolete institution. No one can allege upon those figures that it has failed in its important trust. Now I will take the second test. What is the view of the colleges associated with the university? I frankly admit that so far as the London colleges are concerned, they are satisfied with the Bill as it stands, but, as I have already pointed out, the London colleges are a very small fraction. By far the greatest number of our candidates come from other colleges throughout the country. There are over 200 colleges in addition to those of London, which send up candidates for examination. What are their views.' Are they in favour of the Bill? I have heard many complaints, and, so far as I am aware, the great bulk of those colleges would be in favour of the Amendment that I now move. It may be said that the late senatorial election would
    1202
    really show that the Convocation is against the Bill. That is the case, but it does not show that Convocation would regret a wise scheme. My Amendment would give the country colleges an opportunity of considering the Statutes made by the Commissioners. This is a matter of great interest to my constituents, who are convinced that the university is doing good work at the present time, and who are afraid that the Bill may jeopardise its labours. But if the Commissioners frame wise Statutes I have no hesitation in expressing my conviction that they would be adopted by Convocation. We have been told several times that there are no provisions of the same kind in the Commissions which dealt with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I speak with some diffidence upon that point, but I believe there is no parallel between the two cases. In those cases the bodies corresponding with Convocation had not the rights which were given to my constituents by the charter. At the very outset the eases are most dissimilar. The Acts dealing with Oxford and Cambridge are three, because the first Act, which dealt with them separately, in 1854, dealt with Oxford, and in that no power was given to the Commissioners to make statutes for the university; nor could they make statutes for the colleges if objected to by two-thirds of the governing body of the colleges affected, and they had no power to interfere with endowments less than 50 years old; nor could they interfere with any charter. All those circumstances are entirely different to the present case. In respect to the Cambridge Commission in 1890 there again the provisions are very similar. The Commissioners there had power to make statutes for the university, but such statutes were to be void if objected to by two-thirds of the governing body. The cases are not analogous and cannot be considered with reference to my Amendment. Then comes the Act of 1877; that, again, is of a totally different character to this Bill. That Measure merely authorised the Commissioners to transfer a certain amount of income from the colleges to the university, in order that the university might be enabled to continue to carry on its work. We all know perfectly well that

    1203
    there is no provision of the kind in this Bill. The Commissioners were empowered under that Measure to make statutes for the university, but it was expressly provided that they should not make any statute altering the trusts, conditions, or directions of any college emolument, if the original charter, deed of composition, or other instrument of foundation thereof was made or executed within 50 years of the passing of the Act, with certain exceptions; immaterial to the present purpose. The statutes appointing these Commissioners afford, therefore, no precedent for the present Bill, for they dealt with endowments and university and college statutes, which were, almost without exception, centuries old, and the power of the Commissioners were expressly limited so as not to apply to endowments less than 50 years old. This Bill does not deal with ancient charters. The London University was first founded in 1836, and the existing charter was granted as recently as 1863. Again, the alterations in the constitution of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were completely specified in the Acts themselves. The changes in the constitution of the London University, though much larger and more fundamental, are left to the discretion of the Commissioners, subject only to the direction that they shall be in substantial accordance with the recommendations of the Cooper Commission and the schedule of the Bill. The graduates of the London University have an express right under their charter to veto any proposed alteration in it. The Convocations of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had no such right. The Oxford and Cambridge Commissioners bad no power to affect any existing charter, even though ancient. The very object of the Statutable Commission now proposed is to override the express provisions of the charter of the London University. In the cases of Oxford and Cambridge they had not the rights which were given to Convocation under the charter. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. Lastly, I submit that this is an Amendment which may do much good and cannot do any harm. If the Commissioners make statutes which will really create a thoroughly good system, which will work well and conduce to the
    1204
    higher education of the country, then I am quite satisfied that my constituency would adopt it by an overwhelming majority. Of course, if they did not do so, and the arrangement was a wise one, it would always be in the power of Parliament to override them. But surely it is very unusual to override express rights when it cannot be shown that there are any faults on the part of those who exercise the powers. On the other hand, supposing that the Commissioners do make statutes which are prejudicial to the higher education of the country, it would be most desirable that they should be abrogated. I submit to the House that I am only asking that rights expressly granted by the Crown should not be overridden without good cause. The University of London is doing a great and progressive work, and the colleges which send up the bulk of the students are satisfied with what is being done at the present time; and all that I ask the House is that the statutes should be submitted to them, and I would say again, and beg the House to realise, that they are not asking this because they wish to support any individual rights of their own, or for any low and selfish purposes, or for the reason that they do not wish anybody else to obtain advantages from which they themselves are debarred; it is not in that spirit in which they are acting. It is not upon that ground at all, but for the benefit of the university. I submit to the House that it is not beyond the range of possibility that the Commissioners may make a mistake; if they do so, then, of course, it would be desirable that there should be an opportunity of reconsidering these statutes. I trust these statutes which they make will conduce to the higher education of the country, and I am perfectly satisfied that in that case my constituents will adopt it. I submit then that this is an Amendment which cannot do harm, and may do good, and under those circumstances I ask the House to favourably consider the Amendment.
    SIR J. GORST: The power which my honourable Friend has claimed for his constituents is a very much more extensive power than anybody has ever claimed before. It is quite true that the Convocation of the London University can veto under the powers given by the

    1205
    Crown any alteration which it may be proposed to make in the charter of the university, but in speaking of the rower given by the Crown when that power comes into conflict with Parliamentary powers, then the Convocation has no power to object to any alteration in its constitution that Parliament proposes to impose upon it. Then the objection that Convocation makes to any change in the constitution of its charter can only be exercised in a certain way by Convocation after a meeting held in London for the purpose of discussing the pros and cons of the change in Convocation, and n decision has been then arrived at by those who have heard the discussion and were present at the meeting. But what the right honourable Gentleman proposes is to give the Convocation power to reject any statute made by the Commissioners by what is called the postcard vote, not by a vote given at a meeting called for that purpose, but a vote upon paper transmitted through the post. Now, the charter by which that power of voting was given was for the sole purpose of electing members of the Senate. It is expressly inserted in the charter that the power of voting shall be for the election of the members of the Senate, and for the members of the Senate only, and the right honourable Gentleman is asking for a power for his constituents that they do not at the present time possess. Nobody complains of his obtaining it, but it is a power which Parliament has never granted to any university which has been instituted, neither Oxford nor Cambridge, nor the Scotch universities, and I do not think that Parliament would be disposed to depart from its own precedents and grant to the London University this extraordinary power which they at present possess, and, so

    AYES.

    Ascroft, Robert

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Asher, Alexander

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline F.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Burt, Thomas

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bethell, Commander

    Caldwell, Tames

    Baker, Sir John

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cavendish, V. C. W Derbysh

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bigwood, James

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J. (Manc'r)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.G. W. (Leeds)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B.(Clackm.)

    Bond, Edward

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Banes, Major George E.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    far as we can see, have no right to whatever.
    MR. GRIFFITH: The point which has been raised by the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President upon this Amendment is this, that Convocation has only power to exercise the postcard vote in the case of senatorial elections, and in all other matters they must hear the pros and cons. Now, I ask the Vice-President whether he would allow Convocation the power to modify statutes after having heard the discussion upon them. Now, it has been said that Convocation was in favour of this Bill as it stands. Why do you not, if that is so, trust the people who are so much in fear of this Bill, and allow Convocation a voice in these matters? If they had misused their functions, or had done wrong in the past, a man might come here and say Convocation has behaved badly, and has not acted properly, and we might deprive them of their rights under the charter. Nobody doubts but what the University of London has been a supreme success, and yet the object of this Bill is to take away from it, or to seriously modify, its charter under which all this good has been done Under these circumstances, is it not a moderate request that Convocation should have some veto? Will not the Vice-President permit Convocation, having heard the arguments, to have some voice in the statutes? Surely if he doe-s not he is undermining the charter which the university has been built up on and undermine all the good which has been done.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 30.—(Division List No. 249.)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Hayne, Rt, Hn. Chas. Seale-

    Pollck, Harry F.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Hazell, Walter

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Henderson, Alexander

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Purvis, Robert

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Howard, Joseph

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Howell, William Tudor

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Curzon,RtHn.G.N.(LancsSW)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Rutherford, John

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jolm P.

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kenyon, James

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Drucker, A.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Duckworth, James

    Knowles, Lees

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Shaw, T. (Hawick B.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw'll)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Leigh-Bennett, Hemy C.

    Souttar, Robinson

    Finlay. Sir R. Bannatyne

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lowles, John

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fry, Lewis

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wallace, Robert (Edin.)

    Garfit, William

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    McCalmont,Mj.Gn.(Ant'm.N.)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Wodehouse.Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Gouliding, Edward Alfrea

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Mount, William George

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy

    Gretton, John

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hanbmy, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Pearson, Sir W. D.

    NOES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Butcher, John George

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Philipps, John Wynford

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Piekersgill, Edward Hare

    Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

    Harwood, George

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eiflon)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 3, after 'person,' insert 'directly.'"—(Sir A. Rollit.)
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to move the Amendment.
    Question put.
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 38, after 'Act,' insert—
    "When the commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation under this Act they shall, two calendar months at least (exclusive of any university vacation) before adopting any final resolution in that behalf, communicate the proposed statute or regulation to the Registrar of the University of

    1209
    London, who shall forthwith cause a copy o: such proposed statute or regulation to be exhibited or screened in the usual place for university announcements in the hall of the university buildings in Burlington Gardens, and to be kept so exhibited or screened for the whole of the said period of two calendar months. And the commissioners shall take into consideration.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: The Amendment which I now beg leave to propose is very different from the one which was proposed by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the University of London and rejected by the House. The chief element of his Amendment was that he asked that there should be a power in Convocation to veto statutes and regulations made by the Commissioners, and the House has decided that that is a power which could not be given to Convocation. Now, the Amendment which I propose eliminates that altogether. My Amendment has not anything' to do with the powers of Convocation in regard to that matter at all. I am very desirous—and I believe that this Amendment is directly and indirectly in the interest of the University of London, which is entirely a teaching university. This teaching university will never succeed, notwithstanding whatever arrangements are made by this House, or whatever the arrangements of the Commission may be, unless it obtains the confidence of the community. That is the one thing which is hopeful in this university; and the one necessity in connection with such confidence is that there should be publicity, and the Amendment which I propose is to provide that where the Commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation, a copy of the proposed statute or regulation shall be exhibited in the hall of the university buildings in Burlington Gardens. The point of that suggestion is that there should be publicity. We are in the Bill invited—a direct invitation is given—to make representations upon any proposed statute or regulation. There are several clauses which deal with the fact that people may make such representations, and they are invited to consider the statutes and regulations made by the Commissioners. If they are invited to consider these matters they surely ought to have facility for knowing what it is upon which they are invited to make
    1210
    representations. It is absurd to invite them to consider these matters unless they have every means of knowing. In the case of the London University there are no authorities which stand in that position, and therefore the only way we can secure publicity is that it shall be exhibited or screened at Burlington Gardens, which is the headquarters of the university. That would be public to the different colleges in London. It may be said they are part of the University of London. I am quite aware of that, so let us make a compromise—that is the spirit of the whole Debate; and I think if we looked at the book of the honourable Member for Montrose Burghs we might have a larger conception of the word with regard to this Bill. Let us have a, compromise which, at any rate would be fair. I do not ask the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President to give us something' which we do not want, but to show us that the Government have some trust in the general public, and I therefore venture to suggest that there should be this simple publication, not carrying it vote, but as a natural corollary, that if we have to make lcpresentations—and we must make representations.—wo must know what we have to make representations about, and it is a very fair and reasonable medium through which it can be done. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
    SIB J. GORST: This matter was raised before the Standing Committee, and so far from there being a rigid exclusion of all compromise, as the honourable Gentleman infers, I proposed to give way to what we had already decided, and that the Commissioners, before they acted with regard to all representations made by the Senate and Convocation of the University of London, or any other body, should give facilities. My Amendment which is on the Paper really constitutes an alternative scheme to that of the honourable Member. It is that the Commissioners shall take steps as are in their opinion best adapted for facilitating the making of such representations before any Such statutes for regulations are framed, so that a statutory duty is imposed upon them by Parliament itself,

    1211
    and all these bodies will have ample opportunity for making representation.
    MR. HARWOOD: It is not a question of giving facilities for making representation. It is a question of the public knowing what it is that they have to make a representation about.
    SIR J. GORST: The honourable Member's proposal is rather a rigid one. I objected to it in the Standing Committee, and I object to it now, because it lowers down the proceedings which are to take place, and it ties the hands of the Commissioners in a very unnecessary manner. I think it is far better to leave the matter to the Commissioners to ideal with in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case with which they may be dealing, to give such notice as is important before such representation is made, and then the matter can be discussed, and the bodies concerned could make such representations as they thought were desirable. According to the proposal of the honourable Member there could be no chance of amending the representation, for it has to be screened for two months at least, and then it is too late to amend it if you require, so that you must drop it altogether and begin de novo. The proceeding proposed in my Amendment covers the whole of this matter, and therefore I hope the honourable Member will withdraw the Amendment now before the House.
    MR. GRIFFITH: I have not been able to follow the right honourable Gentleman in what he said just now, when he stated that his Amendment was practically the same as that which is now before the House. It appears to me that there is a world of difference in them. The right honourable Gentleman's Amendment is to give facilities for making representations, but the honourable Member's is that there should be publicity in order that the people may know what it is they are to make representations about, which is
    1212
    quite another thing. It seems to me the two Amendments are entirely different, and apply to entirely different matters. So far as I can understand, the right honourable Gentleman would consider that this Amendment was not desirable, but I suppose he will be the first to admit that there should be publicity as to these statutes, and if that is so, of course, it is desirable. The only question, therefore, is, does the Amendment provide the means of publicity? If the right honourable Gentleman saya he does not think it does, then I am sure my honourable Friend will accept any Amendment from, the right honourable Gentleman which will give real publicity. By the recommendation to exhibit it on the screen in this way the thing is published in a particular place, and unless that is done we shall have notice that something is going to take place which we know nothing at all about. One of the right honourable Gentleman's objections to that is that if it is to be put up for two months, and he wants to alter it, he cannot do so, and must begin again de novo. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman is going to object to every Amendment which is proposed, but if he is going gracefully to concede to the education of London that which has already been gracefully conceded to every other part of the country, then it is necessary that this Amendment should be accepted. It is not proposed by this Amendment to give to Convocation any power, but to provide for adequate publicity, so that if anything undesirable occurs attention may be called to the fact. Is not that a reasonable Amendment? I do ask the right honourable Gentleman to consider this matter, and ask himself whether it is not, advisable and reasonable, and whether he cannot concede to this university what has already been conceded to others.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes: 141.—(Division List No. 250.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Arnold, Alfred

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hogan, James Francis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Burt, Thomas

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Souttar, Robinson

    Caldwell, James

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan. P. C.

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Duckworth, James

    Oldroyd, Mark

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Dunn, Sir William

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Mr. Harwood and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    NOES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fry, Lewis

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Garfit, William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

    Mount, William George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bethell, Commander

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Bigwood, James

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Purvis, Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hardy, Laurence

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Bond, Edward

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Haslett, Sir James Homer

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Brassey, Albert

    Hazell, Walter

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Henderson, Alexander

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Rutherford, John

    Butcher, John George

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Howard, Joseph

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Kenyon, James

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Knowles, Lees

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Lafone, Alfred

    Strauss, Arthur

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Drucker. A.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lowles, John

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Hath)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Young, Comm. (Berks. E.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    More, Robert Jasper

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, after line 6, insert—
    "(3) The commissioners shall take such step as are in their opinion best adapted for facilitating the making of such representations before any such statutes or regulations are framed."—(Sir John Gorst.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 11, leave out from 'belief' to end of line 16."—(Mr. Harwoml.)
    MR. HARWOOD: I desire to point out that sub-section 3 of this clause already provides—
    "The statutes or regulations, whether they are made by the commissions or by the senate as hereinafter provided, shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief."
    And the same clause goes on to insert—
    "Provided that they shall not prevent the University from allocating funds, on such conditions as it thinks fit, for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher, or for his laboratory expenses, or for apparatus to be used by him, notwithstanding any conditions attached to any office held by him in any school of the university."
    Now, I maintain that the first sentence of this section amply secures everything that we ought to try and secure in regard to this most delicate and difficult matter of religious belief, and I do approach this question with a great deal of hesitation. It is with the greatest possible reluctance that I bring this matter of religious belief to the attention of this House, and I should not have done so had it not been that this sentence seems to me to open the door to something which this House may afterwards have reason to regret, and, what is more, it is distinctly contrary to the understanding upon which these Commissions are supposed to act. Now page 49 of the Report says—
    "that we shall not adopt or impose on any person any test whatsoever of religious belief or profession, or assign any grant of money in respect of any privilege granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief."
    Now, I maintain that the first sentence, to which we do not object, adequately
    1216
    and completely carries out that instruction, and the other sentence is added for the purpose of making another compromise. Why, whenever we talk of compromise it is treated as if the sword of Damocles hung over our heads. We are told that we are not to discuss this matter, and that this question has been handed over to a private Committee. I venture to suggest to the House that the second part of the sub-section which I am moving to leave out has been introduced unnecessarily, and has been introduced in order to provide for certain suspicions, which I maintain that the House ought not to provide for, and which in attempting to provide for the House is opening the door to much that it does not contemplate. Now, what does it mean? Reading it very carefully—and it is very vaguely worded—it amounts to this, that this university may grant money for religious or theological purposes. Now, it has been one of the fundamental articles of the creed of this University from the very beginning that in the matter of religion you are not to place any disability on account of religious belief, which is to be regarded as entirely out of the field of their practice. The first sentence of sub-clause 3 prevents the assigning or expending of money on account of religious belief. Now, I have reason to believe that the other religious institutions connected with this proposed University, and which are supposed to be embodied as schools of the University, are affected by this first clause, and I think it adequately expresses the fundamental creed of the University of London and adequately safeguards them. This second sentence enables the University to follow the principle of concurrent endowment by deputy. Now, I hope the House will clearly understand what it is doing in passing this sentence. I am not here to advocate whether concurrent endowment is wise or unwise, but I do say that the House should hesitate before it passes something which would authorise a much larger carrying out of this principle. Sir, if this is passed I do not see anything to prevent the establishment in a secondary way by deputy of a Roman Catholic University for Ireland. Personally, I am in favour of it, but I wish the thing to be done direetlv. But here what do you do? I believe that

    1217
    —and I do not believe that I am betraying any secret—this second sentence is inserted to meet tin: case of the timid people. Those of us who know something about the history of Frederick Morris, know with painful acuteness something about King's College. This provision allows the University to grant money for apparatus for various kinds of teaching, but it reserves to itself no power of control for such a college as King's College, to see that this money is really spent for the purpose for which it is nominally and ostensibly granted, and it opens the door entirely to the adoption of the principle of concurrent endowment all round. What is worse, you do not do it yourselves, but the University can grant the power to bodies that spend the money and use it for theological tests and religious beliefs. This section will constitute a body which will grant that money to those who exact these tests, and as a matter of practical politics, I ask what difference does it make whether the money is given directly or indirectly? It is national money all the same, and it is voted to these institutions which make these theological tests. But you say we do not vote it for the teaching of theology. I acknowledge that, but I will call the attention of the House to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill which gives power to exercise any control whatever over these colleges. If I am in order, I should like to say that I have been fighting for the good of this University, which requires some provision to be made that we should have some control over such expenditure, but it is refused most absolutely by this clause, for we are practically giving carte blanche to this institution. We give them money for certain purposes, but we make no provision or security whatever that the money will be spent for the purposes for which we are voting it. It is clear, as a matter of course, that when you vote this money largely for apparatus you relieve the college of an obligation, and therefore it does not matter how you vote it, for practically it goes to relieve the college to that extent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope these words, vague as they are, will be struck out, because they open the door to a principle which the House ought to hesitate about adopting, and certainly ought not to adopt without the
    1218
    most serious consideration. I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    SIR J. GOHST: I desire to remind the honourable Member that this Bill is founded upon an agreement between the various authorities interested, and with regard to the question raised by the honourable Member an understanding has been arrived at. On the one hand it has been agreed that the University is not to endow any form of religious belief; and, on the other hand, it is agreed that when a man does hold a particular form of religious belief that does not disqualify him from acting as a teacher, or preclude his being provided with proper laboratory apparatus. These are the two propositions, the principle of which I think the House will readily assent to. Whether the proviso is absolutely necessary or not from a legal point of view I am not in a position to judge, and the Solicitor General can best instruct the House upon that point. Those who were interested in this matter certainly thought that the proviso was necessary, and they agreed that such a proviso should be made. The honourable Gentleman who has just spoken declares that the University has no means of seeing that the money which it votes will be allocated to purely secular purposes. The Act provides—
    "that they shall not prevent the University from allocating funds on such conditions as it-thinks fit."
    Now, it is also provided that the funds allocated shall not be used for theological or religious purposes. I think that on all sides the greatest safeguards exist to prevent this power being in any way abused, so as to devote the funds to am particular religious faith. Therefore, as all parties interested in this matter are satisfied with the clause as it stands, I hope that the House will not consent to alter it.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The speech of the right honourable Gentleman has placed us in a very embarrassing position. It appears, from his statement that some agreement has been made by certain parties outside the House, and this House is to be bound by that arrangement. Now if that is the position which has been accepted,

    1219
    the House might as well dispose of the Bill and at once proceed to other business. I intend to support this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I wish to prevent any possible violation of or departure from the principle on which the Act for the abolition of University Tests was based; and in the second place. I wish to maintain the honourable traditions of the University of London, as a purely unsectarian institution. Now, on the face of it, the Bill seems to secure that object, for in the schedule there is a provision as follows—
    "No religious test shall be adopted or imposed, and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at a disadvantage on the ground of religious opinion."
    Now that is a most excellent provision. Then there is another safeguard in the third sub-section of clause 3, which has been already read to the House. If this proviso stood alone I could accept it as satisfactory, but there follows that mysterious provision which the Amendment proposes should be excised from the Bill. I think nobody can deny that this proviso is seemingly contradictory to the portion of the clause which immediately precedes it, and it appears to aim at doing by a side wind what is prohibited being done in a direct way. The second portion of this provision seems, as has already been pointed out, to permit of the endowment of individual professors in institutions which, as schools of the university, come under the Bill. Now, if the principle with which I started my remarks is violated, then it does not matter in what way it is done, either directly or indirectly, for I wish to prevent it. I shall wait for an explanation of this mysterious provision, and I wish to be told plainly why this provision has been inserted in the Bill; and also I wish to know whether there are any grounds for the suspicion, which is pretty generally entertained, that this proviso has been inserted for the benefit of a particular institution—namely, King's College, which is of a sectarian character. I shall oppose the violation of the unsectarian principle in any case, whatever institution is concerned, and I shall oppose it still more emphatically if there is any ground for the belief that it is intended for the benefit of such an institution as King's College.
    MR. GRIFFITH: It seems to me that this proviso is a direct violation of the principle of unsectarianism.
    *MR. SHARPE: I would like to point out with reference to the Amendment that the clause in the Bill is a logical extension of previous university reform. We have revolutionised our ancient universities on the basis of religious liberty in favour of Nonconformists by abolishing qualifications for office in the holding of particular religious opinions. It is now proposed to extend that principle to the London University in favour of the Church of England and all other religious denominations by removing the disqualification of religion. All I understand the clause to enact is that no one shall be disqualified for or prejudiced in the post of teacher in the University because he belongs to a college founded and endowed for the advancement of particular religious views; in fact, that religion, which has in our ancient universities ceased to be a qualification for office, shall now cease to be a disqualification as regards the advantages and emoluments of office in the non-sectarian University of London.
    MR. BRYCE: I think the honourable Member who spoke last hardly apprehended the point of the Amendment. The point is very simple, and it is merely this: the University of London having been established on a non-sectarian basis, shall a professor in a denominational college who has submitted to a denominational test be allowed to receive funds from this non-sectarian institution for the purpose of his laboratory expenses or the apparatus to be used to him? I say that I cannot see any great harm is done under the Bill as it stands, but if I am asked whether the Bill is sound in principle I must answer that it is not, and therefore I support the Amendment.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I do not know whether my right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen is prepared to apply to Ireland the principles he has laid down. Honourable Members opposite have pointed out that the most important Nonconformist

    1221
    colleges send candidates to the University of London. That is also true of the Roman Catholic colleges. As I understand the clause, it is to enable the Senate to recognise teachers of eminence in such colleges in non-theological subjects. I have very great confidence in the judgment of the Senate, and if powers were given them I certainly think they would exercise those powers, not in the interest of any particular sect, but in the interest of education. We are discussing the allocation of funds. No funds are provided in the Bill, but I take the clause as a pledge that the Government will endow the university with sufficient funds.
    MR. HALDANE: My right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen spoke of this clause as raising a question of principle. I think that for once my honourable Friend has lost sight of the cardinal principle of the Bill. The Bill does not propose to make a university out of the colleges; it does not propose to take in King's College or any other college and make it an integral part of the university. The third proposition which underlies the Bill is that the teachers of the university are to be selected as individuals and in an individual capacity. It provides that no man shall be put in a worse position because he holds particular opinions. He is to be selected simply as a teacher. I shall give a vote against this Amendment.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London has introduced the case of Ireland, and thinks that has settled the question. What has that got to do with the matter? I must dismiss the remarks he has made on the subject. My right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen said that this clause, in his opinion, would probably do no harm; but I think he said he would probably vote against it. I should vote against it because it might do harm. When you make a law you do not say that it might do harm; you leave a Royal Commission to decide whether it will act in an undesirable manner or not. We do not intend in
    1222
    this proviso of the Bill to allow them to do harm upon this question.
    *LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I ask the House for permission to say a few words. I think that I and my honourable Friends are on the whole acting consistently with our old principles if we vote against the clause. I would submit to the House that there is not only a risk of not being able to extract a clear meaning from these words, but there is also a risk of the second part of the clause being held to be a contradiction of the other. We are asked, or, rather, the Committee is asked, to say that—
    "the statutes or regulations shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted, or disability imposed on account of religious belief."
    This might appear clear enough under certain circumstances. Then we go on to say—
    "Provided that they shall not prevent the university from allocating funds on such conditions as it thinks fit for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher," etc.
    Well, Sir, I can imagine that any Commissioner under this Bill would find it difficult to decide, when he is askea—as he probably will be asked—to vote money in aid, say, of a science teacher at King's College, or a teacher at any of these Nonconformist colleges—whether they were, or were not, voting money for
    "a purpose in respect of which a privilege was granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief,"
    if the teacher, or professor, should be called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Those of us who sit on this side of the House cannot possibly complain of the attitude of honourable Members opposite. But honourable Members opposite will have nothing to complain of if, on further consideration of those words, we seem to recognise what appears to be an old enemy under a new guise, and, as the honourable Member for Aberdeen said, that we shall be acting consistently with our old principles if we vote against the clause.
    SIR R. FINLAY: I am sure that no one on this side of the House, can com, plain of the noble Lord's conduct after what took place in Grand Committee, where he voted, as he told us, in favour of the Amendment. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord's apprehensions are quite unfounded. Even if there were any apparent contradiction in the proposed Amendment, I am sure the council would be able to say, what is the intention of the Act? I myself do not see that there is any contradiction whatever. The earlier part of the clause provides that the statutes or regulations shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted, or disability imposed on account of religious belief. Then it is said that it might possibly follow from that that no grant of money could be made in aid of laboratory expenses of a professor who held a post in some college where a test was imposed. Accordingly, there are inserted these words—
    "Provided that they shall not prevent the university from allocating funds, on such conditions as it thinks fit, for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher, or for his laboratory expenses, or for apparatus to be used by him, notwithstanding any conditions attached to any office held by him in any school of the university."
    I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me it would be pushing the argument of interference too far to say that so far as the grant towards the expenses, of a professor in laboratory teaching is concerned, that professor must subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. I cannot see how a payment to a teacher in respect to his lectures, say, on chemistry, Sanscrit, or Chinese, can be held to infringe the great principle of secularism in these matters. We are dealing with a practical matter, and we must deal with it on the materials before us. It would be an extraordinary doctrine to assert that a university should not be at liberty to utilise to the very best advantage the services of very eminent men in particular colleges merely because it applied to Rome particular branch of teaching. I would only add one more word, by calling the attention, of the House to the words that the university is to make any such
    1224
    grant only on conditions which may seem to it, proper. The difficulties conjured up by honourable Members in reference to this part of the clause seem to me to be wholly imaginary.
    Mr. BRYNMOR JONES: I moved in Committee upstairs for the omission of these words; but, unlike my honourable Friend, I cannot see any reason for reversing the opinion I then formed. I think the argument of the Solicitor General, which fairly sums up the general sense of the Committee upstairs, is really unanswerable. And, seeing that a great many honourable Members have naturally not had an opportunity of considering the whole matter in detail, let me point out, for the benefit of honourable Members on this side of the House, who specially represent the Nonconformist interest, how the matter stands in respect of the Nonconformist colleges in London. Under this Bill there are several Nonconformist colleges of great distinction and of great importance, in regard to the work they are performing, which are brought within the area of these teaching universities, just as King's College and others are brought within the sphere of its operations. Mr. Speaker, I do not think honourable Members who are opposing the inclusion of these words in the clause have really considered how the whole of the words are going to operate. You are cresting for London a teaching university. That is to say, you must include in your university a large number of teachers—some sectarian, and some non-sectarian; and the mere fact of being brought into contact with such a university is of benefit. It is a benefit to the sectarian as well as to the non-sectarian; and I have no hesitation in saying that this is a Bill which is conferring the very greatest advantages upon the Nonconformist colleges of London. Institutions like that at Regent's Park, or New College, for example, will benefit. At the same time I am bound to say that I would not, however great the benefit, do anything which would infringe the principle of religious equality, or the principle that the State should not support sectarian education. But I fail to see anything in what has been said by my honourable Friend to prove that these words will infringe either of these principles. Now,

    1225
    Sir, my remaining words shall be few; but let me give an instance, which occurs to my mind, and which may very likely occur in practice. Take the case of New College, or Regent's Park, and the case of a teacher of Oriental languages. Everyone knows that the teacher of Chinese or Oriental languages, who went out to the Far East some years ago, was a distinguished Nonconformist minister. Well, then, we have at Regent's Park, or New College, a teacher of Oriental languages, who has a special knowledge of Chinese, or some obscure dialects of the Far East. Well, I do not suppose there is anyone in the metropolis who can teach so well as that man. What does this Bill provide? It provides that some money may be given to some man for teaching some Eastern language, which it will be an advantage for many of us in this country to acquire. And, as the Solicitor General pointed out, there would be no power under the Bill to grant such money, except in the special circumstances covered by this clause. The money can only be given upon the terms that there shall be no disability imposed on account of religious belief. The money can only be given to the senate of the university on the condition that no disability shall follow on account of

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Chamberlain,Rt.rln.J. (Birm.)

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Fry, Lewis

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Garfit, William

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

    Beach, Rt.Hn.SiriM.H.(Brist'l)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Bethell, Commander

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Bigwood, James

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Bond, Edward

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Gretton, John

    Brassey, Albert

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    Greville, Captain

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Butcher, John George

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    religious belief. But take another case. Supposing that there should be the necessity for the publication of a text.—some Chinese or Japanese text—which is absolutely requisite for the State; we all know that some publishers will not reproduce such a text. It will not pay for the Work which the university often performs. Suppose the university then says, as to the professor at New College or King's College, we will give you a hundred pounds in order to assist you in the delivery of your lectures, and you take it; well, then, you must not impose any disability upon that. How on earth, Mr. Speaker, honourable Members can anticipate, under a clause like this, that there will be an infringement of the principles of religious equality I entirely fail to see. I am content to have the authority of the Solicitor General for that, as I altogether agree with the construction he has placed upon the section, and I cannot understand why honourable Members on the other side of the House should want to cut out these words.
    Amendment put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 68.—(Division List No. 251.)

    Haslett, Sir James Homer

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Hazell, Walter

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Henderson, Alexander

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Howard, Joseph

    More, Robert Jasper

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Mount, William George

    Strauss, Arthur

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Knowles, Lees

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Lafone, Alfred

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Valentia, Viscount

    Lawrence, SirEDurning(Corn.)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Purvis, Robert

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Wodehouse.Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Rutherford, John

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Lowles, John

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Lubbock, Rt Hon. Sir John

    Saunderson, Col. E. James

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Seoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Asher, Alexander

    Fenwick, Charles

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

    Baker, Sir John

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Griffith. Ellis J.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. G. Seale-

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hemphill. Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Hogan, James Francis

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Holburn, J. G.

    Souttar, Robinson

    Burt, Thomas

    Joioey, Sir James

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    Labouchere, Henry

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    McEwan, William

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Colville, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Woodall, William

    Crilly, Daniel

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Mr. Harwood and Mr. Carvell Williams.

    Duckworth, James

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    MR. HARWOOD MR. HARWOOD moved—
    "To insert, after 'prorogation,' in clause 4, page 3, line 27, 'or dissolution.'"
    Sir J. GORSTintimated that the words would be inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HARWOODmoved—
    "To insert, after 'London Gazette,' clause 4, page 3, line 36, 'or after the expiration of the period of forty days in the last preceding sub-section mentioned (whichever shall last expire).'"
    Sir J. GORSTsaid he did not think the Amendment ought to be accepted, as

    1229
    three months was a very reasonable time in which to appeal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CAPTAIN NORTONmoved—
    "To add after 'referred.' clause 4, page 4, line 7, 'but no petitioner shall in any event, or whatever be the result of the petition, be required or adjudged to pay any costs or expenses of any respondent or of any person or corporation who may oppose such petition, nor shall any such opponent or respondent be required or adjudged to pay any costs or expenses of any petitioner.'"
    If the Amendment were not passed the clause would be to a great extent inoperative, as it could not be expected that any person would be so public-spirited as to run himself into immense cost by appearing before the council.
    SIR R. FINLAY: The clause is much better as it stands, because it gives discretion as to costs. If the Amendment were adopted there would be no discretion whatever, and however wrong-headed a petitioner might be, he could not be condemned in costs.
    MR. GRIFFITH: I quite understand there are objections to the Amendment, but on the other hand it cannot be expected that any person will incur the expense of perhaps £1,000. It would be very hard on the petitioner to be deprived of his costs, but, perhaps, the best way out of the difficulty would be that each party should pay his own costs. That would be the lesser of two evils.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCKmoved—
    "To insert after 'Wye,' in clause 7, page 4, line 32, 'and any other English college recognised by the Senate.'"
    He said the object of the Amendment was to secure to other English colleges some of the privileges they would have under the Act if they were situated in the administrative county of London. If the House looked at the Bill it would be seen that it really did not constitute a teaching university for London. It crave
    1230
    the university no fresh powers, no new buildings, and no money. It brought, however, the colleges in closer touch with the Senate, and it gave the teachers a voice in the examinations. Unless university colleges were allowed to affiliate themselves to the London University it would be almost impossible to resist the demand for new universities, and whatever difference of opinion there might be in the House, all interested in the higher education of the country would agree that any considerable multiplication of universities would be very undesirable. The Bill created two limits—one, that of the county of London; the other, that of 30 miles—but he submitted that both were arbitrary and very artificial. What they had to look at was the question of communication, and in such a matter the important element was time, not distance. No doubt the object of the Bill was to give certain advantages to London colleges, but the London University would remain a great Imperial institution, and if he were to be told that this Bill was entirely confined to London, he would ask Her Majesty's Government why the agricultural college at Wye was included. The object of the Amendment was to give other colleges, especially in the south-east of England, the advantages which were to be given to the college at Wye, if they wished to avail of them, and if the Senate approved. Brighton, they knew, did desire to avail of these advantages, and Brighton was often called, with truth, a suburb of London, which could not be said of Wye. Surely Brighton had the better claim. Then there was the agricultural college at Cirencester. It was true that it was 20 miles further than Wye, but when the time occupied in getting there was considered, there was very little difference. Then there was an important educational institution at Southampton; there was only a difference of about 15 minutes between the times occupied in getting to London from Southampton and from Wye, and he should like to know on what principle the one was included and the other excluded. Why should a college two hours from London be included, and another college, only two hours and a quarter, be excluded? Then there was the University College at

    1231
    Bristol, which might also wish to be affiliated, in which case the London University would be more convenient than any other. If the arbitrary line proposed in the Bill were drawn, all the colleges in the south-east of England and in East Anglia would be excluded. There was no such narrow limit in the case of Victoria University. All he asked was that the university should be allowed to include these colleges if it thought fit. He submitted that the Senate should be allowed discretion in the matter, and should not be debarred from admitting these colleges. There were a number of colleges springing up in the south-east of England, and many of them held qualifications equal to those of Wye, and it was a most singular position to take up that they should all be excluded. Why were the advantages of the Bill to be extended to Wye, and withheld from equally suitable institutions? All he aimed at was that the Senate should, in their discretion, if they thought fit, Be able to admit other colleges. It could not be seriously said that the agricultural college at Wye was the only country college suitable for admission to the advantages to be conferred under the Bill. He begged to move.
    SIR F. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, why Wye? I represent a constituency which has a great college, and I naturally ask myself, what is the principle underlying this Bill? You can come up from Southampton to London as quickly as you can come from Wye. Have the Government been working on a kind of Euclid proposition by taking a centre and describing a circle at a radius of 30 miles? Surely the south of England, which is further from Oxford and Cambridge, has a right to be included in this university Bill. I know that Southampton is most anxious to share in its benefits, and I can hardly fancy the Vice-President of the Council arguing against its claim.
    SIR J. GORST: If the object of the Bill is to be carried out, and if a teaching university for London is to be created, some limit must, be fixed, and I think that the radius of 30 miles in the Full is a very liberal limit. A limit of any kind is very hard to keep, but if it is not kept
    1232
    the university would cease to be a teaching university for London, and would interfere with the Victoria University, and other universities in the Midlands and in Wales. The whole principle of the Bill is the maintenance of this new teaching university as a university for London. It has been asked, why did we let in Wye. Wye is situated, geographically, in Kent, but the college is essentially a London institution. It is an agricultural college, maintained by the county council of Surrey, out of London's money, and is in reality a London institution. The college at Southampton is an excellent college, but it owes its existence to the public spirit of Southampton, and it differs from the agricultural college at Wye, inasmuch as it is not a London institution. I am very sorry not to be able to admit these various colleges into the Bill, but it is impossible to make it more comprehensive, and I must ask the House to be firm and not extend further the very liberal limit proposed in the Bill.
    SIR J. S. BARRINGTON SIMEON: I tried very hard to find out why the 30-mile limit had been fixed at all. The only thing I was ever told was that if it were not fixed the Bill would interfere with Oxford and Cambridge. What is the use of a London University, which is only a teaching university for London alone, and excludes such colleges as that at Southampton;' It is simply for London alone. It may be said that in years to come a southern university will be established, but meantime we will be losing enormous advantages; and it is extremely hard that this limit should be imposed upon us. My right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London has said all I wish to say, and my honourable colleague in the representation of Southampton has spoken on behalf of the college there, but it seems to me there is no earthly reason why the limit should be established at all, and I very much hope the House of Commons will wisely decide to remove it.
    MR. STUART (, Hoston): The honourable Gentleman says that there is no reason why the university should not extend everywhere, but there is no hindrance proposed in the Bill, as

    1233
    colleges such as that at Southampton will have the same advantages as they have been getting. The honourable Gentleman seems to think there is something wrong in confining the Bill to London, but the reply is that the object of the Bill is to provide a teaching university for London—not for the whole nation. There are various other universities, but London is the only great centre which has not one. I candidly confess I think it would have been wise to have confined the Bill to the county of London, but I have no objection to its extension, under certain limits. We all know that London is an immense metropolitan area, and for a metropolitan university it is, perhaps, only fair that its advantages should extend 30 miles from the centre of London; but I think the most consistent means would be to have restricted the Bill to the county of London. The object of the Bill is to establish a teaching university in London—not to extinguish the London University, as it at present stands. It will be retained exactly as it is, but a new teaching university will be created. Many of us were most anxious that the new-university should be established, quite apart from the existing University of London, but we were prevented from taking that course. In conclusion, I think that we, in the Metropolis, have a right to this university.
    MR. GEDGE: The Vice-President tells us that the only reason why the London University is not to have the power of affiliation is that it might injure other universities. Healthy competition is the best thing that can happen to the London University, and there can only be danger to other universities if it is better than they are, and if, in consequence, colleges naturally desire to affiliate with it. I think it is better that there should be rivalry of competition. No one who has spoken against the Amendment has shown that any harm would result from it, and I believe it would do a great deal of good. I sincerely hope that this is not a party matter, and that the House will accept the Amendment, and extend the scope of the Bill.
    MR. HARDY: Not only the county of Surrey, but also the county of Kent is largely without the administrative aid to be given under this Bill. Another reason why the college at Wye, in the county of Kent, should be included in this Bill is that Kent also assists in its support. If the Government can go further, and give the south-eastern counties the advantages for which they pay, I shall be glad to support the honourable Member in that way, but I trust we shall not lose the advantages that we pay for.
    *MR. E. GRAY: I quite agree that examination and teaching ought to be brought into harmony in what has been called a teaching university. It is, no doubt, a very good thing, but why should not the principle be extended to those colleges which are beyond the 30-mile radius? If it be good for the Metropolis, why should it not be extended to those colleges outside the 30-mile radius? What possible harm can be done to London by extending it to the colleges outside? It seems to me that here is an attempt being made to fill the benches in certain institutions within the metropolitan area, and in order to do that an artificial line is to be drawn round London, and that colleges inside a certain radius are to be recognised, and those which are, owing to their geographical position, outside the area, are not to be recognised, and so they will not, in the nature of things, have any opportunity of affiliating with the University of London. It may be said that universities will be formed to which they could affiliate themselves—that a university will be established in Birmingham; well, then, the Birmingham University would naturally attract to it all the colleges in that district which, up to that time, had, for want of anything better, been affiliated to London. It may be said that a university will also be established which would cover the south-western districts. Would anyone suggest the probability of such a university attaching to itself all the excellent colleges established on the south coast, in Hampshire, Sussex. Surrey, and Kent? Where are those colleges to be in the future? Here you

    1235
    have colleges inside the 30-mile radius of London, and colleges outside the radius, doing the same work as those within the 30-mile area, and, so far as I can see, any one of our ordinary polytechnics may be regarded as a college of this university, and those excellent colleges outside cannot. My right honourable Friend says we must assent to this' restriction. When he gives me any good reason for doing so, I am prepared to follow his advice, but in this case I cannot see any sound reason for drawing this imaginary line around London, and excluding all the colleges which are outside that area from the benefit conferred upon those which are in side this so-called metropolitan area It seems to me that it is a mistake to say there will be a material benefit conferred upon London by this Bill. I confess I cannot see it in that light. It will confer a benefit upon the existing university institutions, but beyond that it will certainly not confer any benefit whatever upon the Metropolis. I think that whatever benefit there may be ought to be extended to all those colleges beyond the radius, and, therefore, I shall support the Amendment. I am not one of those who say that every college claiming to be, ought to be a university college, but I do think that the university should have the power, whenever they think it desirable, to include colleges beyond the radius which are doing university work. I cannot see what objection there can be to the Amendment, but I do see that a great good would arise from its acceptance, and I think there will be a great deal of heartburning in the districts outside upon the part of those colleges who look to the University of London, and will have to come, can in hand as it were, although they have adopted the same curriculum, claim the same certificates, teach the same subjects, and do the same advantages of harmonious complishing the same objects. I believe it is placing those provincial colleges in an unfair position. I am very, very anxious to see extended to them the same advantages of harmonious combination between the teaching and the examinations. I do not believe in regarding these examinations as the chief feature of academic work. I
    1236
    think it is better to look to the teaching work, and, therefore, let us put a stamp upon the teaching in the good provincial schools, where such good work is done, and can be done hereafter, just as well as it can be done now. I think some concession might be made upon these points. I think the Government do not recognise how strong opinion is upon this matter in the provinces among all those who are interested in education and the management of the colleges. The force of that opinion has not yet been brought to bear upon this Bill which is now before the House, but those who have become alive to what the provisions of the Bill really mean are opposing it upon that ground. If this Amendment is accepted, all these objections would disappear, but so long as the provincial colleges are excluded, one cannot be blamed for attempting to amend the Bill.
    MR. HALDANE: There may be considerable feeling existing in the provinces arising out of this matter, but it is a feeling which is, in my opinion, based upon an entire misconception as to the objects of this Bill This Bill is not a Measure which has for its object the aggregating of colleges with the University of London. If that were so, then they might pick and choose a different area, and take the colleges in the group, and the result would be that you would have a government of the colleges, and the superintending of them going on in their particular centres. That is not the scheme of this Bill. What this Bill pro poses to do is to create the university, not by colleges, but by faculties. It proposes to take one standard. A student would come and would matriculate, and then would present himself at Burlington Gardens, and say that lit wished to study at the University. Then what would be said to him? That he must start the curriculum, that he must follow the regulations, and he would be referred to his teachers, and would study under them. Now, how would the curriculum be arranged by the individual teachers? By meeting in their faculties, and putting their heads together, and discussing it, and making their various comments, and then submitting plans to the academic council, which would enable them to describe at any time the nature

    1237
    of the curriculum; so that the student learns under his particular teachers what he should learn before he comes in. That necessitates that the individual teachers should Be often together, that they should come together and form themselves into associations, which is impossible unless they are within a certain locality, where they can say what is to be the curriculum at a particular college, but the metropolitan rules provide that the teachers should come together, and to do their work on the spot. Now, how does the Bill work that out? It takes a limit, it is true. That is because it is connected practically with matters in London, and organised from London. Then why have they taken the 30-mile radius? Because a 30-mile radius might easily include those colleges which might be looked upon as of a London character, and the 30-mile limit was adopted in order to bring those colleges within the scope of the University. It is necessary to have a local area within which the teachers might come together, and that object would be defeated if you brought in colleges from a greater distance, and would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. My right honourable Friend the Member for the University knows, if this Amendment were to be carried, it would be inconsistent with the principle which the

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Baker. Sir John

    Hardy, Laurence

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Balfour,Rt,Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Harwood, George

    Roberts, John Brvn (Eifion)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hazell, Walter

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Brigg, John

    Holburn, J. G.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Caldwell, James

    Joicey, Sir James

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Labouchere, Henry

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lloyd-George, David

    Spicer, Albert

    Clark. Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Colville, John

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    McEwan, William

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Duckworth, James

    Monk, Charles James

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Fenwick, Charles

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Foster. Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    Tellers for the Ayes—

    Gedge, Sydney

    Pearson. Sir Weetman D.

    Sir Francis Evans and Sir Barrington Simeon.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    House adopted upon the Second Reading of the Bill.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I do not know that at all.
    MR. HALDANE: Then I cannot help thinking that all those with whom the right honourable Baronet works most frequently, regard this Amendment as fatal to the Bill.
    MR. HARWOOD: I merely wish to point out to the Committee that I think the Government ought to consider, not only this question by itself, but also to have some regard to the general feeling of the country. We have pointed out that there is a strong feeling upon this matter, and I think we may fairly ask where is there any hope for the colleges south of the Thames, if not here. I do not see where, for instance, a college at Brighton can have any chance of affiliating with a university, if not with London. I think we ought to give the university the power I ask for under this Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 183.—(Division List No. 252.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Mount, William George

    Arnold, Alfred

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Asher, Alexander

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Maner)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Garfit, William

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Purvis, Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Bethell, Commander

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Bigwood, James

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Bill, Charles

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Round, James

    Bond, Edward

    Greville, Captain

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Brassey, Albert

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Sharpe, William Kdward T.

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Hanburv, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Sidebotham; J. W. (Cheshire)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Henderson, Alexander

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Butcher, John George

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Smith. Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Carlile, William Walter

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Howard, Joseph

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Kenyon, James

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Knowles, Lees

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lafone, Alfred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lowles, John

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wylie, Alexander

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Jambs)

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Tellers for the Noes—

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Milton, Viscount

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Drucker, A.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 11, after 'elected,' insert 'by voting papers delivered personally or sent by post as at present.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: The schedule provides that the Senate shall be elected—
    "seventeen by the Convocation, of whom the chairman of Convocation shall be one, and

    1241
    the remaining sixteen shall be elected by the registered graduates in their separate faculties in such proportions as the Statutory Commission shall determine."
    Now, my Amendment provides that the election shall be
    "by voting papers delivered personally or sent by post as at present."
    I hope that after the lengthy discussion we have had the House will realise that the members of the Senate are spread all over the country and a, very small proportion of them reside in London, and that by far the great majority of them live at great distances from the Metropolis, and their occupations make it highly inconvenient to attend the meetings of the Senate. I am not ashamed of it, but I am proud to confess that most of the members of Convocation are more or less poor men, and that is one reason why they belong to the London University. Now I am sure that the House would not desire to take part in passing anything which would put a kind of penalty upon these poor men who would have to pay very heavily to come up to London. Now the question is whether they shall be allowed to vote as in other centres by post. The right honourable Gentleman and others have been inclined to sneer at postcard voting, but why I do not know. The right honourable Gentleman himself has a personal interest in this kind of voting, which should make him somewhat kinder to this principle. Well, as I have said, we have had sneers about this postcard voting, but this is an occasion for electing persons not by complicated details but exactly in the same way as they vote for members of the Senate in other universities, and I would point out to the House how much more important it is to remember this fact. When Convocation was assembled it voted in favour of the system of voting proposed in this Bill. And why? Because that gathering was naturally attended by members residing in or near London who can conveniently attend. But when the whole constituency was appealed to by this postcard voting, that is when members were allowed to vote who could not come up to London, that decision was reversed, and it was reversed by about an equal number of those who voted for it in the
    1242
    other case. This shows that if you want to get at the true opinion you must allow them to vote in this way, which is the only possible way to obtain the opinion of the bulk of the members. There are two reasons why these members cannot fairly be expected to come up to London and vote on matters of this kind. In the first place, it is not an easy thing for a man to come up to London from the North of England to spend moment or two in voting, and then to go home perhaps 200 or 300 miles. It is perfectly reasonable to allow that a man may express his opinion when the matter is put before him by circular or by postcard. The bulk of the members of Convocation are men engaged in active and somewhat compulsory occupations. Often they are teachers of schools holding high positions, many of which make it impossible fur them to get away.
    Question put—
    "That these words stand part of the clause."
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 15, leave out 'four by the,' and insert 'one by each of the four.'"—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, end of line 15, to insert 'one by the Society of Apothecaries.'"—(Dr. Clarl.)
    DR. CLARK: The constitution of the Senate has been entirely changed from what it was recommended to be by the Commission. According to that recommendation there would have been 11 elected by the Convocation, four from the faculties, and five from the outside bodies. Now you are only giving four from these outside bodies, and you have dropped altogether the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the Society of Apothecaries, and so far from the medical section being twice as numerous as recommended by the Commission there will now only be about half a dozen. Now I want to know why this

    1243
    change has been made in the constitution of this very important body. Of course, as far as several of the colleges are concerned, they tare not doing any educational work at all, for it is being done by the various hospitals.
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I cannot accept any alteration in the constitution of the Senate, which has already a very wide representation.
    DR. CLARK: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 23, leave out from 'by' to end of line 24, and insert 'Convocation in the manner above mentioned.'"—(Mr. Griffith.)
    MR. GRIFFITH: On behalf of the honourable Member for South-west Bethnal Green I beg leave to move this Amendment. The Bill provides—
    "That if, and as long as, any of the above-mentioned bodies fail to exercise the power of appointment hereby given, in every such case the power shall be exercised by Her Majesty with the advice of the Privy Council."
    The Amendment of my honourable Friend is to secure that the power of appointing shall not be exercised by Her Majesty, but by the Convocation. It has been the contention all along that the Convocation has not been sufficiently representative in this matter. It has only 16 or 17 members, and we do think that if there should be a lapse in the number of the Senate that lapse should prove to the benefit of the Convocation. They have very little power now, and they only elect 17 out of 55, and surely it is reasonable to ask that should there be one or two seats vacant they should be filled up by the Convocation.
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid that I could not accept this proposal, because in the event of any of the representatives of these particular bodies vacating their seats their places should be filled by men of the same character and class as their predecessors.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 33, leave out 'or other adequate test,' from the following provision in the schedule: 'No procedure to a higher degree shall be allowed without examination or other adequate test.'"(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: I cannot, Mr. Speaker, quite understand what sort of a method is supposed to be established by this proviso. What is an adequate test for a degree in reference to this university? What parallel or precedent have we for anything of the kind that you Should provide for a degree by some other adequate test? I think the House has a right to know what is meant by the words "other adequate test." As far as my knowledge goes this is a perfectly unique condition, and I move to omit these words, because it is opening the door to a principle which this House should watch with great jealousy, and which should be carefully watched particularly by those interested in the present university degrees. Those degrees have their value, because it is well understood in the country that they are granted after examination, and by examination only. I am quite aware that it is possible to exaggerate the value of an examination, but at any rate you must have some kind of test, and that test has always been adopted by the London University. But if we establish they are not to mean examinations at all, but some other adequate test, it will not only open the door to a number of people coming in who ought not to come in, but it will lower very considerably the value of the degrees, because you will not know whether it has been obtained by an examination or by this other method. I move this Amendment because I believe that if these words are retained it will set up a bad precedent.
    SIR J. GORST: I wish to remind the honourable Member opposite that I explained the question as to the meaning of these words to him in reply to a question on the Standing Committee, and I thought that I had explained it to his satisfaction.
    MR. HARWOOD: No, no!
    SIR J. GORST: I explained that in many oases a candidate for a higher degree was sometimes required to write a thesis or to do some piece of original work, and that was the qualification. That was fully explained to the honourable Member before, and I thought that he was entirely satisfied on the point. I do hope now that he will withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. BRYCE: I think the practice which the right honourable Gentleman has described is the practice of the University of London at the present moment.
    MR. HARWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 34, leave out from 'confer' to the end of line 35."—(Captain Norton.)
    CAPTAIN NORTON: The words to me seem to be on a par with certain bogus proceedings at High-gate, where some people added the words "unless they liked it better." If these words are not erased the authorities will have power to confer degrees without any examination at all and without any test; in fact, they will be able to give degrees to certain teachers who have hitherto failed to obtain them, and they will thereby lower the value of the degree both in regard to passing the examination and in the eyes of those persons who already possess them. With reference to what has been stated about the higher degrees this is not a question of higher degrees at all. Everybody knows that the first degree is a degree of great importance, and at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin Universities they are carefully protected and the authorities are very careful not to admit any of the outside smaller colleges. But according to this you might have students from a college in Wales obtaining a degree in the London University. It does seem to me that this places absolute power in the hands of the university to give the degrees to every person they may think fit without any test whatever. It has been stated
    1246
    that an examination is not always the best test of knowledge. I frankly admit that, but after all examination is the only test we know of at the present time. The thesis test may be very effective, but I hold that at present nowhere is a degree granted unless there is at certain periods a definite examination.
    SIR J. GORST: In the first instance it was pointed out to the Government that this was a very invidious restriction, and they consented to admit it and allow this university a right which every other university has to confer these degrees if they liked without examination, but it was only to be done in exceptional cases in which there was some particular merit or service on the part of the recipient which justified the granting of the degree. The Government consented to that, and now they are being called into question on that account for making that concession. I think that concession was a right one to make, because we are only giving the same power as that which is possessed by other universities.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: I certainly think that the clause is now much better thaw when it indicated that such degrees might be conferred only on the teachers of the university. I would remind my right honourable Friend that although the existing university has this power to confer degrees without examination it has never exercised it, which tends to show that care and discrimination will be exercised by the Senate, and that the power may well be continued, as it may be useful on great academic occasions, and may lead to reciprocity.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, after line 4, insert—
    "The Senate shall from time to time appoint visitors, who shall periodically visit and report direct to the Senate upon the curriculum of and the instruction given by the respective constituent colleges or schools of the university and the recognised teachers, whether belonging to schools of the university or not."—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: What I am proposing is what has all along been maintained, and I do not think that the working of the schedule will bear out the interpretation which has been put upon it. When you look lower down in clause 8, section (b), of the schedule it provides—
    "Members of the teaching stuffs of public educational institutions."
    When we refer to the Report we find that there were a certain number of institutions which the Commission recommended should be made schools of the university. There were 25 institutions mentioned, and it is recommended that this number shall be the beginning from which this London University is going to grow up. Now I propose to make this proposal in the interests of these schools. If this teaching university is to be a success it is necessary that the institutions which go to compose it shall be brought up to as high a level as possible. It is absurd to make a university school of something which is not of a university character, and honourable Members know quite well that these various institutions differ very much in this respect. I do not wish at this late hour to enter into particulars, but it is a well-known fact that many of these institutions are not up to a university standard, and that the teaching and the general character of them is not what it should be. Now we have already passed a Resolution that the university should be able to grant these institutions sums of money. Well, surety it is a fundamental principle of our constitution that, if Parliament grants public money, at any rate there should be some security that it is properly expended. In this matter I am following the precedent of the London University itself. Here is the very instance that we are pressing upon the Government, and I should like to repeat that I personally feel that it is my duty not to wreck this Bill, but to try to make it as good as it can be made. I say that it is a necessity in establishing this university that we should insert some power to see that these institutions do all they can do in the interests of education. That is only a fair return not only for the money granted but for the position which has been given
    1248
    to them. We have heard it stated in the Debate that they do give something back and that they are doing their utmost to bring their teaching up to the proper level. But how is it to be done? Why, it can only be done by some kind of a Committee that will go round periodically, I do not say at what time, to examine the school and to report. They may find the school falling back, and it may be found necessary to compel them to bring thing's back to the proper level or to out off the grant. I say in the interests of these schools it is distinctly to the advantage of this Bill that some such provision should be provided.
    SIR J. GORST: Surely this is a matter more for the Senate than for the consideration of the House, and surely it is not for this House to prescribe what particular line the Senate is to exercise. I do not think the Commissioners themselves would propose a hard and fast rule, as the honourable Member seems to do in this Amendment. I do not approve of it, and I hope the House will not accept it.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: Would the Senate have any power to appoint these visitors if there is no condition to that effect inserted in the Bill?
    SIR J. GORST: Certainly the Senate has that power, and I should think it is absolute.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: If the Senate will have the power, then I think the matter might very well be left where it is. I should have thought, however, that the Senate would have no control whatever over these institutions unless some such words were inserted in the Bill.
    SIR J. GORST: The Senate would certainly have the power.
    MR. HALDANE: On page 52 of the Cowper Commission Report it states that they should be open to visitation.
    *SIR C. DILKE: I do not think that a great many honourable Members have in their minds what these colleges really are. There are 10 schools of medicine, four schools of music, six theological colleges, and a great number of these institutions are not institutions which at present stand very high. Undoubtedly it must tend to the advantage of university teaching to bring bodies of this kind under something like efficient control. The Commissioners are to take this power upon themselves without the direction of this House, and it does seem to me to be a most invidious task that they are asked to undertake. I think we ought to take some steps to secure what this Amendment proposes.
    MR. GRIFFITH: The honourable Member has referred to page 52 of the Report with reference to the schools being open to visitation. I think this shows conclusively the danger of compromising. Now, whether the thing is necessary or not, or whether it can be done without this Amendment or not, does not seem to me to be very material. Why should we leave everything in the hands of the Commission? Why should we deliver the whole future of this university to the control of this Commission, as to whose views we know little or nothing? I think the House is per-

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Baker, Sir John

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Brigg, John

    Labouchere, Henry

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Lea. Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Butcher, John George

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Walton, J. (Barnsley)

    Caldwell, James

    Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Cawley, Frederick

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Norton, Capt. C. William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Colville, John

    Pearson, Sir W. D.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Philipps, John Wynford

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Provand, Andrew D.

    Mr. Harwood and Sir Albert Rollit

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

    Evans. Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    fectly right in saying, "We will leave no option to the Commissioners, but we say that you must do it." The House will see, I think, that it is not one of the functions that should be delegated to others.
    SIR W. PRIESTLEY: The medical council adopted this method of visitation quite voluntarily. I believe there is nothing in the Act that compels them to do it; therefore I think the matter may be very well left to the Senate.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: It seems to me that we have no alternative but to indicate the duty of the Senate respecting the colleges included in the Bill. I think there is a clear Parliamentary precedent with regard to the university colleges of Great Britain, because they are subject to a Treasury examination before the amounts are paid over. That seems to me to be an exact precedent, and surely if we are going to recognise and subsidise university teaching in these colleges we ought to see that the work and teaching are effectively conducted.
    Question put—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 160.—(Division List No. 253.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Elliot, Hon. A. R. D.

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Asher, Alexander

    Fellowes, Hon. A. E.

    Milton, Viscount

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Monk, Charles James

    Bagot, Capt. J. F.

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    More, Robert Jasper

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fisher, William Haves

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Mount, William George

    Balfour,Rt. Hon. J.B.(Clackm.)

    Fletchen, Sir Henry

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Gedge, Sydney

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Godson, Sir A. F.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bethell, Commander

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bill, Charles

    Gosehen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Birrell, Augustine

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bond, Edward

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M W.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Greville, Captain

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Brassey, Albert

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Round, James

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Ryder, John H. D.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bucknill, Thomas T.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hardy, Laurence

    Smith, J. P. (Lanark)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Hazell, Walter

    Souttar, Robinson

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Cecil Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Howard, Joseph

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Kenyon, James

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Chelsea, Viscount

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Knowles, Lees

    Warner, T. C. T.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Warr, A. F.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawrence, SirEDurning (Corn.)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Welby, Lient.-Col. A. C. E.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Cwrie

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn (Sw'ns a)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Loder, G. W. E.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Curzon, RtHn. G. N. (Lanc,SW)

    Long, Rt, Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lowles, John

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 12, after 'twenty,' insert 'eight.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
    MR. HARWOOD: My proposal is to add eight to the council for external students. At present the provisions in
    1252
    the schedule for the academic council is—
    "This Committee shall consist of the sixteen members of the Senate, appointed by the faculties, the three ex officio members and a senator or senators, elected by the Senate to make the number of members up to twenty."

    1253
    That is to say, there is only one member elected from outside besides the ex officio members, but when you come to the external students there are nine appointed from outside. The proviso for the council for external students is—
    "This Committee shall consist of the sixteen members of the Senate appointed by convocation, other than the chairman of convocation, the three ex officio members and senators, elected by the senate to make the number of members up to twenty-eight."
    Now, I do not understand why this distinction is drawn, and I do not know why the outside element should be nine in the case of external students, whilst in the case of internal students it is only one. It seems to me that in order to secure the proper working of these two bodies there should be a sufficiently large external element upon the academic council. If it is not too large in the case of external students, then it is too small in the case of internal students, and I wish to remedy this by moving this Amendment.
    SIR J. GORST: This matter was thoroughly discussed on the Standing Committee, and I do not think we ought to accept this proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 29, to omit the word 'public'"—(Mr. Griffiths.)
    MR. GRIFFITH: The clause would then read—
    "Members of the teaching staffs of educational institutions."
    In reply to a question from this side of the House, it was said that anyone could not be a teacher of the university, although he was a teacher attached to a private teaching establishment. My honourable Friend behind me put that question.
    MR. HALDANE: No, I did not.
    MR. GRIFFITH: The question put, I understand, was whether a man who took part in private teaching, or cramming, or "coaching," could be recognised as a teacher of this university, and
    1254
    I understand from my honourable Friend that he could not. Well, I do not see any reason for limiting this proviso to the members of public educational institutions. I am not quite sure what a public educational institution means. Is it an educational institution to which any member of the public is admitted, on payment of the requisite fee, or is it a term which has some special meaning? I beg to move this Amendment, in order that I may get this information.
    SIR J. GORST: Public institutions, of course, mean institutions carried on with public money, to which the general public are admitted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, lines 29 and 30, leave out 'situate within a radius of 30 miles from the university buildings.'"—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
    *SIB J. LUBBOCK: I should like to ask my right honourable Friend whether, after the discussion we have had, he does not think he could insert the words proposed in my Amendment, so as to admit the colleges in the southeast of England. There was some objection made as regards colleges in the north of England, but unless my Amendment be accepted there will be no university to which colleges in the South of England, outside London, can be affiliated. I may point out to the House that no teacher, unless he belongs to some recognised college within the 30-mile radius, will be able to become a teacher of the university.
    *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I rather understood from the observations, of the honourable Member that his Amendment raises precisely the same question as the point which I have previously ruled upon.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: It is not precisely so. I want to ask my right honourable Friend whether he would not leave out the 30-mile limit, and put in some words that will admit the colleges in the southeast of England.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I Understand that when a college is said to be included, it

    1255
    does not mean anything more than that the members of the teaching staff are to be included. If that is so, this is the same Amendment.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: My first Amendment included colleges over the whole of England. This refers only to colleges in the south-east. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House on this point, but I do ask the right honourable Gentleman, after the discussion we have had, whether he will not introduce some words which will admit these other colleges.
    *MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that directly you get outside the 30-mile limit you are including the whole of England. The Amendment is out of order.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 36, leave out 'matriculated at.' and insert 'passed the matriculation examination of.'"—(Mr. Brigg.)
    MR. BRIGG: Au the clause at present stands, it reads—
    "Internal students of the university are students who have matriculated at the university, and who are pursuing a course of study approved by the university in a school or schools of the university, or under one or more of the recognised teachers of the university."
    The meaning of the word "matriculated" in this case could not mean "passed the matriculation examination." If that is not so, it may mean anything, and there is no uniformity as to the qualification. I merely move this Amendment to ask for a further explanation.
    SIR J. GORST: I think this might very well be left to the Commissioners, who have all had great experience in matters of this kind.
    MR. BRIGG: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, after line 21, insert '(c) The Examiners of the University.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: The clause at present provides—
    "Boards of studies shall be constituted for the subjects of university study. The members of each board of studies shall be appointed by the Senate from—members of a faculty who teach or examine in the board's subjects; other teachers of the university who teach the board's subjects."
    I propose to add to this list the examiners of the university. It is the practice now of the Senate to confer with the examiners for the guidance of the university on the subjects of the curricula, but the chief ground, Sir, upon which I move this Amendment is that the examiners are those who have the most relations with the external students, and it becomes a very important function to coordinate the work of the students with the examinations. And, otherwise, the boards of studies will have upon them no representative whatever of subjects of external study, and it does seem to me that the examiners, in addition, by looking where the points of teaching are defective, are among the very best advisers which the Senate can possibly have. I beg to move.
    SIR J. GORST: I think this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, because the honourable Member will see, with regard to the boards of study, that—
    "The Senate may also appoint such other persons, not exceeding one-fourth of the total number of the boards, as they may think fit."
    That would give the Senate the power to secure the services of the examiners, if they thought it advisable to put them on the boards of studies.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, line 28, leave out from begining of line to the second 'and' in line 30, and insert—
    "The matriculation examination in the University, and all subsequent examinations in each faculty of the university, shall be the same for all students, whether external or internal, and no student, whether internal or external, shall be allowed to present any certificate in lieu of any such examination, or of any part thereof."—(Sir C. Dilke.)
    *SIR C. DILKE: This Amendment is one of the only two Amendments which I ventured to place on the Paper, and this question was not dealt with in Committee.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: It was dealt with.
    *SIR C. DILKE: Well, at all events, the opinion of the Grand Committee was not taken upon this subject, which seems one of the most important subjects, from an educational point of view, in the whole of the Bill. Now, Sir, we are creating a great new educational ideal, and the first thing; Parliament ought to look to is that we should not depreciate the standard, but do our best to raise it rather than to lower it. I cannot but believe—and I know that a great many Members opposite are of the game opinion on this particular point—that the effect of the words, as they stand in this Bill, will be to permanently depreciate the education given in this University. I have read, over and over again, the words in the Report which concern this subject, and we know how deservedly high stands the examination of the present London University. We know how admirable is the matriculation, and we know how high it stands throughout the country. Well, Sir, I have read over and over again the words in which the Commission recommend that there shall be two classes of examination for this University, one for the new class of students, and another for the existing class of students—that is, the internal and external students. Well, I see no justification for this. I cannot understand what they mean, or where they derive the ground-work for the recommendation they make. In the hope of eliciting some explanation of that which was not explained in the Grand Committee, and which seems to me to be a blot upon the Bill, I move this Amendment. This proposal of mine is a very sweeping and strongly-worded one, and I believe that the Government have some compromise in their mind in regard to it. But the compromise, suggested to me is not one which ought to prevent us going to a Division upon this point. But, although it is a sweeping proposal, I am by no means disposed to reject some understanding. I thought it
    1258
    best to put the Amendment down in the strongest possible terms, in order that it might be laid down that one educational standard might be maintained in this University, and for this reason I beg to move this Amendment.
    SIR J. GORST: The proposal of the right honourable Baronet is not of very great importance, but if it were adopted it would practically destroy the Bill. It has been asserted by those interested in the external students that they are likely to suffer from the easier examination, but I think this is an entirely mistaken idea, and I do not think that the teachers are at all likely to lower the quality of the degrees which are conferred upon them. I think the tendency of the teachers is rather to raise those degrees. That, however, was the allegation that was made. The intention of the Bill was, however, very clear. It approves of the double examination, and the external students are entitled to have a separate examination of their own, controlled by a separate body, and every possible precaution has been taken that that examination shall not in any way lower the standard of the examination which is held in connection with the University of London. That was the arrangement which has been come to, and if the Government or the House of Commons were to upset that arrangement, it would undo everything which the Bill has devised. Therefore, upon those grounds, and upon the ground that those who profess to represent the teachers and external students whose assent to the Bill was promised by a compromise, it is impossible to surrender to this proposed change.
    *MR. E. GRAY: The Amendment does not seem to have been dealt with upon its merits, but is dealt with by virtue of some mysterious arrangement between those who were parties to a compromise of which we have had no definite information. We do not know what the compromise is, and beyond what the right honourable Gentleman has said, we have no means of knowing. It is a subject which I raised upon the Second Reading of this Bill, and I want the House to realise the position in which the Bill proposes to place us. I

    1259
    do not propose to detain the House more than a minute or two, but I think the subject is of such great importance that the House ought to consider it. At present, whether the students be taught privately or not, either in or out of London, they all attend for the one matriculation examination. They follow along the same course, taking the same series of examinations, and finishing by holding one certificate and one degree. Now, all that is to be changed. The Bill provides for three Committees—the Academic Council, the Council for External Students, and the Council for the Extension of University Teaching. With the third I have nothing to do; I have to deal with the Academic-Council for the internal students, and with the special Council for the external students. Now, I want to place before the House this position: there are a number of colleges throughout the country engaged in exactly the same work, taking exactly the same curriculum, which is clearly defined by the Educational Department. I refer to the training colleges at which teachers are being prepared for their work. Now, these colleges are at present allowed to substitute the degree examinations for the ordinary certificate, which, until the last few years, was required by the Education Department. I refer to some of those colleges, such as those at York, Brighton, and Cambridge, colleges for men and colleges for women, which, having trained their students for one year, will send them up to London to obtain their degree at the London University. That has been their practice in the past. Now, my honourable Friend opposite says that they will not be placed in any worse position in the future than they have been in the past. Well, speaking absolutely, that is so, but comparatively that is not the case. It is true that they are not in any worse position than they have been in the past, except in comparison with other students working for the same degrees, and striving to secure the same position. Those who secure residence in London colleges will have the advantages of internal students, and to that extent the students attending the exterior colleges will be placed at a very great disadvantage when coming out to perform the same work and the same duties in the public schools in the country, for
    1260
    it will be found that they find that they hold in their hands two different degrees, differently described, differently stamped—one as an external and the other as an internal student. Let me carry the case a little further and show the House how exceedingly absurd the new position will be. It will be perfectly possible for a man to attend one of the training colleges within the London area, where he will merely attend for a few hours, to get a certain amount of teaching from persons recognised as professors of the university, but he is in the favoured district within the London area. He will come out as a student of the university, as one of the internal students attending the examination for the internal students, taught by a professor in the university. But outside the 30-mile radius you will have your residential colleges, where you get the benefit of academic discipline, the teachers holding higher degrees, and yet teaching the same subject, and the students will get the whole benefits of the university career; but they will be external students, and they will be deprived of the privileges and advantages of the students in London. I do draw the earnest attention of the Vice-President of the Council to this position, which materially affects the supply of teachers. The right honourable Gentleman admitted a few nights ago in the course of the Debate that there was a real grievance here. He pointed out to the House, I think, that a number of persons sought admission to particular colleges, and failed to gain admission because they had not applied to a college where they might have been admitted. Now, if this Bill is passed, the position will be worse. The advantages as compared with the country will be so great that there will be a rush upon the London training colleges. They will pay to secure admission, and the others will be shut out into the cold altogether, and those young persons will have no opportunity of getting an efficient training. I have been receiving almost by every post during the past few days letters drawing my attention to this ridiculous position. They hold that there will be two different standards for the external and internal students, and if the examination for the internal students is easier and more possible to obtain the degree, there will be

    1261
    a rush for it. I do not think that that will be for the benefit of the country, nor do I believe that the confusion which will obtain as to the relative merits of the degree will be to the advantage of education throughout the country. But, if there is one thing more necessary in regard to a degree than another, it is that the public should know its real value, and at what examination it was secured. There will be hopeless confusion in a few years' time as to the degree granted to the internal student and the degree granted to the external student at different examinations. The Vice-President of the Council tells us this Amendment will be fatal to the Bill, not because it will injure the London University, but because it will injure this compromise. Well, that is an argument which I cannot accept as a sound or valid one at all. Now, if the right honourable Gentleman could show that this Bill will insure the benefits which it seeks to confer, or that this Amendment would diminish the advantages which London will secure upon the passing of this Bill, or that it will injure the other London colleges, I for one should withhold my hand. But I cannot conceive that the continuance of one examination and one degree which has obtained such great respect in the country from the days when the London University was founded down to the present time; I cannot conceive that the continuance of that degree will in any way injure London; but I do see, however, that the education of the country will be materially injured by the establishment of two forms of examination, and therefore I cordially support this Amendment. I do hope, if the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President cannot accept this proposal, that he will at least see his way to strike out the latter part of the clause. I hope the compromise will be retained whatever it may be, and that the Vice-President may be able to see his way to at least give the external student more advantages. I would venture to remind the House that when we had this Bill before us in Committee there was in it a clause which permitted an internal student, if he chose, to take the examination for the external student, and that was the desire of those who framed this Bill, and were parties to the compromise. I for one cannot see why you should not
    1262
    give the external student a like option. I do think it would be for the great good of education generally, and certainly it would increase the high standard, if one and the same examination were insisted upon for all persons who wish to secure one particular degree.
    MR. HALDANE: If I rise for one reason more than another it is to reply to the honourable Gentleman opposite. He asks for a substantial reason why this Amendment should be resisted, which I believe will be absolutely fatal to the intention which this Bill seeks to carry out. I will make one remark only about something which fell from the honourable Member who spoke of the clause having been left out of the Bill which would have given internal students access to the examinations for the external students. Now, that clause provided that students might jump from one examination to the other, and it was to obviate that that the clause was taken out. Now, as to the main question, why is it that those of us interested in this Bill strenuously resist the Amendment of my right honourable Friend? I know my right honourable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean supports it because of his convictions as to the principle contained in the clause; but what is the answer to it? Why, Sir, the answer is this: this is to be a teaching university in which the students are to come and to be put through, not merely examinations, but a certain curriculum which will give them training and culture, and that can only arise from the personal contact with the teacher when pursuing their studies under individuals who will influence their ideas as well as put knowledge into them. Now, Sir, the object of this system is to test the curriculum—whether in the knowledge of the student he has availed himself of that curriculum. It is not a mere case of the curriculum; it is equally a case of the examination adapting itself to the curriculum. You cannot sever the examination from the curriculum; it is the test taken as to the extent to which the student has come under its influence. When you are dealing with a case in which a student has been pursuing a course of study, in which he has been getting a particular training, you put before him the idea that it will change

    1263
    him, and bring him out a more highly educated man with that advantage which can only come from contact with a great teacher. Let me illustrate this. Suppose a student is going in for the bachelor of science degree, and suppose he is working with some distinguished chemist—say, for instance, Professor Ramsey. Suppose he wants a research degree to work in the laboratory; it is obvious that in that case that test to which he is put will be, presumably, a different test from the test to which he would be put if he came from the outside with no special knowledge of the work he has been doing, or the kind of culture or faculty that he ought to exhibit. Now, Sir, a great deal has been said about the examinations in connection with the University of Dublin, but there are two sides even to that question. I do not know whether honourable Members ever go through a street which is known as Holywell Street. If they do, they will find there a magazine shop, principally for the sale of books of preparation for the examinations in connection with the London University, and it has got a high-sounding title. They take the examiners, and look up their records and papers, and in the most ingenious way prepare pupils in a way which far outstrips anything that can be done by the teacher. The result has been that the colleges are put to a disadvantage because they themselves take, as they are taking in many cases, the complete machinery, which comes from outside. Now, I do not want to see the external examinations interfered with, but let nobody imagine that such examinations always show a very high scale of knowledge. The purpose of this Bill is to train the student and to test the training which he has gone through. I put forward one reason, which I hope will weigh with the House against putting difficulties in the way of examination, and I put another reason forward, which seems conclusive, against the Amendment of my right honourable Friend. My right honourable Friend is aware that under this Bill there is to be a body called the Council for External Students, to look after the affairs of the old university, and to preserve some kind of Home Rule, so to speak. There is also to be another body called the Academic Council, but
    1264
    much smaller, which will control and direct the affairs of the internal side of the university. Now, if you adopt this Amendment, what will be the result? Why, it will be that these important examinations would no longer, in the case of the old university, be under the control of the Council for External Students, for they would be controlled and interfered with by the Academic Council, the body which regulates the affairs of the internal students. You would thus get away from that state of things, in which the status of the university is to be preserved by being under the government of its own representatives. That would arise under the Amendment of my right honourable Friend, and I do not see how this difficulty is to be got over. The best course to take, Mr. Speaker, is the one taken by this Bill. I am aware that there is the difficulty in connection with the training colleges outside the London radius, but that is a geographical expression, and it arises from the misfortune of the other training colleges not being in the university circle; but I hope they will be before very long. But so long as they are not, all we can do is to preserve the privileges which they have had and which they already possess; and their difficulties are certainly no reasons for refusing to the great metropolis of London that teaching university which it is urgently in need of, and which it cannot have unless it is allowed to have the control of certain examinations which are adapted to the curriculum which it imposes.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: My honourable and learned Friend opposite, in the few observations he has made, said that the teaching university to be established is going to give the internal students something which the external students will not get, which will be obtained by actual contact with the teachers of the university. I venture to think that the fallacy of my learned Friend's argument rests in this, that he has used the word "culture" in a different sense to what we use it. My own notion of it is the stereotyped version given by Matthew Arnold, and I have associated with it that idea which one gets there. It is something which cannot be tested by examinations, some-

    1265
    thing which is indefinable, which attaches itself to a man and to his modes, and which you cannot gauge and fix by an examination. Therefore I venture to think that my honourable Friend has used the word "culture" when he should have used the word "knowledge," for that which you can test by examination is the knowledge of a student and not the culture. Take, for instance, the subject to which my honourable Friend has referred; take a subject with which I myself was more familiar in the university—mathematics. It seems to me that those who went to Cambridge and learned mathematics from personal contact with the teachers got their styles and modes of doing things, and what we got was a certain power which we had to apply to other problems. Now I venture to say that the best test of our real capacity for combating with problems is to have them presented to us to see if we have really got the capacity for grappling with those problems. Modes and style are things which, no doubt, one may learn from a teacher, and they are things which may show themselves in the examination; but I venture to say that what the university should test is the knowledge of the student and the power he has got of dealing with different subjects and different problems, and the knowledge winch he has acquired in those schools. It does seem to some of us somewhat of an absurdity, this setting up of a double standard. Well, Sir, the Vice-President of the Council has referred to this as being a matter of compromise. He says that at that stage certain suggestions were thrown out to meet difficulties which presented themselves, and to overcome them it was decided that there should be two sets of examinations, and that was accepted as a sort of compromise which we do not all understand. I venture to say, Sir, that since that time that which was thought to be a solution of the difficulty has only introduced greater difficulties, and the complications which this compromise has introduced are of a much more serious character. I venture to think that the views of those representing the external students would be far better met if the Government would make a concession and say that there should be only one standard of examination. I have had an
    1266
    opportunity of talking over this matter with some of those who will be on the teaching staff, and I may say that some of them do not consider this at all essential to the scope of this Bill. Well, the Vice-President thinks it is essential, and it may be, as a drafting matter, but that it is essential to the scheme as a whole I venture to think nobody can suggest. One hears the object of those interested in the matter, and the hope of the Vice-President himself is that this double standard will not be set up. It is said that this is a concession to external students, because they would be at a disadvantage in having to go in for examinations where the questions do not conform with the line of teaching adopted. Well, those representing external students are willing to put up with this difficulty of having to go in for a different set of examinations. But as regards achieving the object which my right honourable Friend has at heart, that the curriculum of the university should be framed to a large extent under the control of those who teach in the university, that would be attained by the Bill as it stands, without having two separate examinations. The faculties are to be largely represented, and if a body of that sort, in which the faculties are largely represented, have the framing of the curriculum, they would be able to adapt that curriculum from tired to time to the development of the teaching as they went on, and at the same time I feel perfectly satisfied that any curriculum which was produced by such a body would satisfy not merely the needs of the internal students, but also those of the external students. Now I think it would be a fatal blot upon the scheme to have a double set of examinations and a double set of examining boards, and unless this is absolutely essential the Government would do well to reconsider the matter. I have taken a good deal of trouble to ascertain what is the feeling upon this matter, and I find that there is a very large body of opinion among the existing graduates at the university that this concession, if it could be made, would reconcile them to the Bill. We know they have many objections to it, but the aim of the Government ought to be to introduce a spirit of good feeling with those who have to work out this scheme,

    1267
    and if the element of friction between the old members of the university and the teaching body can be reduced and prevented from showing itself it will tend very much to the successful working of the scheme.
    *MR. BIRRELL: We are constantly told that the existing University of London has only one standard of examination, and that if you matriculate there henceforward everybody passes the same examinations. They say that you all have the same examination papers, with the result, as honourable Gentlemen opposite are constantly telling us, that there is only one way of obtaining a degree, which gives it a high, standard. So that if you are a B.A. of the London University it is known by what machinery you obtained it, and what papers were submitted to you, and the world is able to pass a satisfactory judgment upon your learning. Now, I have examined the regulations of the existing London University for the year 1899, and have learnt from them how you may become a bachelor of arts in that University. First of all, you must pass the matriculation examination, then the intermediate examination in arts, and then the bachelor of arts examination. Now, there are 10 ways of passing the matriculation, and four ways of passing the intermediate examination, and 44 ways of passing the final examination. Now, I am not a good hand at figures myself, but I have a friend who is a perfect demon at them, and he has made a calculation which shows that there are no fewer than 1,760 different ways of obtaining the bachelor of arts degree of the existing London University, and yet we are told that everybody who has got that degree has got it in the same way, that it is of precisely the same value, and that he can go into the open market and say, "I am a bachelor of arts," and everybody is foolish enough to believe that they are all on the same footing. The proper thing to do when you meet a B.A. of London is to inquire cautiously of him, "In which of the 1,760 ways did you obtain your degree?" Then, with regard to the bachelor of science degree, the student must first pass the matriculation examination; secondly, the intermediate examination in science; and, thirdly, the bachelor of science examina-
    1268
    tion. Now, there are 10 ways of passing matriculation, four ways of passing the intermediate examination in science, and 56 ways of passing the final bachelor of arts examinations, with this result, that my friend informs me there are 2,240 ways of obtaining the bachelor of science degree. Now I think it is very creditable to the existing University of London that there should be so many different ways, for it shows that their examinations are not of such a stereotyped character as honourable Gentlemen wish them to be. But the uniformity and one standard of which we have heard so much do not exist at the present time. I do hope, therefore, that the House will not be frightened by this bugbear of a uniform standard, but will encourage in the New University this Bill seeks to create every variety of method of obtaining their degrees.
    *MR. BUTCHER: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has given us some remarkable figures, but the real question we have to consider is whether the external student should be placed at a disadvantage or not. That is the question, and not how many different ways there are of obtaining degrees. As I understand it at present whatever faculty you may choose the examination is the same for all students choosing that faculty. The fact that there are more ways than one in which a man can get a degree is no answer to the principle on which this Amendment is founded. The ordinary plain-minded man would naturally expect that if you had a number of men going for the same degree they should be subjected to the same examination. You desire to test a certain standard of merit, and you naturally expect that the men should be subjected to the same test. Now this Bill gives a separate treatment for internal and external students. I listened with some interest to the speeches of honourable Members, and I have heard the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The right honourable Gentleman told us that the proposal in this Bill was the result of some compromise. Well, Sir, we know nothing about that compromise. It is suggested that it has been conceived in the interests of external students; but so far as the views

    1269
    of the representatives of those students are concerned they do not believe in the benefit that will be conferred upon them by this Bill. On the contrary, they are under the impression that they are being very badly treated. The honourable Member for Haddington said he was going to give us some justification for this proposal made by the Government, which, he said, was founded upon the principle that this university was to be a teaching university. As I understand him, his argument was this—you have teachers of the university and the examinations must necessarily follow the lines of that teaching which is carried on. Now, as I understand examinations, they are supposed to test the knowledge of the students, and it matters not whether they are within a particular local area or outside that area. If you are going to confer these degrees upon them let them all have the same test to arrive at the same result—namely, that stamp of merit which the university is going to confer upon successful candidates. You have both external and internal students coming up for degrees in Dublin, and they are all subjected to identically the same examinations, and so far as I know no difficulty has been experienced in conducting those examinations from the fact that the internal students are examined from the curriculum in the university, and the external students are examined from the knowledge which they have acquired from other sources. I see no reason for the separate examinations which are provided for in this Bill. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment of my right honourable Friend.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I never like to curtail discussion, but we have now occupied an hour and a half discussing not merely this Amendment, but the greater question as to whether there shall be a separate examination. Well, Sir, I do not deny the importance of the Amendment which has initiated an important discussion, but I do now urge the House to come to a decision upon the point which has been raised.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): It has been alleged
    1270
    that they only desire to have a teaching university and a more thorough system of educating the yout of London; but my firm belief is, and always has been, that there is underlying this a sinister desire to obtain an easier degree and to get a wider membership of this university. Now, if that is so, why object to subjecting them all to the same examination? The test of an examination has been described as being a most fallacious one, but it is the most perfect one obtainable other than the actual test of life's work. There is no other method of distinguishing the knowledge acquired either at school or by private study equal to that of examination, and the desire to avoid subjecting all students to the same test is to me a proof—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    DR. CLARK: I do not think that the Vice-President of the Council can claim that the Commission were in favour of this double test. They say—
    "The final examination both for internal and external students should represent the same standard of knowledge."
    Now, the House should remember that three-fourths of the students in the past have come from the area outside. Now, there are 12 medical schools in London, and the students attending those medical schools will have special favours and will have an easier examination. Now, three schools out of those 12 are thoroughly equipped, and the others are very small schools, but you have large provincial schools which are well equipped, where students can be well trained by virtue of being outside the 30-mile limit. Now, here are two classes of students who are required to pass the same curriculum because the General Medical Council require it, but what they are now required to pass is a different examination. Now, as far as science goes they will be in exactly the same position. Take the Royal College of Science Now, a great many students enter the colleges by exhibitions and scholarships. Suppose they go to the London College of Science, which is incorporated. You have students coming from other colleges, and passing through the same curriculum and the

    1271
    same course of study, who will be required, not because of anything in their education, but on account of the geographical position of their college, to pass another examination. I think the honourable Member for Fife has rather exaggerated the case. It is true that they do not try to tie you down to certain special subjects, but you have not so much to choose from as the honourable Member has pointed out. It does seem to me from the discussions which I have read that a large number of the medical teachers in London are desirous of having the standard lowered in London because they cannot get their students to pass the present test. Now, I think the London standard is the higher standard and only the best men have gone in for it. Your London men have been taking special practice rather than general practice; and what you are now asked to do is to lower the standard. Now, I cannot see, judging from Scotch experience, that you will be taking a retrograde step by adopting this Amendment. The honourable Member for Edinburgh will remember the fight we had to get the standard of our degrees raised. We had very great difficulty in getting the examinations taken out of the hands of our professors and having other examiners appointed. That took place within the last 25 years, and now the Scotch universities—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now going into the general question of the standard of university education, and not into the question before the House, which is the existence of two standards of education in the University of London.
    Dr. CLARK: You are going to have a class of examinations held by the teachers where the teachers will control their own students, and that is what we had in Scotland, and that is what we

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Brassey, Albert

    Arnold, Alfred

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Beach,Rt,Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bill, Charles

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J.(Mane'r)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Carlile, William Walter

    Balfour.Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    had to tight against. ["Time, time."] I do not want to press this view, as honourable Members do not want to hear reason. They want to rush forward this Measure, and we cannot discuss on reasonable terms this Amendment, because gentlemen opposite are too tired to listen.
    MR. GRIFFITH: I shall not detain the House more than a moment. I wish to appeal to the Solicitor General, and the point I desire to mention is this. It has been said more than once that this will do no harm to the external students. But if there are two sets of examinations, what is to become of the degrees given in the honours list? There will now De two honour lists—the internal and the external honours. I think that is a very important point, and I wish to know whether it is proposed to keep the scholarships of equal value or divide the money and give half to each. I have no doubt that this has been under the consideration of the Solicitor General. I think we have up to the present been very fair in our discussion, and I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will answer this point.
    SIR R. FINLAY: The question is not a matter of law, in which any definite or precise answer can be given. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill leaves it some what elastic as to the power given to the Senate. As regards scholarships such details are much better left to the Senate for regulation. I do not think it is possible for this House to lay down a definite rule of that kind.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 115, Noes 46.—(Division List No. 254.)

    Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

    Gretton, John

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Greville, Captain

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Chaloner, Capt, R. G. W.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Purvis Robert

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Ritchie, Rt, Hon. C. T.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hanbury, Rt, Hon. R. W.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Kenyon, James

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Knowles, Lees

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lafone, Alfred

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Lowles, John

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Milton, Viscount

    Wylie, Alexander

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Monk, Charles James

    Wyvill, Marimaduke D'Arcy

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Harwood, George

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Asher, Alexander

    Hazell, Walter

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Baker, Sir John

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Bond, Edward

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Brigg, John

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Caldwell, James

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Warner. Thomas C. T.

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caitlmess-sh.)

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-

    Colville, John

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Butcher.

    Griffith. Ellis J.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Hardy, Laurence

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, line 30, leave out from 'respectively,' to end of line 35, and insert—
    "All examinations shall be conducted by independent examiners appointed by the Senate in accordance with the present practice, and no student, whether internal or external, shall matriculate in the university, or proceed to a degree without passing the prescribed examinations."—(Mr. Brigg.)
    MR. BRIGG: In moving this Amendment I do not propose to go over the whole ground again. If there is to be no change in the examination in the new
    1274
    order of things as compared with previous examinations, the simplest form would be to conduct them in accordance with the present practice. I do not wish to argue the matter further, because it is quite clear what my meaning is; and I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    SIR J. GORST: It seems to me that the words are quite unnecessary, and I do not see the use of putting in such an instruction. There is no necessity to give any such directions; and surelv the Commissioners are the proper people to

    1275
    deal with it. It is most essential that the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment should be retained in the clause.
    MR. HARWOOD: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that according to your ruling my Amendment is out of order. As regards the question whether or not it is desirable to have separate examinations, I have not heard either in the Committee on Law or elsewhere any reason why this subject should be treated in this particular manner. No doubt we shall have again this bogey of compromise trotted out, and we shall be told, as we have been told before, that this was an arrangement come to by the request of the external students, who desire that this particular thing should be in, because they thought it would probably tend to the lowering of the examination and the lowering of the quality of the external diplomas. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this House is not to be guided in this matter by persons who put themselves forward as representing one set of persons or another. I think the House is quite able to decide as to the weight of words; and I think we have had quite enough of what people have said in conversation with others, and we may direct our attention to the importance of these words. Now, I object to the retention of these words. I am one of those who set a great value upon these various examinations, no matter what may be the opinion of those who have spoken. Granted that this new university succeeds as it is expected to succeed; granted that it adds some kind of aroma of culture to the examinations, I am not prepared to say that I object on the other ground personally to making any distinction whatever in these diplomas, because, as the House knows quite well, you will stamp on the face of these diplomas these distinctions as to what they really are. Now I venture to remind the House that there may possibly arise a social distinction which this House ought to do its best to avoid, and I am not speaking without experience. Many honourable Members will no doubt remember the experiment made at Oxford in regard to unattached students, and I remember with what enthusiasm that was started. Well, it failed because there was a sort of social distinction or want of distinction which
    1276
    somehow or other made it a failure. I venture to think that that sort of thing will occur here, and this House has no business to do anything of that kind. If it does occur, let the House take the responsibility. I do object that there should be these lines of cleavage between these two degrees, and that you should have two sets of examinations, one for the internal and one for the external students. I think there is an invidiousness about this suggestion, and it is perfectly unnecessary. If anyone wants information he can get it, and I think the House should resist any suggestion of this social difference, which we ought to endeavour to avoid.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: When this subject was discussed by the Standing Committee the voting was very nearly equal, and that justifies this discussion hero. We have heard nothing except of equality of attainment, and we have here the first step to mark a distinction, and I think an invidious distinction, by putting on the diploma whether the examination has been that of an internal or an external student. Now it has been said that this will be an advantage to the external student, but I do not see how it can be so, and I think it will be entirely misleading. What is the definition in the Bill of an internal student? He is one who has had the advantage of being taught by a tether recognised in the university, so that if the student receives only that modicum, that small modicum of university training, he will be marked an internal student if he is within the 30 mile limit, but if he is outside he will not, though he may have undergone a complete course of collegiate teaching, and I say that that is absolutely misleading. This provision does not indicate what it is intended to indicate. In a misleading way it labels one student as an outsider, and places on the face of the diploma something which may lower its value. I do hope that the Government will take a reasonable view of the matter, and that even yet this invidious departure, which is not made at the Dublin University, will be altered, because it will be the first step towards what I believe will be a great disadvantage, and will be very much resented by the external students.
    MR. BRYCE: There does not seem to me to be any advantage in stating that the student is an internal or external student. When the matter was discussed it was pointed out that the external students had a more difficult examination to pass than the internal students, and therefore it was thought to be only fair to make this distinction. Therefore, this provision was introduced for the benefit of the external students. Now let me call attention to this point, that this is only a provisional arrangement, and there is nothing permanent in it. It says—
    "Unless the Senate either generally by regulation or as to a particular subject by order otherwise determine."

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir John E.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Mane'r)

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Balfour.Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gretton, John

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Greville, Captain

    Ritchie, Rt, Hon. C. T.

    Bond, Edward

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R, W.

    Simeon. Sir Barrington

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hardy, Laurence

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Knowles, Lees

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Charrington, Spencer

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    William's, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Lowles, John

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wylie, Alexander

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Milton, Viscount

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Monk, Charles James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    More, Robert Jasper

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    NOES.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Labouchere, Henry

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Wedderbum, Sir William

    Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Mr. Brigg and Sir Albert Rollit.

    Harwood, George

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Now, those are the words which govern the whole clause, and it will be left in the hands of the Senate. If they find that there is likely to be this invidious distinction they can at once remedy it. I think the Senate may be left to decide this, for I believe they will be wiser judges upon these matters of detail than this House.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 21.—(Division List No. 255.)
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 7, leave out 'situate within a radius of thirty miles from the university buildings.'"—(Sir J. Lubboch.)
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I do not propose to press this Amendment unless my right honourable Friend accepts it or some modification of it.
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid that it would he impossible to accept it altar what has already been passed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made—
    "That this Bill lie re-committed for the purpose of considering the financial clause."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
    Agreed to.
    The House went into Committee.
    MR. E. R. WODEHOUSE, tool, the Chair.
    Motion made—
    "There shall be paid to the secretary to the commissioners, and to any person appointed or employed by the commissioners, such remuneration as the Treasury may assign, and that remuneration and all expenses of the Commissioners incurred with the sanction of the Treasury in the execution of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."—(Sir J. Gornt.)
    *SIR C. DILKE: It has been left very late to discuss this money resolution for this Bill, and I do not think that there is any precedent for the course that has been taken. But, Sir, what I desire is to learn what is the meaning of these words—
    "And ali expenses of the commissioners incurred with the sanction of the Treasury in the execution of the Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
    Now, what are the obligations which the country incurs under this clause? I should like to know what are to be the

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Blundell, Colonel, Henry

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Bond, Edward

    Chaloner, Capt. R, G. W.

    Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

    Brassey, Albert

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Charrington, Spencer

    funds from which the very ill-equipped colleges which are going to be admitted as schools of the university are to have their lecture theatres and their teaching apparatus brought up to the standard which is considered proper. The honourable Member for Haddington described the operations which were to be undertaken to bring these colleges up to the mark, and he described them very vividly. Now, I want to know where that money is coming from, and from what source? Where is the money to be found by which all these expensive operations are going to be carried out.
    SIR J. GORST: This is a common clause, which is put into all Bills of the kind, to meet the necessary expenses incurred under the Bill. I assure the House that it does not incur a very large expenditure.
    Question put—
    "That this clause be read a second time."
    Agreed to.
    Motion made and Question put—
    "That this Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    Agreed to.
    The House resumed.
    Motion made—
    "That this Bill be now read a third time."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
    SIR J. GORST: I do hope the House will now permit this Bill to be read a third time.
    Question put—
    "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 19.—(Division List No. 256.)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Knowles, Lees

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. T.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lafone, Alfred

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Ryder, John Herbert D.

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

    Smith, James P. (Lanark)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowles, John

    Temlinson, W. E. Murray

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Valentia, Viscount

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)

    Milton, Viscount

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Monk, Charles James

    Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Gretton, John

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

    Greville, Captain

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Hardy, Laurence

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hayne, Rt. Hou. C. Seale-

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

    Purvis, Robert

    NOES.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Brigg, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Mr. Griffith and Mr. Cald-well.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Harwood, George

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Bill read the third time and passed.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

  (Second Reading.)
  MR. CALDWELL: I understood that this Bill was not going to be taken now.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

  (Second Reading.)
  DR. TANNER: This is a Vote involving a large expenditure of money, and this Bill has always hitherto been brought forward at an earlier period. That being so, I cannot understand why the Government are bringing it forward now. There are
  many other Bills that could be taken, and I really think that the right honourable Gentleman will see that it is highly desirable, instead of rushing it through at this late hour, that he should take on some of the less contentious Measures, and reserve this for to-morrow or Thursday. If he would do this, I am sure everybody would be a great deal more satisfied, and would be in a great deal better temper. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to withdraw this Measure, because a number of us hare long distances to travel, and I am speaking on their behalf. I do appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to withdraw this Bill. I beg to move—
  "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg leave to second this Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not desire to take any business to-night which is not absolutely necessary, in order that the machinery of Government may continue. The honourable Member's request is not an unreasonable one to make. By an unbroken precedent, it has always been held that we should bring in these Consolidated Fund Bills at the earliest opportunity, but they have never been made the occasion for much discussion, and the honourable Member who has just sat down is mistaken on that point. It has never been the practice of the House, and I do not think anybody can recall an occasion upon which this Consolidated Fund Bill has been discussed.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Yes; there have been such occasions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, it is the rarest possible thing to have them discussed, and I thought it had never been done. It will be inconvenient to take the Bill on Friday night, and I trust that honourable Members opposite will now stretch a point, and I hope no attempt will now be made to prevent a Bill from passing which is absolutely necessary.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Why?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Because public servants will remain unpaid. The money has been voted, and it cannot be paid out unless this Bill be passed. It is not for our convenience, but simply to carry on the ordinary business of the country, that we make this appeal. Then there is the Admiralty Vote, which must be reported to-night. All I ask the House to do is to pass these purely formal Measures in order that we may carry on the business of the country.
  *SIR C. DILKE: I do not think there would be any objection to the Report of Supply, and the Report of the Admiralty Supply, but with regard to this Consolidated Fund Bill, while, I believe, there is not likely to be much discussion upon it, there is a strong feeling outside this House against passing such enormous sums of money at such a late hour of the night. I have never known it done so late
  1284
  as this before. It is passing a Bill through what, I suppose, is a necessary stage, and it should be taken at a time when the proper financial control of the House can be effectively exercised. This Bill involves the expenditure of £11,000,000, and this is a very improper practice that it should be taken now, and it is the fault of the Government that this should occur. The Government should not run themselves up to the last minute.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. H. BEACH,): I do not think the right honourable Baronet understands that all the money appropriated under this Bill has been voted by this House already. What I argue is that this is a necessary step consequent upon certain expenditure having been authorised, to enable us to meet that expenditure. The last Ways and Means Act was passed, as is usual, before the 31st of March, but the ways and means authorised by that Act are now nearly exhausted. It is absolutely the usual course which has been pursued, only the Vote on Account having been very large it is rather late in the Session. I have been in the House a good many years, but I never remember any Debate being raised on one of these intermediate appropriation Bills.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite in error. The very last Bill, the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, was debated for several hours this very Session.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That was the end of the financial year.
  MR. CALDWELL: Yes, it was. It is the prerogative of this House in a matter on the Report stage, and they had this privilege of debating it upon the Appripriation Bill. This is one of the privileges of the House for the purpose of checking the finances. The First Lord of the Treasury has supplied us with a good reason to vote for the adjournment. His object is to have the Vote of Supply included in this Bill and consequently to get the money for it. We could not debate this Bill on the Report of Supply

  1285
  on the Navy Votes that we passed on Friday night, but if the Report in Supply were approved of, then, of course, the matter would be quite competent to discuss under the Second Reading. Therefore, I think, as it is the intention of the Government to include the Vote of Supply on the Navy Vote in the Committee stage of this Bill, of course they will include everything up to the Report stage, and I should be very much surprised if they did not do it, for they are entitled to do it if you pass the Report to-night. The First Lord has furnished us with a good argument if you pass it now. It is the Government's own fault that they have run themselves so short of time. They could have brought on this Bill on Friday, a week ago, for there was nothing to hinder them. It was only that they were anxious to carry as much business as possible that they put it off as long as they could. The Government having run the time so short, it is unreasonable

  AYES.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Warner. T. C. T.

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. C. William

  Dr. Tanner and Mr. Joseph A. Pease.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cochrane. Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Gretton, John

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greville, Captain

  Balfour. Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Haldane, Richard B.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hanbury. Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, A. (Down, W.)

  Bond, Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Johnston, W. (Belfast)

  Brassey, Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Knowles, Lees

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bucknill, Thomas T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. E.

  Lawrence,SirEDurning(Corn.)

  Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Finlay, Sir. R. Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Fisher, William H.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Chaloner, Captain, R. G. W.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm)

  Godson, Sir A. F.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St,G'rg's)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loder, G. W. E.

  Charangton, Spencer

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  to come and say that this Bill should be passed at this hour of the morning, when we shall be deprived of an opportunity of discussing it. I think the Motion is a very proper one, and certainly the Government have themselves to blame for it.
  MR. WARNER: I do think this Bill has been brought on too late in the Session, As far as the Government are concerned, they are now in a great hurry for the money, and what we object to is that this Vote should be brought on between two and three o'clock in the morning. I think the best course would be to take a Division upon this, as ft protest.
  Question put—
  "That the House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 98.—(Division List No. 257.)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Lowles, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Warr, A. F.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Webster., Sir R, E. (I. of W.)

  Maclune, Sir J. W.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Milton, Viscount

  Ryder, John H. D.

  Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wilson, John (Ealkirk)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Smith, J. P. (Lanark)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Young, Commander (Berka,E.)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Sturt, Hon. H. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  lalbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for this day.

  SUPPLY [22ND JULY].
  Resolutions reported—

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1898–99.
  "1. Sec. 3. That a sum, not exceeding £5,612,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "2. Sec. 2. That a sum, not exceeding £2,971,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "3. Sec. 1. That a sum, not exceeding £2,218,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "4. That a sum, not exceeding £2,549,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  "5. That a sum, not exceeding £1,491,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  In answer to a Question by Mr. Warner,
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The
  1288
  honourable Member apparently does not understand the difference between the money voted for the Consolidated Fund and that voted to the Appropriation Act.
  DR. TANNER: The majority of the Irish Members were not here on Friday night, consequently there was not a single Irish Member spoke upon this question until I spoke myself. It appears to me to be a very bad precedent indeed, and I hope that the country will take notice of this system. The Report stage of the Appropriation Bill was absolutely grabbed at a late hour of the evening, when it should have been debated when more Members were present and more interest taken in it than a great number of us here now at this Report stage which is at present under consideration are likely to give. I only wish to protest against this system as I have done before, and as I shall continue to do as long as I happen to be in my place in this House.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at 2.50.

ERRATUM.
  MONDAY, 18th July 1898.
  Business of the House (Government Business).—Division List No. 226, page 139.—In the Ayes insert Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool).