Commons Sitting of 14 June 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with; Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private
180
Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL. [H.L.]

    SAINT THOMAS, SOUTHWARK, AND SAINT SAVIOUR, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
    No Standing Orders not previously inquired into applicable; Mr. Speaker laid 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 Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:—

    DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.] PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
    PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with; Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  CROMER GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ROGHEDA GAS BILL.
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL.
  Queen's Consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
  Prince of Wales's Consent, as Duke of Cornwall signified; rend the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read a second time To-morrow.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (HACCONBY FEN) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
  MR. KNOXrose to move—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire whether, having regard to the increased powers proposed to be conferred upon the board, any change should be made in the qualification for electors or otherwise regarding the election of members of the board, and, if they think fit, to make any alterations in the Bill in that regard."
  MR. SPEAKER: This instruction is not in order. The Bill does not deal at all with the constitution of the Belfast Harbour authority. The instruction proposes that the Committee shall have power to inquire whether any alteration

  183
  of the qualification of electors should be made. This travels outside the scope of the Bill. When a harbour authority has been duly constituted, and when it comes afterwards for further powers of the kind usually exercised by harbour authorities, its constitution cannot be altered on such a Bill by an instruction.
  Mr. KNOX: I will raise the subject on a future occasion.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
  MR. CRIPPS: I object to this Bill on principle. This Provisional Order which has been sanctioned by the Board of Trade deals with some of the most important questions which can possibly be raised in connection with our industrial policy, and there is a principle involved which, if sanctioned by this House, applies not only to electric lighting companies, but to many other industrial undertakings of a similar kind. In taking up my present attitude I desire to say that I do not take any specific action on behalf of the companies involved. I have no connection or interest whatever with either of them. The question seems to me to be whether a private company authorised by Parliament to carry out an industrial undertaking—and which has, as I can show to be admitted, carried out all its obligations—shall be liable to be faced with a rate-aided competition, and to what practically amounts to expropriation, without any measure of compensation. I venture to suggest that an attack of this kind is a very dangerous infringement of what we recognise, and always have recognised, as the principle of security, namely, that every man should be compensated for his property if the property be attacked or in any way depreciated by a subsequent Act of Parliament. There is no precedent whatever for the Motion now brought before the
  184
  House in all my experience of Measures of the kind. I appeal to both sides of the House, and say that the principle which should govern all matters of public and private relation is that everyone should be certain of being treated on equal principles and of receiving equal benefits. I think, too, that in the event of an interest being threatened compensation should be provided on the ground that the principle of compensation is involved in the greater principle of equal treatment amongst all persons and all interests. I repeat, Sir, there is no precedent whatever for the proposals contained in this Order, and do not hesitate to say, after great experience in the adjustment of relations between local authorities and private companies, that if the principle in this Provisional Order is sanctioned by Parliament, it will be setting aside previous practice, and be manifestly unjust. It is a matter of principle decided by this House that any company should be paid out before you give a local authority power to set up rate-aided industrial competition. This rate-aided competition is merely wasteful expenditure. No private interest can, in the long run, compete successfully with rate-aided competition, and no precedent exists, because any such precedent would be on the face of it unfair and unjust. Let me just say a word or two as regards the analogy between tramway companies and electric lighting companies. In both cases the local authorities can purchase existing concerns on favourable terms. There is no question, as in the case of gas or water, that local authorities may have to pay some exorbitant sum after arbitration. So far as tramways and electric lighting companies are concerned, the local authorities can, after a period of years, purchase without having to buy out the business, but only at the price of the plant and the machinery. I hope the House will appreciate this point. The tramway company is in the position of a company with a period of 21 years, and after the expiration of that time the local authority buys out on certain specified terms. If, during those years, the same authority which has the power to purchase was liable to come in and compete against the tramway company it would be flagrantly unfair. Can it be allowed that an

  185
  authority which has power to purchase shall be able to step in during the period covered by the concession, and compete in order to take away the expectation of profit? No, Sir; but let me say something regarding the special Acts of Parliament which cover the case now under consideration. The first was passed in the year 1882, and the proposal was to give a concession to companies for a period of 21 years. The result was that the period was so short and the science of electricity in such an elementary state, that no progress worthy of the name was made. At that time any local authority might have come in, but they did not do so, and private enterprise was not induced to do so either, because the period was so short. Then in 1888 a new Act was passed, which gave to the companies a period of 42 years. Thus, as the law stands, a period of 42 years has been granted to the companies, during which they must make their harvest of profit, because, at the end of that time, they will be bought up on the unfavourable terms laid down by Parliament. These local authorities now ask to come in during the period of 42 years, and by competition to depreciate the property during the remaining years of the concession. That principle cannot be just in matters of this kind. It cannot be just to give a concession for 42 years, and then to come to Parliament during the course of those years in order to depreciate the property which belongs to the companies. An electric light company is in other respects unfavourably situated in competition with a local authority. A local authority has power to ask the Board of Trade to raise the prices charged by the company every seven years, which is not the case with any other companies—gas, water, or tramway. You have a local authority which assented to this concession for 42 years, which has special power of purchase at the end of that time, and which has a right to revise prices every seven years, now coming and asking as a new precedent to be allowed also to compete during the remaining years of the concession. On principle that is neither right nor fair. If you were to sanction anything of this kind, in the first place you would never have any private industry in connection with matters of this kind; and, in the
  186
  second place, if you allow this Bill to pass with this principle of the rate-aided competition, you directly take away all security under the guarantee on which this private capital was invested. One of the most important members of the vestry of Marylebone is Mr. Brooke-Hitchings, who is Chairman of the Lighting Committee, and I want to quote what he says, in order to show that there is no question here of the company not having fulfilled its duties. It is simply a question of principle whether you will allow competition without purchase in the first instance, although the company has done all that is required. He was asked—
  "'Is the parish badly served by the company?' He says, 'Oh, no. The vestry has an agreement with the company. Their prices are fair and reasonable, and the company is prepared to meet the vestry in every way.'"
  Of course, I admit that if a company of this kind could be shown, not to be fulfilling its duty, some special question may arise in the particular instance; but where, as in this case, you have the assent of the local authority itself to my proposition that the company has amply and properly fulfilled all its duties within its district, then you come back to this pure question of principle, which I hope the House will decide only in one way—namely, is it fair, where a company has invested capital, under these circumstances, on the security of Parliament for a concession of 42 years, that the ultimate purchasing authority should be allowed to come in and, by means of competition, to depreciate the property or crush out private enterprise? That, I apprehend, is a most important matter of principle. As far as I am aware, there is only one point which has been raised which is said to apply particularly in this case of electric light. When this Act was passed through Parliament a certain Amendment was introduced, and it is as regards the terms of that Amendment that I would say a word or two. I have looked up "Hansard" to see what passed at the time the Bill was introduced, in order to see whether the view which has been generally adopted as regards the meaning of that Amendment is the right view or not. The clause, as I understand, on which the advocates of this Provisional Order rely is in the first

  187
  section of the Act of 1888. What that provision says is this, and so it has always been construed. So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, there is no objection to their granting a Provisional Order in the sense of sending it on, in order that Parliament may come to a decision. There have been a large number of cases in which persons have come to Parliament asking for power such as is contained in this Provisional Order. Heretofore Parliament has never granted them in any single instance. When this question has been dealt with it was not whether Parliament would deal with a question of this sort one way or the other. It was simply whether the Board of Trade would have power to sand on an Order of this kind, having granted one before, in order that the decision of Parliament might be taken upon it. That is the meaning of this section, and the only meaning of it. It was never intended for a moment to introduce a principle which is manifestly unfair and unjust, or to interfere with the principle on which Parliament has always acted as regards these private companies; and, though the Debate was a short one, this very question was raised whether there was any intention to promote competition as between the local authority on the one side and a private company on the other, and that intention was disavowed. Anyone has the power to apply to Parliament, which decides whether what is proposed is right or not; and here, in this case, Parliament has to decide whether the principle of allowing rate-aided competition without previous purchase is a just principle or not. I do not think there are any special instances as regards this case. I may note that the Vestry of Marylebone appear to put the same interpretation on this clause as I am explaining to the House, because this same gentleman who represents the vestry in these matters makes this statement. He says, "We must remember that the original shareholders put their money into the concern in the belief that it would be a monopoly." I do not like the word monopoly, because it is generally used as a matter of prejudice, but let us state the same proposition in other words. "We must remember the original shareholders put their money into
  188
  the concern in the belief that there would not be competition with the vestry." That is what he means, and that is absolutely true as regards all these undertakings. There is one precedent—a Provisional Order was passed a year or two ago for Newington—but that is really no precedent at all. A lighting company had powers over Newington, but did not wish to exercise them They wanted to see whether they could get any custom, and they could not. It was a matter of bargain between them and the vestry that the vestry should be allowed to take over their powers. That is no precedent for a case of this kind, where in the Vestry of Marylebone there has been more than half a million of money spent, where the company is doing a large business and fulfilling its obligations at the present time. It is only in cases where this question is raised, where there is hardship, where you cannot deal with the company without treating them unfairly, that you have to discuss these matters. I hope I have not detained the House at any undue length, but this matter is one of great importance, and it cannot be understood without explanation. It is thought that those who are taking the attitude I take are in some way attacking the rights and privileges of local authorities. We are not doing that. We are dealing with a far higher principle—namely, that whether you are dealing with local authorities or with private enterprise you must have just and righteous dealing all round, and that is the principle involved. Let me say one word in conclusion. I feel myself that the progress of this country depends on the versatility, the sustained energy, of private enterprise. I do not think we ought to take any step rashly which would in any way interfere with what I consider the foundation of our commercial prosperity. And this is more important in this particular case, because private enterprise is more particularly of advantage when it is a pioneer enterprise. Local authorities are not likely to undertake pioneer enterprises in their experimental stage. What is the case here? Here was a pioneer experimental enterprise which the local authorities might have undertaken, but

  189
  of which they would not undertake the risk. That wag a very proper attitude for them to take; but, having thrown the risk of this pioneer enterprise upon a private company, they ought to deal in every way fairly and rightly with the interests of this particular company. I have not the slightest connection with any one of these companies, I am not an investor in a gas, water, tramway, or electric lighting company; it is merely a question of principle, and nothing else. But I am told that, as regards this company, for many years they got no dividend at all. Now the time has come when they are getting a very comfortable dividend. After a period they will be bought out on terms which give them no compensation for their risk. What is to be done in the meantime? I say Parliament ought to keep to the principle which is universally adopted. Given the concession, the private company ought to have the value and interest in it during the time it endures, and, if the local authority wants to come in, it ought, first of all, to deal fairly in the way of compensation with private enterprise, and if they did that I for one should not object to their carrying out electric lighting in their own district. I beg to move that the Bill be read this day six months.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to second the Motion on these simple grounds. The application is made, by two vestries, each (if them 10 years ago declining to undertake the risk for the benefit of the public because they knew it was hazardous. They gave their consent in writing to private investors and undertakers entering upon this project. After many trials it has been found possible to make it succeed. What was the nature of the act which these vestries did when they gave their consent? I say it was nothing less than this, that they held out to the commercial public that they might safely invest in this enterprise with a fair prospect of being treated equitably, and of having such powers and terms as would enable them to get back their capital with fair profit within the term of 42 years allowed by the conces-
  190
  sion. All went well as long as no profit was made on it. It is quite true that in the Act of 1888 an express power is reserved, or rather provision is made, that the fact that the private company has received a Provisional Order shall not hinder the Board of Trade from giving another Order to the local authority. But I submit the Board of Trade have entirely misconceived the nature of the duties thereby devolving upon them. Surely when such a power is delegated by Parliament to a great public Department of State that power is to be exercised on principles of equity. It is not to be used for the purpose, when private enterprise has succeeded, of snatching it away from them and making it public property. Only in the event of the company not having fulfilled its duty ought the Board of Trade to exercise this arbitrary and confiscating power of taking away from the company that which was deliberately granted to them with the consent of the local authorities. It is not fair to say to the local authorities, "Take the profits of this company into your coffers. It will enable you to reduce your rates." It may be said that it is a legitimate object for local bodies to reduce the rates, but they have a trust to perform, and they, equally with the Board of Trade, have duties which have to be exercised with equity. What are the principles which this House has recognised in the nearest analogous case we can find to it? The nearest case is that of the gas companies. They also are regulated as these electric companies are as regards their profits. They can be revised every seven years in this case, and in the case of gas companies, whenever they come to Parliament for fresh capital. The only grounds on which Committees of this House permit competition of gas companies in the same district are that the existing company has failed to supply people with gas of the quality required by statute, or that they have charged more than they ought to have done, or that they have managed their affairs so badly that they have been unable to pay the statutory dividend. It would not be beneficial to the community at large that money should be wasted, and public convenience frustrated, by streets being torn up by a number of competing bodies. I submit that these principles which have been observed time out of mind by

  191
  Parliament and its Committees ought to be observed in the case of electric lighting. The Board of Trade, it seems to me, have entirely misconceived the principles on which these powers ought to be exercised by them. They are in a manner quasi judicial bodies, and ought to administer their powers on the basis of right and equity. It is significant that in the circulars which have been sent by the vestries to members not one word from beginning to end is said of the companies having failed to fulfil the duties imposed upon them. The only ground which is mentioned in these two circulars is this, that there is a power in the Act of 1888 reserved for them to do it if they like. If power is to be the only reason why a thing is to be done by a great Department of State, then there ends the great and most blessed principle of all human institutions; that is, the sense of right by which these authorities ought to be guided. If the possession of power takes its place then you may just as well have a military despotism at once to regulate all our concerns. The great principle is also involved of local authorities undertaking private industries at all. I submit to this House that these lighting orders are not merely lighting orders—they are orders for the application of electric energy. The same machinery which produces electric energy for the purpose of light produces it also for other purposes. Whereas at the present time most of these orders have been applied for and used for the purpose of lighting only, the cost of production of this energy has been so reduced that it enables them to compete with gas produced by mechanical power, and steam, and other motive forces; so that we shall be faced with the question whether local authorities are to have power not only to light streets, which is a fair public object for them to come for, but power also not only to work tramways, but every industry carried on in the district using mechanical power. This force has been shown to be applicable to hundreds of industries. Therefore, I ask that Parliament will hesitate before it confers upon local bodies powers so extensive as that which may convert the whole
  192
  of our industrial concerns into one vast system of State socialism.
  MR. STUART: As I listened to the very able speech of the mover of the Resolution I could not help being forcibly reminded of the occasions on which, before he entered the House, I had the honour to be sitting on one side of a table while he addressed me and my colleagues from the other, because then I could recognise how greatly his success was founded upon a wise adhesion to the four walls, if I may so call it, of the brief which was placed in his hand, and to that perspective which he could always so wisely give, as he has given now, to the subject with which he deals. But in the present case, the perspective has been so arranged that, in his speech, which dealt with large and general principles, there was placed, in the most remote and quiet nook, what really is the essence and centre of the matter that lies before us. The speech of the honourable Member would rightly have been a speech against the Act of 1888. The right claimed by these local authorities is of no peculiar or unusual kind. I am not at this moment entering into the merits of the particular case any more than my honourable Friend did. It is a larger question that lies before us. The honourable Gentleman pointed to this Bill as if it were the case of a corporation intending to institute competition against a gas or water company, or something of that kind, and he appealed to myself and to other honourable Members sitting on this side of the House to look back on our experience of Private Bill Committees of this House. The experience with respect to those other matters to which he referred has nothing to do with the experience with respect to this particular question, because in the Act of 1888—which the honourable and learned Gentleman acknowledged, certainly, but which he put in a very remote corner of his speech, and considerably modified in his quotation of it—it is distinctly provided that the grant of authority to any undertakers to supply electricity within any area shall not in any way hinder or restrict the granting of a Provisional Order to the local authority. How can you go and with wise words turn that into some-

  193
  thing which the honourable and learned Gentleman wishes to turn it into—a mere limited permission to the Board o Trade, under certain circumstances, to do a certain thing? I say the words of the Act do not in any way limit or restrict the position. There is no more to say on the matter, except this, that those words were introduced into the Act of Parliament as the result of prolonged negotiations, and as part of a quid pro quo. It is true that the Act of 1882, by its term of 21 years, was believed in this House to hinder electrical development, and that it was extended. But it was not extended without conditions being put in; and one of those conditions was the creation of this possible competition and the preservation of this power, not only, mark you, for the municipalities, but for other companies, if necessary, to be licensed. It was the view of many that that Act was passed when the conditions of monopoly of water and the like bore heavily on the public, because there was not some power of competition of the kind; but whether that be right or wrong, it carried with it the Parliament of 1888, and the speech, therefore, of the honourable and learned Gentleman, able as it was, but yet one-sided, and not facing the whole question—the speech, therefore, of the honourable Gentleman, speaking from his brief, should have been directed at a far earlier stage against the Act of 1888. That is the whole case, and I ask whether, fixing your eyes on the clause in the Act of 1888 which I have quoted, the rest of the honourable and learned Gentleman's speech has anything at all to do with the circumstances of the case?
  MR. LAFONE: In rising to support this Provisional Order, I will speak very briefly on the facts of the case, of which I have knowledge—namely, that of the parish of Bermondsey. The honourable and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill has completely ignored the fact that one of the companies he represents entirely failed to carry out the duties it is legally bound to perform. I will not go over the question of what right local authorities have under the Act of 1888 to do as they have done in Bermondsey and in Marylebone, but I would ask the honourable and learned
  194
  Gentleman, as a thick-and-thin supporter of the companies, whether he thinks they do their duty as they are bound to do, or whether they do not. In our own case—that of Bermondsey—the Act which the Electric Light Company possess was secured in 1889. From that time to now they have not taken a single step within the whole borough to carry out their agreement, and with this result—that we are obliged to-day to light our public halls and the public library with gas instead of electric light. The Vestry of Bermondsey are bound to light the streets. They would like to use the electric light for that purpose if it were in their power to do so, and not once, but several times, the Electric Light Company has been approached, and earnestly asked to carry out their agreement, and lay down the mains for the electric, light. They are in this position to-day, that if the penalties to which they are liable were enforced the amount would be £45,000 for neglecting, during the whole of the nine years, to carry out the duties which they undertook to do. They have grossly failed to perform their duties in Bermondsey, and therefore the Vestry of Bermondsey come before this House and ask it to confirm this Electric Lighting Order. From the honourable and learned Gentleman's speech you would suppose that no evidence had been brought forward. On the contrary, both the electric light companies appeared before the Board of Trade, and their arguments were carefully considered. The result was that, on the evidence brought forward by the two companies and by the Vestry of Bermondsey, the Board of Trade decided to allow this Provisional Order. The question before the House is whether the company shall neglect to do their duty, and, at the same time, the local authority shall not be allowed to undertake the work which they have failed to do. The Vestry of Bermondsey, which I represent, come before this House and ask it to confirm the Second Reading of this Provisional Order Bill.
  SIR A. FORWOOD: I should like, with the permission of the House, to say a word or two on this question from the municipal or general standpoint, and not with regard

  195
  to the specific Provisional Orders before the House, and also, I may say, as one who has had to deal with these Provisional Orders in a large municipality—Provisional Orders obtained by a private company. I venture to say that, when the Bill was passed which contained this clause dealing with electric lighting Orders, and reserving the power to the Board of Trade to concur in the granting of licences, that was regarded by the municipalities as a protection to them from the monopoly which had been created by gas companies in previous years. Therefore, feeling that we had that protection from a monopoly by that clause in the Act, opposition to the obtaining by private parties of Provisional Orders was not raised. Otherwise, if it had been supposed that by granting for 21 years in the first case, and subsequently extending to 42 years, the licences to private companies, we were thereby giving our consent in this House to hanging round the necks of our municipalities a monopoly such as has been hung round our necks by gas companies, the corporation of which I am a member would have strenuously opposed any Provisional Order which would have that effect. The various electric lighting companies have accepted these Orders under the condition of the Act of Parliament which has already been quoted. The investors in these companies knew perfectly well the conditions and risks under which they invested their money, and it would be a mistake to take away from the Board of Trade and the municipalities the power reserved to them under the Act. This is a very serious and important question. In the municipality with which I am connected we bought up an electric lighting concern which had obtained a Provisional Order for a certain portion of the city. That company had only been in existence five years. They had paid up £5 on their shares, and we paid £8 to buy them up. One may say, "Why did you not use the powers under the Act and go to the Board of Trade and obtain a Provisional Order for your selves?" I admit this was a pioneer concern which had done its work fairly, and we thought it desirable to make them a reasonable offer, and buy their company before we went to Parliament on account of the municipality. But
  196
  Sir, if you repeal this protective clause, giving the Board of Trade power to apply for a Provisional Order for a municipality, then, instead of paying your 40 or 50 per cent. premium on the value of he electric companies' concern, they will stand hard and fast, and you will have to pay two or three hundred per cent. premium. This clause is a particular protection to the municipalities against monopolies, and also a reasonable protection to the shareholders against undue pressure on the part of a municipality. One point more. I think this electric lighting system is likely to be taken up very largely by municipalities, because electric lighting, tramway, and power purposes all go together. This country is sadly behind in its position as regards electricity. It is a century behind the position in which the United States is. There you have enormous, central power stations, with as high as 50,000 indicated horse-power. From these stations the not only produce lighting for the district, but they generate power for the electric tramways, which are an immense boon and convenience to the members of the community, and they also supply power for small industries. What is more calculated to improve the well-being of the people of any community than to enable the small man to take into his small workshop sufficient power to enable him to produce articles, may be in competition with a larger undertaking? Therefore, like gas, electricity will become a public necessity, and as a public necessity, like gas and water, it ought to be in the hands of the municipality. I hope, therefore, that the House will do nothing which might give the electric lighting companies the idea that it is going to pass over and set aside the clause in the Act of Parliament which was put in to protect the municipalities.
  MR. BARTLEY: There is no doubt whatever that there is a feeling, especially in London, that the gas and water monopolies would not have been granted if all the circumstances which existed at the present time had been foreseen. The object of this Act of 1838 with regard to electric lighting was certainly to find a compromise between the monopoly existing in regard to gas and water, and to do what was fair in

  197
  both directions. The clause which has been read seems to show that everybody who went into an electric lighting scheme did so with his eyes open to the clause, which was that, if it were thought proper to grant a company certain rights with regard to electricity, there was a right to do so under certain conditions; but it was expressly stated that it was not in any way to enact that the company were to have a monopoly. That being the case, I cannot see that they have any possible ground of complaint if the locality thinks proper now to create a rival system. I myself am somewhat doubtful of the wisdom of local authorities in embarking on these enterprises. That, I am aware, is against the spirit of the time, and my own district has embarked largely on this electric lighting scheme. Whether it is going ultimately to answer no human being can say, but there is no doubt that the spirit of London is to go in for these undertakings, and if London is debarred from so doing it will be a bad thing for this side of the House. A great many people are ready to go in for these speculations, but we have put in the words of this Act as plainly as it could be put what are the conditions under which the companies exist, and I cannot think it reasonable or fair for the companies to say that it is unfair to them to carry out the Act Tinder which they were created. I myself shall certainly vote for this Provisional Order, because I am sure of this, that London requires it, and I am quite convinced, that the companies, who are no doubt injured by this step, must blame not us, but themselves, for they went into it with their eyes open to the fact that competition was to be allowed, and that they were to have no monopoly of any sort.
  MR. KNOX: I think the House ought to have some statement from the Board of Trade on this question. It is difficult to understand their position. There are two companies—those of Bermondsey and Marylebone—which are entirely different. In Bermondsey the company have not attempted to perform their duty, but in Marylebone the company have given an efficient service, and the only possible question might be as to the cost of the electric light. The Board of
  198
  Trade have taken the course of putting the two Orders in one Bill—the case where the company have given a good service, and the case where the company have given a bad one—and they have thrown them both down before the House for it to deal with as it pleases. To me it seems clear that the object of the Act of 1888 was to give security to any company which gave a good service, but not to any company which did not perform their duty. The objection to the water monopolies is as to the monopolists presuming on their monopoly by giving either an inefficient service or charging too much. It was as a protection against inefficiency or overcharge that the clause which has been referred to was inserted in the Act of 1888, and I myself should not be willing to vote for anything that would in any way abridge the protection which that Act has given. But the Board of Trade have gone much further than that. They have taken upon themselves to grant an Order giving competitive powers throughout Marylebone in the very streets served by the existing company up to the very doors of the generating station of the company, without any proof of failure of duty on the part of the company. That, I confess, seems to me to go beyond what was intended by the Act. The cases of the two companies appear to me to be dissimilar, and I think it a pity that at the beginning of what may be a number of struggles between electric lighting companies and municipalities the opportunity was not given us of deciding whether, in a case where a company had fully done their duty, their rights were to be interfered with. The right honourable Baronet [Sir A. Forwood] has made a very remarkable speech. He referred to the enormous benefits conferred on the people of the United States by the electric supply in that country, but he omitted to say that these immense benefits have been conferred by private enterprise, unrestricted as private enterprise has been in this country by the legislation passed by Parliament. Why is it that tramway powers, that lighting powers, that powers for the supply of electrical force, have been so much used in the United States? It was

  199
  because there was security. They had not in the United States the advantage of having the Tramways Act of 1870, or the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, which have done so much harm to the real interests of the people of this country. All the things which the right honourable Baronet has spoken of have been done by private enterprise, and I venture to think that this House would do a grave injustice to the real interests of the people of this country if, in a case like Marylebone, where private enterprise has been doing its duty, it should interfere, and take away rights without compensation, and give competitive powers, and make it the absolute duty of the local authority to lay down mains in the very streets where they now exist. That seems to me to go beyond anything in the interests of the community, and I think in this electric business we have had opportunities of judging how much harm Parliament may do, and how little good it has done, towards the progress of electricity. The fact is that we have hampered and restricted the promoters of private companies dealing with electricity in this country, so that by the actual action of Parliament this country has been kept back. Capitalist are no better and no worse in this country than they are in America, where they have conferred those great benefits on the community of which the right honourable Baronet has spoken. Depend upon it, if you prevent capital from going into these electrical enterprises in this country, by creating a feeling of insecurity everywhere, the result will not be, in the end, for the benefit of the people. A great deal has been said as to the profits made by some of these electric lighting concerns. The profits are made by charging too much for the public lighting, and too little to the rich ratepayers who are able to have private lights. Public lighting, going on for a great number of hours, ought to be done at less than half the cost of private. That is not the way in which the municipalities who have taken up these enterprises make up their accounts, and it is literally true that these enterprises are rate-aided, though nominally they may not be so. That being so in the case of Marylebone, the
  200
  position is this, that this House should, step in in a case where a company have been doing their duty, where the company have been hampered by the fact that the vestry, with a want of enterprise, have made small demands on them for public light, and not merely authorise but compel the vestry to break up the streets within the compulsory area of this company's supply, and to lay down separate mains along the streets in Marylebone—that is the proposal. I venture to think that that is not a proposal contemplated by the Act of 1883, nor one which the House should support.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I think the time has arrived when I should state to the House, in a very few words, the position which the Board of Trade take up in regard to this matter. Application was not only received by the Board of Trade from the local authority, but, in the case of one of the Provisional Orders, both the local authority and two companies applied for a Provisional Order for a second electric lighting supply in the district. The Board of Trade had to consider first whether any Order should be granted or not, and then, if an Order were to be granted, whether it should be granted to a company or to the local authority. Well, Sir, as far as I am concerned I had no hesitation in deciding that it would not meet with the appreciation of Parliament if the Board of Trade were to reject the application from the vestries, with a view of granting the Order to a company. The honourable and learned Member for Stroud, who moved the rejection of this Bill, did not confine his remarks to the question involved in competition between a company and a local authority. The honourable and learned Member went a great deal further, for his contention was that, because the existing company in one instance were admittedly performing their duty, there should be no second Order given at all. The meaning of that is that a monopoly should be given, and that a monopoly would be given in each area when a company had obtained an Order. I do not, again, hesitate to say that, in my opinion, that is not only contrary to the public interest, but absolutely contrary to the directions of

  201
  Parliament. The Act of 1888, which has already been quoted, shows very clearly what the view of Parliament was, namely, that, although a company may have come into existence in a locality, another Order may be made either for the local authority itself, or even for another company in the same manner. Subsequent to the decision of that Act an inquiry was held by Major Marindin into the circumstances under which Provisional Orders should be granted for electric lighting Orders for the metropolis, and after this full inquiry Major Marindin wrote it down distinctly that, in his opinion, two companies might be granted an Order in each area within the metropolis. Well, Sir, I think it can hardly be said, then, that a company applying for a Provisional Order subsequent to the Act of Parliament, and subsequent to the, inquiry, did not come with their eyes perfectly open to the possibility of being met with a competitor, either from another company or from the local authority. Some of my honourable Friends have objected to the competition of a local authority. They, no doubt, have advanced arguments which would seem to show that the competition of a local authority may be much more difficult to meet than that of another company, but I hardly think that Parliament, having expressly put in the words in the Act of 1888—"that a local authority may apply for and be granted an Order"—I hardly think it would be possible for the Board of Trade to adopt any other course than they did and grant the Order. My honourable Friend who spoke last found fault with the Board of Trade for granting both Orders, and went on to say that it was through this that one company who had performed their duty had to suffer in consequence of the allegations brought against the other company. We have nothing, again, to do with that. That is a question which, indeed, the Committee will have to inquire into. If it should be found that one ought to be taken and the other left, it is perfectly open for the Committee to take that course. The Committee will be perfectly free to deal with the merits of the case. I think, however, we should have done wrong if we had refused a particular Order to a particular local autho-
  202
  rity, because in the one case a company had been properly acting and not in the other. This is a matter for inquiry. We have issued these Orders with the full knowledge that they would be considered by Parliament. What would have been the position, I would ask the House, if the Board of Trade had not issued these Orders? If we had refused the applications altogether it would have been impossible for Parliament to have considered the merits of the case, for the question would not have come before the House at all. It may be very well to say, Sir, that they could have applied for an Act. Well, Sir, that is contrary to the policy of Parliament. It has been constantly the policy of Parliament to decide that when certain things can be done by Provisional Orders they should be done by such means and not by an Act. By granting the Provisional Order we have put the whole thing in the hands of Parliament, and Parliament is able to deal with and to consider the points which have been raised in the discussion here to-day. I confess there are some arguments in the speech of my honourable Friend the mover of the Motion which are well worthy of consideration, but do not let us, by rejecting the Second Reading, prevent Parliament considering the case on its merits. The position that the Board of Trade have taken up is that we do not desire to express any opinion on the merits of the case when corning to a decision. I confess that there are some very important considerations in connection with these matters which are contained in the Orders, and which will be dealt with by Parliament in a Committee. The opponents of the Orders must not suppose that the Board of Trade are the promoters of the Orders. I should just like to refer to one matter which my learned Friend the Member for Stroud alluded to in connection with the Act of 1888. It has been answered by the honourable Member who seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The honourable Member for Stroud interpreted this section of the Act as meaning that the Board of Trade was to pass on this Order to Parliament. My honourable Friend the Member for Wandsworth said it was a monstrous thing for the Board of Trade to grant the Order at all. My view of this section of the Act is that it

  203
  imposed on the Board of Trade the duty of considering applications from the vestries and from the company, and that unless there is some strong reason known in advance why the consent of the Board of Trade should not be given the Order should be granted, so that the matter might come before Parliament. These are the considerations that induced me to grant the Order, and if the House refuses to allow this matter to go before a Committee of the House its action will not be in accordance with the regulations of the House, and will make it impossible to properly deal with such matters in the future. I hope, without expressing any opinion on the merits of one party or the other, that the House will consent to refer this Bill to a Committee.
  MR. BRYCE: I agree with the remarks which have just been uttered by the right honourable Gentleman, that the Board of Trade have no option in this matter, and that they are absolutely bound to grant these Orders, so that they should be sent to this House for consideration. We may go further and say that the House is bound to take these Orders and send them to a Committee, because to do otherwise would mean nothing less than to repeal the Act of 1888. The speeches of my honourable and learned Friend the mover of this Motion and the honourable Member who seconded were both speeches against the Act of 1888. They may well have been delivered when the Bill was before the House, and if the House were now to pass this Motion I do not hesitate to declare it would be to set up a very dangerous precedent. It would be reversing the uniform policy of the House for the last 15 years, and for that reason, if for that reason alone, the House is bound to let this Bill go to a Committee. It has been argued by several Members that we must take these cases as if there were no charges against the companies, as if all their actions had been meritorious, and as if they had been doing all that could be possibly expected from them. That might be all very well if it were so, but it is not to be
  204
  assumed as correct as regards the parish of Marylebone that it has done everything that could be done. I myself, residing in the parish, could, if this were the place, as it is not—for it will be the duty of the Committee to hear evidence—testify as to this. I should be glad of an opportunity to prove that the quality of the light supplied by the present company in Marylebone is of an inferior quality. The honourable Member who spoke the last but one endeavoured to divert the case from the real issue, but we cannot do as he suggests, and the answer to his questions is the answer of the right honourable Gentleman, that the decision of the Board of Trade must be given on general grounds. We argue on general grounds, and we ask the opinion of the House on those general outlines—that the Bill of 1888 was against monopoly, that the Bill of 1888 was to encourage competition, and that the policy of 1888 was to give encouragement to local authorities, not to refuse consent to private companies, because by so doing they might forfeit their right in future to come in to compete with those same companies. I cannot help thinking that the Debate has disclosed on the one hand an attempt to repeal the Act, and on the other an attempt to do in this House what ought to be done in Committee. Other speakers, apparently, have asked the House to withhold its acts from the judgment of a Committee, and so to prevent the merits of the case being so fully reconsidered as they would be if placed before such a Committee. I earnestly hope the House will support the Board of Trade, and that we will not go out of our way to support and encourage a monopoly.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): I only wish to intervene in this Debate to corroborate what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman who spoke last as to the character of the electric lighting supply in Marylebone. It has been assumed throughout that the supply has been absolutely satisfactory, and that the question was only on general grounds. I can assure the House, because I have a house in the district, that the way in

  205
  which the light is laid in Marylebone and the quality of the supply have been the cause of many complaints, and I earnestly trust it will not permit this monopoly to go on for another 30 years without inquiry before a Committee.
  Question put—
  "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided.—Ayes 198; Noes 114.—(Division List No. 136.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  McKenna, Reginald

  Allen, W. (Newc.-u.-Lyme)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. E.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

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

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Flower, Ernest

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Monk, Charles James

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wol'ton)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Fry, Lewis

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Garfit, William

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Giles, Charles Tvrrell

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Myers, William Henry

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Gold, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Owen, Thomas

  Bethell, Commander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brigg, John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Price, Robert John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harwood, George

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Burns, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Burt, Thomas

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Camphell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Holburn, J. G.

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Howard, Joseph

  Rothschild, Baron F. Jas. de

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Round, James

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

  Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

  Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kenvon, James

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Colville, John

  Knowles, Lees

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

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Spicer, Albert

  Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy

  Lambert, George

  Steadman, William Charles

  Crilly, Daniel

  Langley, Batty

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Crombie, John William

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Davies, M. V. (Cardigan)

  Llewelvn, Sir D. (Swansea)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tennant, Harold John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Doughty, George

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lough, Thomas

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland)

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Evans, Sam. T. (Glamorgan)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Warkworth, Lord

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

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  McEwan, William

  Wayman, Thomas

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

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

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

  Yoxall, James H.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Woodall, William

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hud'rsf'ld)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lafone and Mr. Arthur Morton.

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Woods, Samuel

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  NOES.

  Aird, John

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Hardy, Laurence

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. H.

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Howell, William Tudor

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pym, G. Guy

  Bill, Charles

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brunner, Sir J. T.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'hm)

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Cavendish, R. P. (N. Lancs)

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

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

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kimber, Henry

  Spencer, Ernest

  Cox, Robert

  Knox, E. F. Vesey

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Stock, James Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Legh, Hon. Thos. W. (Lancs)

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Leighton, Stanley

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Usborne, Thomas

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

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

  Engledew, Charles John

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manch.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wylie, Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

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

  Wyndham, George

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

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

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cripps and Colonel Milward.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William George

  Gretton, John

  Newark, Viscount

  Gunter, Colonel

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  First Three Resolutions agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Cripps.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I protest against this way of dealing with the Bill. It has come forward on its general merits, and I do not think, nor can I see on what grounds it has been suggested, that it should be treated in this exceptional way.
  208
  I cannot see why a Bill of this kind should not go to a Committee in the ordinary way, and there is no reason why it should be dealt with differently from other Bills. We know the sort of influences to which the House is exposed in regard to Bills affecting private companies, and the sort of solicitation made on Bills of this description. The honourable and learned Member has alleged no reason in support of his idea. I can tell him that, in the course of my recollection of over 30 years in the arena of which he is so distinguished a Member, I remember taking part in an endeavour, happily unsuccessful, to prevent the State undertaking the telegraphs in this

  209
  country. I repeat that the honourable and learned Member has given no reason why the Bill should be dealt with exceptionally. But probably he thinks that in a hybrid Committee he would have a better opportunity than he now has of defeating the Measure.
  MR. CRIPPS: After the statement of the right honourable Gentleman I will withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill committed.

PETITIONS.
  ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS) BILL.
  From Broadway, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from Bath and Weston; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  From the Temperance Committee of the Church of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Old Monkland, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Pittenweem, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Edinburgh, in favour; to lie; upon the Table.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Blairgowrie, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Old Monkland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Latheron, Old Monkland, and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Kidderminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Axminster, Hetton-le-Hole, Padwell, Honiton, Blunham, Kidderminster, Truro (3), and Walton; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Ayr, Greenock, and Temperance Committee of the Church of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GRAND JURY OFFICERS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 8th June] to be printed. [No. 237.]
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report (being for 1897) of the Governors of Wellington College, with Accounts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 238.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 238.]
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended, in the Committee, to be printed. [No. 247.]
  COAL EXPORTS, ETC.
  Return ordered, "giving for the years 1896 and 1897 respectively the export of coal from each port in the United Kingdom to each country abroad, together with a summary statement showing the export of coal from the principal districts of the United Kingdom to the principal groups of foreign countries; and also showing the quantity of coal shipped at each port in the United Kingdom for ships' use on foreign voyages during the same periods."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897 (ASSOCIATIONS).
  Return ordered "of the several Associations formed under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, with their areas, and the number of persons forming the governing body of each Association; also of the number of Schools not included in any Association which have participated in the Aid-Grant, and which have
  212
  been refused Grants, and the grounds of such refusal; and the number of Schools not included in any Association which have not applied for a Grant."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee—

  1. "That in the case of the London and Northwestern Railway Bill [H.L.], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That in the case of the Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  3. "That in the case of the Sheffield District Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  4. "That in the case of the West Ham Corporation Bill, Petition of the Coopers' Company for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of their Petition against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."

  Report to lie upon the Table.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read; Ordered that the Bill be read a second time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  COMMONS REGULATION (WOLSTANTON MARSH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

    CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
    CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) BILL.
    Without Amendment.

ENFIELD GAS BILL.

  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  With Amendments.
  Amendments to—

  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  With an Amendment.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Budleigh Salterton Gas, Coatbridge Gas, Great Marlow Gas, King's Lynn Gas, and Whitchurch (Salop) Gas."
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]

  CARLISLE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  And also a Bill intituled "An Act to empower the Corporation of Carlisle to obtain water from Old Water and New Water and other tributaries of the River Gelt, in the county of Cumberland, for the supply of the city of Carlisle and other places within their limits of supply; and for other purposes."
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

QUESTIONS.

  PATENT OFFICE REGULATIONS.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS (Devon, Torquay): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the Report made by the Referee
  214
  appointed to inquire into the matter of Levinstein v. Farbwerke, Vormals, Meister, Lucius, and Bruning; and whether, on its consideration, and on a general, review of the way in which foreign patentees occasionally avail themselves of the monopoly conferred by a patent in this country, and of the difficulties with which British, manufacturers have to contend in order to obtain licences under the patents of foreigners not bonâ fide working them in this country, he is prepared to propose any legislation on the subject or to adopt some other means of removing the grievance complained of?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Report referred to is still under consideration. I am not prepared at present to make any statement as to legislation or to admit that the existing law as to compulsory licences cannot be made to work satisfactorily, but I can assure my honourable Friend that I am sensible of the importance of the question in its relation to the rights and obligations of patentees, both British and foreign, and I shall carefully watch the working of the provisions of the Patent Act.
  In reply to a further Question as to when the Report would be laid—
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADEsaid it is a very important Report, and will have to be very carefully considered, for it contains many suggestions which require earnest consideration. Still, I hope the decision of the Board of Trade will not be long deferred.

  THE SIERRA LEONE OUTBREAK.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to impart the name of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the Sierra Leone outbreak, and the instructions given to him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Queen has approved the appointment of Sir David Chalmers, late Chief Justice of British Guiana, and formerly Chief Justice of the Gold Coast,

  215
  to be a Royal Commissioner to inquire into the circumstances which have led to the insurrection in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, and generally into the state of affairs in the colony and Protectorate. The instructions to be given to him will be laid before the House in a few days.

  EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITY AT LUNEDALE.
  MR. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the district of Lunedale, Middleton-in-Teesdale, have recently held a poll and decided by a majority to apply to the Department for a school board; whether the Education Department has taken any action with a view to meeting the wishes of the inhabitants, or is prepared to give any reason for the delay: and whether the school at present existing is likely to be closed?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): A poll was held, with the result stated; but this does not empower the Education Department to order the formation of a school board, as the meeting was not held in accordance with the conditions of section 52 of the Local Government Act, 1894. The Department have received no definite notice from the managers of their intention to close the school.

  DUTIES OF TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the normal attendance of counter clerks and telegraphists is eight hours per day; whether it is a practice to arrange the duties so that clerks perform ten hours' work on one day, receiving as compensation a six hour duty the following day; whether men in the Eastern District are sent on annual leave upon the completion of a day of ten hours' duty,
  216
  and in several instances are compelled to perform a duty of similar length on the day of their return without any equivalent being granted for the extra attendance; and whether the Postmaster General will authorise the discontinuance of this custom, thereby placing the Eastern District clerks in the same position as the staffs employed throughout the remainder of London?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The normal attendance of counter clerks and telegraphists is 48 hours a week. It is not unusual to allow the counter clerks and telegraphists to have long and short duties of 10 hours and 6 hours respectively on alternate days. If men go on annual leave the day after they have done 10 hours' duty, and the leave lasts for an odd number of days, they have on the day of their return had to work in the Eastern District 10 hours, and similarly if they worked a short duty of 6 hours the day before going away for an odd number of days, they would on the day of return work 6 hours. In the case of counter clerks and telegraphists in the Eastern Central District allowance is made for any excess over 48 hours in 6 days when two long duties occur, one the day before leaving and one the day of return, and likewise officers have to make up the deficiency when two short duties have been done in the same way. This seems a reasonable practice, and it will be adopted in future in all the districts.

  TREATMENT OF CONVALESCENT SOLDIERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that one of the causes of the large number of old soldiers now to be found in workhouse infirmaries is due to the fact that, until quite recently, convalescent soldiers discharged from military hospitals had either to reside with their relatives or to return to full duty, with the result that they were not infrequently speedily back in hospital again; and that soldiers dying from incurable diseases, had, perforce, to leave the hospitals; and

  217
  whether he will consider the advisability of establishing convalescent homes where soldiers might be sent from the military hospitals, seeing that in the long run considerable economy will be effected and the efficiency of the Army increased?
  Mr. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State is not prepared to admit the premises in the honourable Member's question. In certain cases sick soldiers are granted sick furlough for the purpose of residing with their friends when it is thought that the change will do them good; but otherwise they remain in hospital till cured. Soldiers suffering from incurable diseases are not discharged from hospital unless it be at their own request, or at the desire of their friends. There are convalescent hospitals at several stations in India; also at Malta, Ceylon, Hong-kong, and Cyprus; while at home there is one at Eastbourne to which patients may be sent whose convalescence is not fully established.

  DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state what are the privileges and advantages to which the unskilled labourers employed at the Deptford Victualling Yard are entitled in addition to their weekly pay?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The chief advantages enjoyed by unskilled labourers at Deptford in addition to their pay are as follows:—(1) Half pay whilst absent on account of injuries received on duty. (2) Half pay when compulsorily absent on account of infectious disease in family—as well as half of any extra allowance they may be receiving at the time the disease breaks out. (3) Four days' leave with pay during the year. (4) Extra pay ranging from 6d. to 1s. per day when employed upon special duties. (5) Pensions or gratuities on the same terms and conditions as other workmen under the Admiralty.

  CONWAY VOLUNTEER CAMP.
  COLONEL MELLOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War if his attention has been called to the defective and worn-out condition of a considerable number of the tents supplied to the Cheshire and Lancashire Brigade of Volunteers during their recent encampment near Conway; if he is aware that the medical officers of the brigade have reported on the unfitness of the tents in question, and that the men suffered serious discomfort from the fact that the rain which fell during the greater part of the week penetrated through the worn-out canvas, flooded the tents, and continually saturated the clothing and bedding of the men; and if he will take steps to prevent the tents complained of from being issued on any future occasion?
  MR. BRODRICK: Tents continue to be issued for use until they are worn out; and some, in their last stage of wear—as those used at Conway were—might be unable to resist the exceptionally bad weather which was experienced. These particular tents before issue were pronounced serviceable, but they will not be issued again.

  BOUNDARIES OF HONG-KONG.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to inform the House as to the negotiations with the Imperial Government of China in respect to the hinterland opposite Hong-kong in Kowloon and Mirs Bay?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON,): The negotiations which have for some time been proceeding with the Chinese Government for an extension of the boundaries of Hong-kong resulted in a Convention, which was signed on June 9th at Pekin. The area which is leased to Great Britain for 99 years includes the waters of Mirs Bay and Deep Bay, the peninsula and promontory of Kowloon, and the island of Lantau.

  MILITIA EXAMINATION.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why a special Militia literary examination has been fixed for 29th June, a period when considerably more than half the Militia regiments are out for their annual training, and consequently candidates are prevented from attending; and why the publication of the April literary examination was delayed to such a date that those officers who failed at that examination were debarred from applying for leave to attend the special examination announced for the 29th instant?
  MR. BRODRICK: An additional literary examination for Militia candidates has been fixed for the same date as the examination for Sandhurst in order to allow candidates who had not the opportunity of passing in April to do so in anticipation of their military examination in October. The attendance at the April examination was unusually large; but the result was announced as soon as possible. Every officer who failed in April and has applied for leave to attend in June has been granted the necessary permission.

  HOME OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  MR. ALLHUSEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, out of the moneys voted by Parliament for the erection of public buildings, he can set aside a sum sufficient to complete the decoration of the Whitehall front of the Home Office buildings, in accordance with the original design?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I do not think that it is possible to set aside any of the money provided by the Public Buildings Expenses Act of this Session for the completion of the Whitehall front of the Home Office buildings?

  SHEERNESS NAVAL BARRACKS.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the new naval barracks at Sheerness will be commenced, and what
  220
  steps have been taken with regard to them since the issue of his Statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1898–1899 (dated 3rd March, 1898), in which it was stated that the plans had been, completed?
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Some very important questions relating to these barracks are under consideration, and I regret that I can make no statement with regard to them at the present moment in reply to the natural anxiety of my honourable Friend, who has displayed much interest in the subject.

  UNITED STATES TARIFF.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will consider the propriety of taking advantage of the improved relations between this country and America to induce the American Government to modify the hostile tariff at present imposed on the industrial products of this country, and which is doing so much injury to our trade?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government will be glad to avail themselves of any opportunity of improving the commercial relations between this country and the United States, but they at present enjoy most favoured nation treatment in all matters of commerce and navigation, and they have no ground for believing that more favourable treatment would be accorded to this country.

  TWIN-SCREW NILE VESSELS.
  MR. ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the original cost of the twin-screw Nile vessels Albert, Arthur, and Ernest, and how much these vessels were sold for, and to whom; how many trips they made up the Nile before being sold; and whether their working was considered more satisfactory than the stern-wheel type of vessel?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): These steam vessels, when purchased in 1885, cost £12,500 each. They were sold some years afterwards at a heavy loss. Without reference to Egypt, I cannot say how many trips they made; I believe their working was not altogether satisfactory.
  MR. ALLAN: Can, the honourable Gentleman tell us to whom the vessels were gold, and is he aware that the new vessels ordered are the same as the old ones and will not be satisfactory either?
  Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS: The new boats ordered will not be like the ones mentioned in the Question. There is a rule of the Department against giving the price of a particular purchase, or by whom the purchase is made, and it is not thought desirable to depart from the rule in this instance.
  Mr. ALLAN: What were they sold for?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman has answered the Question.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS WORKMEN.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that in the heating, lighting, and ventilating departments of the House of Commons workmen are employed from 70 hours per week, and that the wages of these workmen range from 25s. to 30s. per week; whether the contractors are compelled to pay their workmen for similar work 7d. to 10d. per hour; and whether he will favourably consider the case of the men for shorter hours and better wages?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: With the exception of five men, whose cases are now under consideration, the hours of labour range from 50 to 60 per week. The wages range from 25s. to 39s. per week. The men have been brought up, and have learnt their business in the department, and, having regard to their duties, cannot be compared with those engaged on general engineering work,
  222
  their duties being peculiar to the Houses of Parliament, whilst they reap the advantage of their special service with regard to prolonged leave, full pay during illness, and gratuities on retirement. These men, whose duties would ordinarily cease at the close of the Session, have employment found for them for the rest of the year. If we were to employ contractors' men, as hinted at in the Question, their services would be dispensed with at the end of each Session.

  YELLOW PHOSPHORUS IN MATCHES.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement by Dr. Talbot, medical officer of health for Bow—namely, that he has visited the works of Bryant and May, and was of opinion that unless the use of yellow phosphorus was prohibited these cases would continually occur; under these circumstances, would he bring forward an Amendment to the Factory Acts having for its object the prohibition of the use of yellow phosphorus in the manufacture of matches; and will he prosecute either Bryant and May or their medical officer for manslaughter, in consequence of the death of one of their workmen, Cornelius Lean?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): I have been informed by the District Board of Works that the medical officer has made a report to this effect, and I have asked for a copy of the report. Without seeing this, I cannot, of course, judge of the value of his opinion. The whole subject of the use of yellow phosphorus is being thoroughly considered, and active inquiries are being carried out in all directions. As regards the case of Lean, I am advised that there are no grounds for instituting a prosecution for manslaughter. Messrs. Bryant and May and their medical man failed to notify the case, but there is no ground for thinking that their failure to do so was the cause of Lean's death.

  LIGHTS ON THE EAST COAST.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there is no fog signal sound between the Cotton Lightship and the Shipwash, distance 31 miles; and whether, as this is the part of the coast generally made first by all ships in the Baltic trade, and it is often hazy and foggy, the Board of Trade will direct the attention of the Trinity House authorities to the necessity for a fog horn between the places mentioned?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: My attention has not been drawn to the absence of a fog signal between the Cotton Lightship and the Shipwash. The Board of Trade have no power to recommend the establishment of light vessels or fog signals, but I have no doubt that the attention of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House will be called to the noble Lord's Question.

  BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intend to take any steps with a view of increasing the number of British seamen in British mercantile vessels?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The matter referred to in my noble Friend's Question is one of great importance, and is not being lost sight of, but I am not at present in a position to make any proposal on the subject.

  LEAD POISONING.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any reports of the recent deaths from lead poisoning from the certifying surgeon for the district; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: As the honour-
  224
  able Member is no doubt aware, the certifying surgeon has to report on all cases of lead poisoning reported to him, and not only in oases of death from this cause. His reports go to the superintendent inspector, in this case, at Birmingham. I have not yet received information to enable me to answer further at the present time.
  MR. WOODALL: Will the right honourable Gentleman consider the propriety of presenting reports of all cases which are reported to him at the Home Office?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: That is exactly the point of my answer. When I receive these reports I shall be in a position to judge how far I can do so.
  MR. WOODALL: The Question has reference to recent deaths. My Question goes to the extent of including all cases of ailments created in this way.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The certifying surgeon is bound to report on all cases, and I will endeavour to see when I get the reports what information I can give to the House.

  DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has decided to lay upon the Table the instructions issued by him to the Factory Department?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have nothing to add to my previous answer to the honourable Member on this subject. I cannot agree to make public all the Departmental instructions, but if there are any particular points on which he specially wishes information I shall be glad to consider how far it will be possible to meet his wishes.

  "TOURMALINE" CASE.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign

  225
  Office has learned through Her Majesty's Consul General in Antwerp that the cargo of arms and ammunition, which the prisoners of the Tourmaline are alleged to have landed and sold in the Sus country, was discharged in the port of Antwerp in April last.
  MR. CURZON: This case is now proceeding in the Consular Court at Tangier, and in these circumstances I should not feel justified in making any statement about it in this House.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the solicitors employed for the defence of the Tourmaline prisoners, about to be tried at Tangier for an alleged sale of arms and ammunition in the Sus country, have applied to the Foreign Office for, and have been refused, a safe conduct for a witness for the defence—namely, Mr. Arthur Watling; and, if so, upon what grounds have the Foreign Office based their refusal of a safe conduct in such a case?
  MR. CURZON: No question of safe conduct arose. It was beyond the power of Her Majesty's Government to guarantee immunity from arrest to the witness in question. Such immunity does not attach to a witness where the possibility of a criminal charge is involved.

  MAJOR GYBBON SPILSBURY.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major A. Gybbon Spilsbury told Lieutenant-Colonel Boyd, his commanding officer, and Colonel Goldsmith, Chief of the Staff at Chatham, that he was prepared to stand a court-martial, and anxious to do so; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 1st June Major Spilsbury, in communication with the War Office, stated that the only arms landed in the Sus by him were 50 rifles and one case of ammunition for his personal escort in proceeding inland to Kirgh; and, if so, whether the permission granted to Major Spilsbury to travel
  226
  in the Sus involved a necessary escort in a wild and unexplored country?
  Mr. BRODRICK: No application for a court-martial was reported to the War Office; but the circumstances were such that a court-martial would not have been held even had application been made. Mr. Spilsbury, who had shipped at Antwerp 4,000 rifles and 400 cases of cartridges, and had given a false destination, wrote, on the 1st June, that he had landed 50 rifles on the Moorish coast. No sanction, actual or implied, to do so was given him when he obtained leave to travel in Morocco.

  SPRAYING MACHINES FOR IRELAND.
  MR. DAVITT: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements will be made immediately empowering poor law guardian's in Ireland to give out spraying machines on the same terms as seed potatoes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOLR,): The arrangements made by the Government for the supply of spraying machines to boards of guardians in Ireland were explained in a circular letter addressed to these boards so long ago as the 7th March, and I would also refer to my answers to Questions put to me on the subject on the 9th and 10th May by my honourable Friend the Member for South Belfast and the honourable Member for South Monaghan. Government are granting loans, free of interest, to boards of guardians, repayable in two instalments, as in the case of seed potatoes, for obtaining a supply of machines, to be hired out or sold for cash to occupiers valued at and under £15. Payments in respect of hire or purchase must be made to the guardians in cash before delivery. An abatement of 10 per cent. has been allowed to cash purchasers of machines, and this, with the special terms secured by the Local Government Board from manufacturers, will enable occupiers, individually or jointly, to procure

  227
  machines for cash at about 30 per cent. under retail prices. Where a number of occupiers agree to hire a machine the hiring rates are nominal. The cost of hire is so small, 6d. and 1s. being the sums generally named for the use of a machine, that it would obviously be absurd to collect this small amount in two annual instalments. The guardians of some 74 unions have, so far, decided to supply machines under the terms explained in the circular referred to.

  SCHOOL GRANTS.
  Mr. DAVITT: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Mayo I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he will ascertain the loss in grant to schools in Clifton and Bristol recently affected in attendance by an epidemic of measles; and whether a Return of such cases will be accepted without medical certificates, seeing that poor people often do not call in medical aid in cases of measles?
  SIR J. GORST: If any school applies for the special grant the Education Department will favourably consider the application. Medical certificates for individual children are not required. The managers have only to satisfy the Department that they have acted under a notice of the sanitary authority, or under the advice of a qualified medical practitioner.

  BEEF DRESSING MATCHES.
  Mr. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a public entertainment extensively placarded which is announced to be held at Wood Green Track, on Thursday next, entitled the great match for the beef dressing championship of the world for £200 a side; whether public butchering contests are violations of the common law; whether he is aware that, when a similar exhibition was held at Gateshead in February last, the Mayor of Gateshead stated that in the event of any repetition of the exhi-
  228
  bition prompt action would be taken against the parties concerned; and whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken in the interests of public decency to prohibit these contests?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have seen the placard which the honourable Member has been good enough to send me; but however much I may personally criticise an entertainment of this kind, I am not aware that there is anything illegal in it, or that I have any power to prohibit it. I have no information as to the action of the Mayor of Gateshead in a similar case, and have had no time yet to make inquiry.
  Mr. MACNEILL: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that a military band is announced to attend this entertainment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I know nothing about that.

  MILITARY AND THE STRIKE.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain what is the reason for the importation of military forces into the colliery districts of South Wales; and whether, with a view to secure peace and good order, he will consider the desirability of withdrawing the troops from the districts in which no disturbance has yet occurred?
  MR. S. EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the numbers of military who have been sent down to Glamorganshire and the places which they have been ordered, and also at whose request they were so ordered; whether the Associated Colliery Owners of South Wales or any other local bodies or persons have undertaken to pay, or will have to bear any, and, if so, what proportion of the expenses incurred by the drafting of the military into the county and their maintenance there; whether there has been any difficulty in the maintenance of peace and order by

  229
  the police; and whether he is prepared to state to the House the facts which induced him to sanction the sending of military forces to localities where negotiations are now pending for the settlement of industrial differences between employers and workmen?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The aid of the military was called in, not by the Home Office, but by the local authorities. The reason no doubt was that disorders were apprehended with which the resources of the civil power would be unable to cope. Similarly, the withdrawal of the troops is a matter for the decision of the local authorities, with whom rests the responsibility of maintaining the peace. I may add, in reply to the honourable Member for Glamorgan, that the sending of military aid does not require any sanction. A Return of the number of troops in the district has been called for, but not yet received. The expenses incurred beyond those which fall on Army funds will, I presume, be defrayed as usual by the local authorities, but I have no special information on the point.
  Mr. EVANS: Will the right honourable Gentleman say who are the local authorities? Have there been any communications with the county council or the joint committee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have had no communication. Requisition was made to the military authority.
  MR. EVANS: Who are the local authorities?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The magistrates—I cannot specify them over the whole district—who are primarily responsible for the maintenance of public peace; and if in their belief the ordinary police force is not sufficient for the preservation of peace they have the right to ask for the assistance of the military.
  Mr. EVANS: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer my Question whether the police found any difficulty in the maintenance of peace and order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I understand that is taken for granted as a fact; the application implies the belief that the police are not able to maintain the peace.
  MR. WOODS: Has the Home Office been communicated with?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, the sanction of the Home Office is not required in these cases. I do not say we do not hear of it, but the application is not made to the Home Office.
  Mr. EVANS: Will the Home Secretary undertake to lay on the Table of the House, or have sent to Members desiring them, copies of communications made by those whom he called "the local authorities?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have had no communications. I do not know who made them.
  Mr. EVANS: I mean communications to the military authorities in London.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: They would be local communications to the authority commanding in the district. That is not within my jurisdiction.
  MR. EVANS: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this subject on an early day.

  BELFAST RIOTS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Roman Catholic houses were wrecked in Belfast on Monday night, and how many on Tuesday night; and why Roman Catholic public-houses in districts known to be dangerous were left without protection?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No houses occupied by Roman Catholics were wrecked on the Monday, though damage

  231
  estimated at about £12 was done to one house, and some glass was broken in two others. On Tuesday, two licensed houses were wrecked, another was considerably damaged, and some windows were broken in three other houses. With regard to the second paragraph, the wrecking took place when the police were actually engaged in conflict, in the neighbourhood, with the mob. There was no reason for apprehending beforehand an attack on the houses specially mentioned. The breakages of glass which occurred were in almost every instance the work of a running crowd.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the remaining Votes of Class II., except those relating to Scotland and Ireland, can be taken on Friday next?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): A special arrangement was made for next Friday in consequence of an appeal made from the other side of the House, and it would, I think, be inconvenient to make any change in the programme now.
  MR. MCKENNA: What is the business for next Thursday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In all probability it will be the Benefices Bill.

  IRISH MATCHES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say if any matches of Irish manufacture are supplied to any Government Department in London or elsewhere; and whether they have been found to be satisfactory; if so, whether he could recommend the First Commissioner of Works to supply the House of Commons with them?
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury is cognisant of this Question only so far as
  232
  it relates to the Government Departments in Ireland, whose supplies of matches are obtained through the Board of Works. I am informed by that Board that the only matches which they actually supply are safety matches manufactured by an Irish firm, and involving no use of the ingredients to which attention has lately been called.

NEW BILLS.

  WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Watermen's and Lightermen's Acts; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Woods, Mr. Charrington, Sir Edward Gourley, and Mr. Steadman.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 29th June, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2).
  Bill to amend the Procedure in regard to Private Bills relating to Scotland; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Renshaw, Mr. Baird, Mr. Parker Smith, Colonel Denny, Mr. Nicol, and Mr. Orr-Ewing.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

  DRAINAGE SEPARATION.
  Bill to enable Local Authorities to deal separately with the Sewage and the Drainage of their Districts; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephens, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Walter Foster, Sir William Priestley, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Bigwood, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Lawson Walton, Dr. Ambrose, and Mr. Cozens-Hardy.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 29th June, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

  PARISH FIRE ENGINES.
  Bill to enable Parish Councils to borrow Fire Engines; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]

  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to abolish Petty Customs in Scotland and to make provision for levying a rate in lieu thereof; Ordered to be brought in by Captain Sinclair, Mr. Asquith, Mr. James E. B. Baillie, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. M'Killop, Mr. Nicol, and Mr. Ure.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read, a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR J. GORST: The Bill of which I now rise to move the Second Reading has grown out of the necessity for the establishment in London of a teaching university. There has long been teaching of a very high order in London, but that teaching has been unorganised and it has been in many instances overlapping, and the want of some central body around which this teaching may be grouped has long been felt. The teachers have, I believe, for the last quarter of a century been agitating for the establishment of a university, and I think, among those who have given attention to the subject, the necessity for some kind of teaching university in London, is established as entirely common ground among all who discuss the question, and it would be wasting the time of the House to endeavour to give reasons for this. I therefore pass on to the question how this teaching university may best be established. There are two methods—definite methods—by which the desired
  234
  end may be attained; the first is by the establishment of an entirely new university for London, and the second is by modifying the existing University of London in such a manner as will meet the wants of the case. Efforts have been made during the last 20 years, and many schemes have been brought forward by bodies possessing more or less public authority for establishing a new institution or modifying the existing university. Finally these efforts found expression in the year 1887 in a petition presented by University College and King's College for the establishment of Gresham University, and in the same year a petition was presented to the Privy Council from, various medical schools in London asking for the establishment of a medical university. To consider these petitions a Royal Commission was appointed in 1888, and in the following year that Commission reported against the formation of any separate medical university, and with regard to the petition for Gresham University that there should be delay in order to allow the existing university to propose of its own accord such modifications in its constitution as might render any second university unnecessary. In 1891 the attempts at such modifications had practically failed, and thereupon the proposition for Gresham University again came before Parliament. Then there was a Motion made for the rejection of this charter, and after discussion in this House the House resolved by a considerable majority that the charter should be rejected. Upon the rejection of the charter another Commission was appointed, known by the name of the Cowper Commission, presided over by Lord Cowper, which considered, not merely the question of the charter which had been propounded, but the whole subject of London University education. This Commission reported in 1894, and their Report unanimously recommended two propositions; first, that there should be no second university in London, and secondly, that the necessary modification of the London University should be carried out by means of a statutory Commission. A Bill was brought in in the same year by Lord Playfair to give effect to the Report of the Commission. That Bill was lost by the premature dissolution of the House

  235
  on a change of Government, and since the present Government has been in office it has every year brought in a similar Bill—this being the third—to give effect practically to the recommendations of this Commission. The present Bill, it is true, is somewhat modified from the Bill that was brought in by Lord Playfair and as it was originally brought in by the present Government. It is modified with the view of meeting some of the objections which have been raised, and also of recognising the progress and development in education which have taken place in London since the Report of the Cowper Commission, because the progress of higher education in London is very rapid, and events have occurred since the Cowper Commission reported which made it desirable to somewhat modify the scheme. It would be quite hopeless in educational matters to propound any scheme of development or improvement to which some objection cannot be taken. There are vested interests which grow up around the existing system. These vested interests are extremely nervous as to the effect which any change might produce upon them, and they are very timid and reluctant to accept any change. After a series of very long negotiations and very considerable discussion among the different bodies, the scheme embodied in the Bill has practically been accepted by all the public bodies in London which are connected with higher education. I should like to inform the House of the various bodies by which this scheme has been considered and accepted. It has, first of all, been accepted by the senate of the University of London by a majority of 22 to 2—practically a unanimous acceptance by the senate of the University of London. It has been accepted by the Royal College of Physicians, by the Royal College of Surgeons, by the Society of Apothecaries, by University College, by King's College, by the Bedford College for Women, by the 12 medical schools which exist in London, by six theological colleges, by the Society for the Extension of University Teaching, by the Technical Education Committee of the London County Council, by the Corporation of the City of London, by the City and Guilds Institute, by the Polytechnic Council, by the
  236
  Royal Society, and all the other learned societies in London; and, finally, it has been accepted by the convocation of the university. I say it has been accepted by the convocation of the University of London because, by the charter of the university, a particular mode is specified in which the convocation of the University of London shall express its opinion on the subject. The convocation expresses its opinion by a meeting at which discussion takes place, and at which a vote is given by the persons there present. Such a meeting of convocation has been held, and this present scheme has been approved in that legal and formal manner in which the charter of the university requires the opinion of convocation to be expressed—by a majority of 460 to 239. But it has been said that this legal expression of the opinion of the University of London has been overruled by the result of a contested election. An election was recently held in London for a member of the senate. A very distinguished member of my own university, a senior wrangler, was one of the candidates, and in his candidature declared himself hostile to the present scheme. He was opposed by another gentleman of considerable eminence who announced himself favourable to the present scheme, and the result of the voting—which was not conducted by persons who had heard the arguments for and against—was that Mr. Fletcher Moulton was elected by 1,300 odd votes against 1,100 odd votes given for his opponent. He was elected by a majority of 200, the numbers voting being something like 2,600 out of a total number of graduates of 4,000. That has been put forward, not only as entirely doing away with the formal and regular expression of opinion of convocation, but as a reason why this House should proceed no further with the present Bill, and I really should like the House to consider that we have no evidence before us as to how far those who voted in this election at all appreciated the necessity for a teaching university in London, nor how far they were animated by the mere conservative desire to be let alone, with a kind of timid apprehension that it was possible that their degrees or position or interests might by the change be in some way affected. Nor have we any informa-

  237
  tion as to how far voters were influenced by those misstatements of fact which are inseparable from contested elections, and which, I am informed, in this particular election, were particularly rife. And, lastly, there is no evidence as to how far they were affected by personal predilection. I should go a little further and say that, even assuming that the existing graduates of the University of London were unanimous in their objection to the present scheme, I do not know why the personal feelings of London graduates should stand in the way of a great national reform—of a national development of higher education—when in the scheme, as I shall presently show, their rights and interests, such as they are, are most carefully and most securely preserved. There is a further objection brought forward which we shall no doubt hear of from the right honourable Baronet the Member for the University of London, and that is a claim that the Convocation of London should have a veto upon any scheme which Parliament may enact for the purpose of developing the University of London. That claim is based upon Article 21 of the charter, which says that if a new or supplemental charter is given by the Crown to the University of London the power of accepting it shall be exercised by the convocation of the university. The answer to that is, first of all, that this is a restriction which applies to the charter and not to the action of this House. The Crown may very properly restrain its own power of granting any further charter, but it cannot restrain the power of the Houses of Parliament. This power of accepting or rejecting the supplementary charter is to be exercised by convocation in a certain legal way—that is, by local meeting held, at which arguments are advanced for and against, and by the decision of those present at the meeting who have heard those arguments. So far as that power goes, as I explained before, the convocation of the University of London by a large majority accepted this scheme; and what my right honourable Friend is asking for is not the power contained in the charter, but an entirely new power which is not in the charter, enabling the university to do what no university has ever been allowed to do—to express, by voting paper, its opinion, for or against. I will proceed to point
  238
  out to the House how carefully the objections and fears of those who are opposed to this Bill have been met in the scheme which has been laid before Parliament. The great fear which has been expressed is that teachers may preponderate in the new university; and it is supposed that if those who are engaged in university teaching were to gain command in the new university they would exercise their powers to examine their students, then they would lower the standard of the degree, and they would finally injure the rights of the external students. I should like to protest against the sort of character which the opponents of this Bill endeavour to fix upon teachers. I do not think that university teachers are, of all people, at all inclined to lower the standard of the degrees and faculties which, they represent and teach. On the contrary, I have always found, in every case, that teachers are desirous of raising the standard; and I should think that, if left to themselves, and if they were to take charge of the university, the danger would be that they would make the degrees too difficult. At any rate, you cannot prevent teachers having some voice in the examinations of the university. You could not find a body of examiners unless you accept the assistance of those who teach, and everybody knows that in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge the examinations are almost exclusively conducted by those who have been actively engaged in teaching; and the mathematical tripos at Cambridge, which has always been considered an ex tremely good examination, is always conducted by men engaged actively in teaching, and I have not heard that they lowered the standard or made the examination more easy. The existing senate of the existing University of London, which appoints examiners, is out of touch with teachers, and, even if there were no necessity for a teaching university in London, in the interest of the examining university itself, it would be expedient to make some arrangements by which the senate which appoints examiners should be brought into closer touch and relations with those to whom they give instruction. The senate has hitherto settled the subjects of examination and curricula without any reference to the teachers; and the remarkable result is that up to last year the syllabus of

  239
  examination in the faculty of science, the most progressive subject of examination, had been unrevised since 1876, so that up to last year people had been examined in chemistry and physiology—progressive and advancing sciences—in entire neglect of the great discoveries of the last 20 years. The inconvenience was so great that the university had to extemporise 13 boards for the purpose of bringing their curriculum and examination into harmony with the scientific advance of the present day. That was an expedient that was adopted once, but which could not be used again, and I have no hesitation in saying that unless in some way or other the examining body of the University of London is brought into relation and touch with the teachers the examinations themselves will suffer. I am informed that there is a general agreement among learned and scientific men, not only in this country but in the whole civilised world, that in the highest parts of progressive science the attainments of students cannot be tested unless the teachers have some voice in setting the subjects of examination. That being the danger to be guarded against, the Bill appoints seven Commissioners by whom the statutes of the new university are to be framed. The Commissioners are Lord Davey; the Bishop of London; Sir William Roberts, a medical doctor and a Fellow of the University of London; Sir Owen Roberts, who is well known as having taken an active part in the spread of modern education; my honourable colleague the senior Member for Cambridge University (Professor Jebb); Michael Foster; and Edward Henry Busk, chairman of convocation of the University of London. These Commissioners are constituted to frame the statutes for the purpose of carrying out the general scheme of the commission—that is, to so modify the existing University of London that it may fulfil the functions of a teaching university. I think the House may very well trust men like those I have named to frame statutes that will be in accordance with the best interests of education. But they have not got unlimited power in the framing of the statutes. The statutes will have to be laid before Parliament, and therefore Parliament does not give up its power of accepting or rejecting any statutes the Commissioners
  240
  may frame. Besides that, the senate or convocation, or any persons or anybody affected by the statutes may appeal to the council to do them justice. Besides that, the Commissioners are instructed in the second part of the schedule of the Bill as to what they are to provide for. They are to provide, first of all, for the adequate protection of the interests of all classes of students, whether external or internal, whether collegiate or non-collegiate. They are to provide for the recognition as teachers of the university of all persons duly qualified to be teachers. Then they are to provide for the inclusion, under proper regulations, as internal students, of those qualified to be internal students; and they are to provide for the due representation on the academic council of all sections of teachers in the university. I think it will be admitted that a scheme which in this way has been the subject of long controversy and of long negotiations and compromise among the various bodies concerned ought not to be lightly overruled by the Government or by Parliament: and that primâ facie the scheme which they have agreed to ought to be accepted. But in order to meet objections and in order to secure the interests of all the existing graduates of the university and the external students of the university, in the schedule of this Bill the powers of the Commissioners are very greatly curtailed. Part 1 of the Bill really does by Parliament a considerable portion of what might be left to the Commissioners themselves. The senate is not left to the Commissioners to appoint. The senate is appointed in the schedule of the Bill. It consists of 17 members appointed by convocation, of 16 appointed by the teachers, and of a number of other members appointed by various public bodies, the majority of whom have no connection with teaching, and therefore the constitution of the senate ensures that the direct representatives of the teachers shall always be a minority on the senate. Then there is the academic council appointed by, and consisting of, teachers, which is intended to manage and supervise the internal students of the university. But even this body has three official members representing convocation, and one other member who is to be elected by the senate, so that,

  241
  although the teachers have undoubtedly a majority on the academic council, they have not the exclusive control of the council. The council of external students, by whom the work of the external students is to be supervised, are entirely appointed by the senate, with the exception of threes ex-officio members, the chancellor, the vice-chancellor, and the chairman of convocation. Finally, there is the board for the extension of university teaching, perhaps the most important of the boards; but as there is no controversy about it I will not trouble the House with any remarks in regard to it. Now as to the question of the general examinations. Remember the senate, in which the teachers are in a minority, has supreme authority; and that there are several bodies which advise the senate in the case of external students and internal students. But in both cases the senate is supreme, and the senate is enjoined by statute to see that the decrees which are conferred on external and internal students are to represent the same degree of knowledge and attainments. The senate can only alter this regulation after communication with the convocation, with the academic council, and the council of external students, and they are also enjoined always to appoint one examiner who shall not be a teacher; so it seems to me that every possible care is taken in the provisions of the schedule—a schedule agreed to by all these bodies, a schedule which is the result of long controversy and long compromise—that neither shall the degree of the London University be lowered nor shall any injustice be done to the external students. Just consider for a moment how the standard of degree can be lowered. Suppose that some of the teachers of some faculty desire to lower the standard. What do they do? First of all, they have to consult their brother teachers who form the academic council, and must convince the whole body of teachers of the university that the standard must be lowered. Suppose they succeed in convincing the academic council that the standard must be lowered. They must then obtain the consent of the senate, and the senate cannot consent to the lowering of the standard for internal students, unless the committee of external students agree that it should also be
  242
  lowered for them. Therefore it is practically impossible that the standard of degree can be lowered unless the external students and those who represent the interests of external students are parties to the matter. There is one other opposition which has been raised to the Bill which I must notice, and that is the opposition of the Inns of Court. Now, it never was intended that in this Bill the Inns of Court should be affected without their consent; it was never intended to give power to the Commissioners against the consent of the Inns of Court to turn them into a school of the university; and I should certainly have thought from the reading of the Bill that there was no such power in it; but I speak with great reluctance in the presence of those high legal authorities who represent the Inns of Court. All I can say is that, if there is any ground for supposing that any power is given in this Bill to the Commissioners to affect the Inns of Court without their consent, the Government will have no objection whatever to the introduction of a saving clause to protect the present rights of the Inns of Court, and I hope that after that assurance any opposition there may be on the part of the Inns of Court to the further progress of the Bill will not be persisted in. On the whole, the Government recommend this Bill to the House. It is not their scheme; it is a scheme which is the result of a very long controversy and of a great deal of compromise, of give-and-take on the part of the various bodies, and they think it is a satisfactory conclusion of a very long discussed question. It will give a teaching university to London in the only way in which it can be given—namely, by a modification of the constitution of the existing university, and in doing this, so far from injuring the existing university, it will, so the Government believe, increase its utility and reputation. I hope the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, and that we may succeed during the present Session in passing it.
  MR. HARWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I desire to preface my remarks with one observation. The right honourable Gentleman has introduced this Bill with such calmness and clearness that, speaking for myself, I cannot

  243
  attempt, in any light-hearted way, to attack its provisions. I recognise, in the first place, the position of the Government in the matter, which happily lifts this question quite out of the atmosphere of party politics. The Government were bound to do what they have done. They had received a Report, and they were bound to act upon it. They did not seem to be very particularly keen in that action—there may have been some distrust in their proposals—but now, at last, we have the matter fairly and squarely before the House as a business matter. I would like to assure the right honourable Gentleman that, as far as I am concerned, I do not approach the question from the point of view of Convocation. Though I happen to be a member of that body, I recognise that the rights of Convocation with this matter are very secondary, and I am almost sorry that the right honourable Gentleman troubled himself to fight these creatures of air whilst there were creatures of more substantial quality he might have attempted to grapple with. I quite recognise the immense care that has been bestowed upon this question. To my own knowledge, for 12 years at least this matter has been debated, and debated with great ability and great spirit and tact; but, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to have shared the fate of many movements of the kind which are debated and compromised from year to year. Three or four contending parties or causes begin to compromise and compromise, and gradually they come to agreement amongst themselves and forget the true relationship of the public to the question as a whole. They move gradually. That has been the case with this Bill. I think the right honourable Gentleman said that this question originally arose on the matter of founding a separate university for London. This movement led, as I shall explain, to an amalgamation with the present London University. We had incidents of compromise even across the floor of the House of Commons in regard to the Incorporated Law Society only a short time ago. There has indeed been compromise and compromise. But the two main points which I want the Committee to consider in regard to these contending parties and interests are, firstly, the question of a teaching
  244
  university for London, and, secondly, the welfare of education in general throughout the whole country; and, therefore, I will not dwell in any degree upon any minor points. As to the matter of the charter, as to the personnel of the Commission, and other small issues, I have nothing whatever to say. But I venture to protest against the charge of the right honourable Gentleman, that those who take the same view as I do speak slightingly of the teachers. We do not assume for a moment any hostile attitude against them, and I say at once that I entirely disclaim anything of the kind. There is nothing in the nature of animus in our opposition; it is general, and is founded solely upon principle. Now, the matters which I would venture to bring before the House come under two heads. In the first place, I say that this Bill does not do what it ought to do, and, in the second place, it does what it ought not to do. I would first ask the attention of the House as to what it professes to do, but what I say it does not do. It professes to found a teaching university for London. It is stated that those of us who are opposed to this Bill are opposed to the idea of a teaching university for London. Nothing of the kind, Sir. We oppose this Bill because Government does not seem to realise the great importance and the great difficulty of what I may call the supreme problem. What does the Bill do? It takes 25 institutions. In one of the Reports upon which the Bill is founded they are called colleges of the university. What are they? Now, I do not wish to speak in any degree invidiously of any institution in London or elsewhere, but the House is bound to ask itself: Are these the sort of institutions of which to form a Teaching University of London? In this Report 25 schools are enumerated; of these 25—and they are all what I should call technical schools, and technical schools only—10 are medical schools, six are theological colleges, and four are teaching colleges of music, leaving only five which have the slightest claim to university character in any sense of the word. Now, I do not wish to speak slightingly of these institutions, but I do not think their combined existence can be said to solve the problem of having a

  245
  teaching university for London. Even the best of those institutions falls very far short of what I may call a university character. To say, therefore, that 20 out of 25 of such schools are anything more than technical schools is what I would venture to call a misstatement. Now, secondly, what do you do? You recognise the teachers of these schools as teachers of the university. You allow those teachers to examine for degrees, and you allow those teachers practically to give degrees to each other. Now, I do not wish to labour that point, but I want the House to see what the Bill involves. Now, what are the objections to these proposals? Obviously the first objection is that the Bill gives you no power over these institutions if you put them in this position; indeed, you will have no power of control whatever. It seems that the only thing you propose to do—the only thing you ask Parliament to do—is to give the institutions money to use for their own purposes. There is no mention of money in the Bill, but it is obvious that if there is to be a teaching university for London worthy of the name it will cost money, and the money will have to come from Parliament, or, in other words, the nation, and therefore the nation has a right to inquire what will be the conditions under which you ask for the money. Now, I say in the first place that, although you expect to give money to them, you take no part whatever in controlling these institutions. It is confessed in this Report that these institutions are poor. But what is still more serious, Mr. Speaker, with regard to these institutions, which are constituent elements of a university in a material sense, is, that you have no power to control them, and therefore no power to improve them. There is no provision for professorships, endowments, apparatus, or for a central place where teaching can be carried on. Now, the right honourable Gentleman has spoken of a teaching of a "university type." What type does he mean? He has referred to Oxford and Cambridge. Most people know, however, that the teaching there most worthy of the name, is that of coaching. Take another type Take the type of Scotland. The type of Scotch universities is teaching by lecture. Large gatherings of students are brought
  246
  into one hall to listen to one famous man. How do you get such teaching? No doubt you can find plenty of men in London, but you have no provision for them, no place of teaching for them, nowhere that they can gather. There is no proposal of anything of the kind in the Bill. The Government have no right to come before the House and ask their sanction to a proposal for a teaching university when they have not dealt with the primary factors of the problem. Well, I have been told that these teachers will be scattered about. Mr. Speaker, I think this Bill will be setting up a sort of peripatetic university. Students will go to Hackney for their theology, to South Kensington for their chemistry, to University College for their mathematics, and they will spend a considerable time in rushing about all over London in order to get to the various institutions. The thing is simply absurd. You are providing nothing. What does the Bill provide but the machinery for conducting the different examinations? Nothing. I have had some experience of former universities. We are not simply speaking from abstract theory, but from practical experience. I myself have been connected with the Victoria University, which has been a most successful university from the first stage. But what did we do? We believed—and I venture to say that Parliament ought to act upon that belief—in the principle that God helps those who help themselves. We began to raise money. We went about the country speaking—I with others—though I took a very small part. But we recognised two things, and those two things I will mention to the House, because they are most likely to be found in your problem. You must find money, and you must from that money find buildings and apparatus But what does London give? London, it seems to me, is demoralised by the fact that everything is done for it; it does nothing for itself. You get your buildings and museums out of the national purse, and, though I am not objecting, I say that it does not realise the first duty that it ought to perform. If Londoners are really in earnest in trying to establish a teaching university for London, then they ought to put their hands into their pockets and show that they are in earnest

  247
  by giving something, and then come to Parliament and ask for assistance. But, I venture to say, Parliament ought not to display any enthusiasm for the cause if the people are not prepared to put their hands in their pockets to some degree. All we have is this thin, shadowy creature of a Bill—I was going to call it invertebrate, but it has not enough members even to suggest a backbone. You have no money, you have no apparatus, you have no building, and yet you want to establish a teaching university, and tell Parliament that you are dealing seriously with one of the greatest problems of the age. I venture to say that it is we who oppose the proposal who realise the importance of the problem of a teaching university for London. In my small way I am much interested in it, and it is because I say you are bringing up a sham Bill that I object to it, and appeal to the House to throw it out. Do not let the problem, be dealt with in this mean, attenuated, half-hearted manner, but throw the Bill back until the House can deal adequately with the problem. There is another thing that this House ought to beware of. It ought not to allow the ground to be taken up by an institution unworthy of the name. We had far better leave the site vacant until a suitable building can be erected than allow the position to be taken up by some wooden shanty of this kind, which can only be removed by another Act of Parliament, and after another 20 years' discussion both inside and outside of the House. I object to the Bill, therefore, because it does not do what it intends to do, and because it does what it should not do. It does not in any sense establish a teaching university in London, and therefore the House ought to reject the Bill if only on that ground. But I come now to a second ground of objection. I venture to say that the Bill does what it should not do. The House has heard that a London university already exists. I am quite ready to recognise, Sir, that the name is an unfortunate one. But it is not really a London university in the strict sense of the term. It has become an Imperial institution, and I venture to suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that if it had not been
  248
  for the unfortunate appropriation of the name of this institution, we should not have had the difficulties which we now have, and we should not have had this Bill before the House now. The Bill is an attempt to steal the name and the good repute of the London University. I have always found, in my experience of the House, that it is very keen on the subject of vested interests. There is a vested interest in the name of this Bill, and the present London University has a right to the name. You will form some idea of the importance of the name when you consider the great success this university has had. In 1897 the university examined over 6,000 candidates, or, roughly speaking, twice as many as those in residence in Oxford and Cambridge put together at any particular time during one year. Now, during the year 1858 there were only 466 examined, while in 1897 the number had risen to 6,294. Now, a Bill of this description ought to be very carefully considered by the House before it interferes with an institution which is doing such a great work in the country. Its examinations are held all over the country. I want the House to realise that they are not dealing with a London university, but with an Imperial institution, and one effect of this Bill would be to Londonise a national institution. I see that examinations for matriculation at the London University are held at Liverpool, Northampton, Manchester, Edinburgh, Dumfries, and other places. I only mention this to show to the House the extent of the operation of this institution, and that it is not in any degree a London university. It is called the London University, I grant, but it is an unfortunate title, and possibly some compromise might be made upon that word, but it is a national institution, and the House ought to regard it in that way. Then I would remind the House that this institution costs nothing. This House votes about £17,000, but that is repaid, and more than repaid, by the teaching. Then, again, the degrees stand very high. I believe I am only stating what will be allowed generally by those who know anything of such matters, that the degrees stand in a most eminent position. But I do not wish to press that matter. Well,

  249
  what is the intention of the Bill? The London University is doing a national work; here is a proposal to found a teaching university for London, which is quite another thing. It seems to me that the promoters propose to come into the possession of wells that they have not dug, and of orchards which they have not planted. This teaching university is a sort of cuckoo bird, which does not build its own nest, but occupies the nests that have been laboriously built by other birds. I am not saying that it should not be so—I hold no brief for the London University. I will explain what will House ought seriously to consider whether the change will not materially affect the great work which, is now being done by the London University. It is said that it is not intended to interfere with the work. But the London University is practically an exclusively examining body, and the whole question hinges upon the point of the examinations. The examinations are admitted to have certain qualities which are thought by men who understand the matter to constitute the chief elements of their real value. The examiners are independent of the teachers; they axe uniform and certain. Everybody knows what a degree of the London University means. It means one thing, and one thing only. There are not two voices, as sometimes is the case in this House. But what do you propose to do in this Bill? You propose to start two kinds of examinations for the same standard of decree. Why should they not be the same? Then another thing is that you have to have certificates in lieu of the earlier examination. I would venture to suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that if it is desirable to make any variation it should be made in the later examination, and not in the earlier. If your university teaching is to specialise, and to have any particular value, the most natural result would be a variation in your late examinations, but the proposal is quite the reverse. Now, this is an attempt to square the circle; it is an attempt to do the impossible; it is an attempt to make one examination test two things—culture and knowledge. I do not know exactly
  250
  what university culture means, beyond being able to wield a bat or pull an oar; but, whatever it means, it does not mean knowledge as outside an examination. I venture to say that, if you attempt to make the degree have a double meaning, you knock the bottom out of the degree itself, and deprive it of its value. The Report of the Commission shows that both Bishop Barry and Professor Sidgwick are emphatically of the same opinion. Their remarks are entitled to great weight, particularly knowing that they heard all the evidence submitted to them. Well, there is another question. Not only are you going to spoil the value of the degree, but you are going to assume control of the London University. I will explain what will be the effect of this Bill upon the management of the university. The supreme body, as the right honourable Gentleman has told us, is the senate. What does the senate consist of? Turn to the schedule on page 5, and you find that there are 55 members to constitute this senate. Sixteen of these are appointed by the faculties, 17 by Convocation, two each by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, four by the Inns of Court, two each by University and King's Colleges, one by the Corporation of London, one by the Council of the City and Guilds of London Institute, and two by the London County Council. In other words, 34 out of 55 are connected with London institutions. You have a clear majority of those who are going to manage this institution coming from distinctly London institutions. Now, why should these institutions have this power that you propose to give them? You propose, as it were, to make these institutions constituent elements of your university. But I find in the examinations that the chief number of candidates have not been supplied by your institutions. Between 1889 and 1893 only 27.6 came, including those for medicine and surgery, from the London colleges. Why should they, then, be put in this position when you have other institutions in the country quite as good as they are, and which have sent more students to the university? Why are they not to be recognised? Why place these London institutions,

  251
  which only supply a quarter of your students, in this position of pro-eminence? The right honourable Gentleman has explained that the academic council shall have control of the examinations.
  SIR J. GORST: I did not say the academic council would have control. I said the senate would have control.
  MR. HARWOOD: I quite understand that, as a count of appeal; but if it is not going to manage it, I fail to see what, as practical machinery, it is going to do. Of the 20 members of the academic council 16 are teachers, three are ex-officio members, and only one person is an outsider. How can you see, therefore, how the internal students are treated? But when you come to the external students, the body managing them consists of 28 with nine outsiders. I object altogether to London seizing this national institution and using it for its own purposes and governing it in its own way. I ask the House to reject the Bill, because it does not create a university for London, and because it spoils a university which acts as an examining body for the whole of the nation. Well, it may be asked, what do I propose? The right honourable Gentleman said, I think, that eight years ago Parliament decided that there should not be a second university for London, and that, therefore, that was to be conclusive. But why conclusive? Parliament has frequently gone back on its own decisions, and I do not, see any difficulty in this direction. In Scotland, where you have a population of three-and-a-half millions, you have four universities. Surely, in London, with a population of five-and-a-half millions, with two universities, one of which is not a university at all, but an examining body for the whole country, there ought to be no difficulty in founding another university. In conclusion, I should like to say one word on behalf of the London University as it at present exists, for the sake of those whose voice cannot be heard in this House, and whose votes cannot make themselves felt in Convocation. I know that the London University may be regarded as a mere field for the crammer. But let me tell the House that it has been an inspiring influence to thousands of lonely students in all
  252
  parts of the country. In my own experience I must say for myself that I owe to that university much that was the solace of my lonely youth, and it has contributed much to the joy of my life ever since. I may, therefore, be pardoned, perhaps, if I speak somewhat warmly, and if I appeal to the House somewhat strongly, against doing anything to damage an institution which has done such a great educational service for the masses of the people who could not afford to go to other universities. But great as has been the work of the London University in the past, that work will be still greater in the future. The right honourable Gentleman, we all know, is in favour of a great development of secondary education. Most of us hope to see the time come when secondary education will be a very different thing from what it is now. What will be required as the top-stone, the consummation, of education will be a university like this—catholic and impartial—which gives its candidates a certificate without any regard to the teacher, and without any regard to local influence whatever. I beg the House, therefore, to reject this Bill. I ask them to reject it in the interests of a teaching university for London, because, I say, you are founding nothing of the kind. You are playing with a great problem, you are playing with the House of Commons; for the institution you propose to give us is not a reality. I ask you, in the second place, to reject the Bill, because it will do a great injury to an institution, which has done an immense service in the past, and which will do far greater service in the future.
  MR. YOXALL: The powerful speech of my honourable Friend has assured the House, I think, that those of us who oppose this Bill do so with good reason, and not in any spirit of enmity towards a teaching university for London. We feel as strongly as anyone possibly can do that there ought to be in London a proper university, worthy of this great metropolis, but we point out that this Bill does not provide for that institution. Where are the lecture halls? Where are the examination schools? Where are the professorial chairs? Where are the pecuniary foundations

  253
  upon which the university is to be built? The foundations upon which it is proposed to build this university are entirely inadequate. There are certain buildings near the Royal Academy which are the property of the present university. They are quite inadequate at present for their purpose, and therefore will not suffice as the buildings of the greater university the Bill proposes to set up. The funds of the present university are £17,000. How far will that go towards the pecuniary foundation of a university worthy of the name of the University of London? This Bill is an attempt—an honest attempt I believe—on the part of the Government, and of those immediately connected with the Bill, to achieve the impracticable. You cannot, out of the existing materials, construct satisfactorily a university upon the lines of this Bill. There are two plans available for the Government. One is to do for London what the German Government did for Strasburg, when, from Imperial sources, a sum of about £700,000 was spent in founding a university with proper buildings and proper chairs. The other plan is to create for London a new teaching university distinct from the examining university, leaving the examining University where it now is, untouched and unimpaired. In the Report of the second Commission, in 1888, you were told that you could not combine these two points. The Commission said that the present University of London has done a great work, and has established for its degrees a high reputation, and they told us that you could not unite with the existing university a new teaching university, but that you must set up a teaching university by itself. As the right honourable Gentleman has told us, Parliament rejected, 10 years ago, a charter for a separate teaching university. Sir, I hold that it was a mistake on the part of Parliament; but because that mistake has been made I do not see why we should go on 10 years afterwards perpetuating that mistake. There are now reasons why a teaching university should be set up which did not exist 10 years ago. As far as the name itself is concerned, there may be a difficulty, but why not call it the University of Westminster, which is, perhaps, as famous a name as that of London? But do, I beg
  254
  of you, insist that this Bill shall go back with a view of enabling the friends of it to bring up next Session a scheme for a separate university in the metropolis. Why should we cast into the melting-pot the existing institution? Bishop Barry, a member of the last Commission, says—
  "The present university has taken up and discharged with signal ability and success the founding of an examining university, in no exclusive relation to London, but having to do in a great majority of cases with candidates from other parts of Great Britain and even of the empire."
  It is an Imperial institution. It receives students from all parts of the Empire, and in some cases students from countries which are not included in the Empire; and, so far as I know, the university has never before been attacked, has never before received criticism, until this afternoon, when we are told that some of the chemical examinations are 20 years behind the times. Well, Sir, I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman has spoken from his own knowledge.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I did not say that. I said that the curriculum had not been altered since 1876.
  MR. YOXALL: As a matter of fact, I believe the curriculum has not been brought up to date in quite the usual fashion, though the tests founded on the syllabus have been regularly brought up to date; but if that applies to any institution, it applies with double force to the great examining institution for which the right honourable Gentleman is responsible—the Science and Art Department. That, I say, is the only argument used against the existing university. But what has it done with its degrees? It has made them unassailable. We are told by some friends that if you set up in London a teaching university, leaving the examining university untouched, the examining university will fade away and decrease in importance, and that the teaching university will eventually occupy the ground now occupied by the examining university. If that be so, I am quite prepared to take the risk of it, and to see a teaching university set up and the other fade away, on the principle that the better of the two will survive. But what I want

  255
  to know is why the promoters of the Bill desire to depreciate in some way or other an institution which has given acknowledged benefit, and to create and maintain an institution which is not likely to be of such benefit, so long as it be not properly constituted with buildings, with funds, with chairs, and all the paraphernalia of a great university. If a teaching university can stand alone, let it do so; if it cannot stand alone, I object to it leaning upon the existing university as a prop. I suggest that the best thing to do is for the Bill to go back again and come up next year in a new form, based upon proposals which will enable a teaching university to stand alone. We are told that, in the case of Dublin, we have an instance of successful co-operation between the examining and the teaching branch of the university; but those who enter into that argument hereafter will remember, I hope, that there the examining is practically dependent on the teaching university. I do not think it is possible to associate the examination of internal students with the existing system of examination of external students without prejudice to the latter. I know the nature of the Report of the Commission on this subject, and I am reminded of the fact that Bishop Barry and Professor Sedgwick both signed the Report. I have had experience myself of a unanimous Report of a Royal Commission, and I know how anxious a Royal Commissioner is to be in unison if he possibly can with his colleagues, and how many qualifications and expedients he resorts to in order to maintain that courteous relation towards those with whom he has spent many happy months of work. Therefore, I will not deal with the importance or unimportance of the fact that this Report is said to be unanimous; but I do point out that the Report itself is not the basis of the Bill. I want the House to note that in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman there were important omissions, due to his desire to confine his remarks within the usual brief space, and to give them their accustomed point and conciseness. But those omissions ought to be brought before the attention of the House. There are proposals in the Commission's Report which are not embodied in the schedule
  256
  of the Bill, and there are recommendations in the Report which would no doubt be adopted by the senate should this Bill become law. One suggestion by the Commission is that the test for the higher medical degrees should be lowered. The right honourable Gentleman has told us that teachers are not in the habit of lowering tests. I quite accept that position, but there are several ways in which the examination might be lowered. It is in human nature, and in the very nature of things. Some criticisms were advanced as to the questions set to pupils. To me, it seems impossible for a teacher who has taught a set of students to avoid setting those students questions along the line of his teaching. If you were setting up a teaching university alone, not open to external students, that would be a proper and fair thing, for it would depend upon the university to see that the examiners were men of high ability; and although the examination might be on the lines of the teaching, it might be of the highest possible order. But when you are going to put the village cobbler and the private student side by side at an examination school with the students of King's College, or University College, and you set before one student a series of questions upon the same syllabus placed before him by the man who has taught him in the University College, or King's College, and you set before the other a series of questions founded upon the same syllabus, you do not give the two students the same chance. If you thus make it easier for the internal student, you are unjust to the external student in one or two ways: either the degree depreciates, because of the easier method of obtaining it, or else you make for the external student a severer test if the award for passing is the same. It is said by the promoters of this Bill that a difference can be made upon the face of the diploma, by stating that the holder is an internal, or an external, student; but they are both to be described as of the London University. Now, I contend that if, in any way, you water down the value of that degree henceforth you do a standing injustice to all present and past holders of that degree, and I admit that, by the association of the new University with the existing University, you cannot possibly avoid watering down in

  257
  one way or another the value of this degree. If you set up two standards, one for the internal, and the other for the external, students, you keep for external students a higher standard than for internal students, and you then do an injustice to the external students of the future in competition with the internal students of the future. This thing is impracticable. The Bill itself is sure to be unworkable, and after long and weary hours of consultation and compromise, which have been gone through during the past 10 years, we regret that all this labour should have borne no present fruit. We do feel, with regard to this university, that this great Imperial examining body, which has done so much good in the past, and which, if left alone, can accomplish greater things in the future, should not be interfered with. We feel that this change would weaken the zeal of the English people for education in London, and what does exist now is a monument of the zeal of the men who, sixty years ago, founded this university upon unsectarian lines, in the time when all other universities were sectarian; and the value of the degree up to the present has been beyond all criticism.
  MR. HALDANE: My honourable Friend who has just addressed the House, and the honourable Member who preceded him, have spoken in much the same vein. They have begun by proclaiming themselves friends of the principles and objects of the Bill. But they have gone on to say that it is unworkable, frivolous, and impossible; and they have each of them concluded by making a pathetic appeal on behalf of the privileges and position of the existing University. Well, Mr. Speaker, as regards the last and concluding appeal, it will be well to say at once that, so far as I understand, this Bill—and I speak after having had something to do with the negotiations which led to its preparation—will preserve intact the position of the examining side of the old University, so that its position and influence will be exactly the same as at the present time. The University as it at present exists will retain all its privileges, and, as I shall show the House in a few moments, it will be in this position, that it will be more free from the control of the outside teaching element than it has ever
  258
  been under the existing constitution. What is the use of my honourable Friend making an appeal to the House to protect from any change at all an institution which is in the position of peril which this old University is in? Why, its own governing body have half-a-dozen times within the last few months asked the Government to pass this Measure; and its own Convocation by two to one have approved not only the principle but the details of this Bill. There has been, it is true, voting by postcards amongst the members, many of whom took their degrees a long time since, upon the affairs of the university, and even these gentlemen, who at first opposed the scheme, are now showing a diminishing majority. The other day a very full poll of 2,500 votes was recorded, and the successful candidate, who is a very distinguished man—as to whom it is by no means to be taken that he was elected with sole reference to the issue of this Bill—only succeeded in obtaining his place at the head of the poll by 200 votes. In the face of that what is the use of appealing on behalf of this old University of London, as if it were a body subjected to some outside machinations or influence? Now what is the gist of the argument of my honourable Friends about the teaching of this university? What were their propositions? They said, first of all, as was stated by the honourable Member for Nottingham, "You have not gone about it in the right way; you ought to have gone to the Government and asked them to give the same as the German Government did to the University of Strasburg—that is, £700,000." No doubt it would be a most admirable thing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give that amount for the constitution of a university, but he is not likely to give £700,000 for a university in London, and we have to do the best we can as matters stand. I hope to show the House that we have got the materials we require, which will be made use of under this Bill, and which will give us every advantage enjoyed by the University of Strasburg, to which reference has been made. There was another suggestion made by both my honourable Friends, and that was that there should be two universities. This is hopeless; in fact, two Royal Commissions have reported against it, the second

  259
  one unanimously. This House has also pronounced its opinion against it, and nearly all of the leading teaching bodies in London have pronounced themselves against it. There was an attempt made recently to start an institution to be called the Teaching University of Westminster, but there was no support for that. Now, the whole body of teaching experts in London and round and about the metropolis are in favour of this Bill, which will reconstitute this university whilst preserving intact its examining board and leaving it to do its useful work as at present, and adding a teaching university which will discharge those functions now discharged by the universities in Berlin, Vienna, in Paris, and in every capital of Europe except in London. Mr. Speaker, what is the proposition of this Bill? What does it propose to do? If any honourable Member will take the pains to turn up the useful little map published by the Technical Education Board in London, showing the distribution of all sorts of teaching centres throughout the metropolis, he will find that that map shows the distribution of education which is of a university type. He will find that all through and round and about London there are scattered a number of bodies, some of which he may not have heard of, but others which are very well known to him. He will find such well-known institutions as King's College and University College, the Royal School of Mines, South Kensington; he will find institutions such as the Bedford College, and various other bodies where science is specially taught, and he will find a large number of minor colleges and schools in which education, sometimes of a special kind, and sometimes of a general character, is given in almost all cases of a type approaching to the university kind of teaching. There are laboratories, and there are places like the Royal Institution, where scientific investigations and research and lecturing take place, but over and above these he will find a number of institutions which are rapidly springing into life, and increasing their number, such as the polytechnics, in which there is beginning to be given teaching quite of a university kind, attended by men who are earning daily wages, such as clerks, who are unable to attend ex-
  260
  cept in the evening, and the object of which institutions is to introduce amongst the poorer classes the beginning of a university teaching, with the opportunity added, where possible, of obtaining yet more systematic teaching. He will find that in these polytechnic institutions there is some teaching—which is rapidly growing—of a very high type, which a university might be ready to recognise. I know one case in South London where a polytechnic is teaching the application of mathematics to electricity in a way that would be worthy of the higher teaching of the university; in fact, it is given by a very distinguished graduate of Cambridge. Now, that is a movement which is coming into operation more and more widely. The Technical Education Board is spending £170,000 a year in technical education, and that Board is deeply interested in this university. If this university is placed upon a satisfactory basis, that board will come to its aid, and assist it in the development of its work. Now, Mr. Speaker, that being so, what is the object at which a Bill of this kind ought to aim? The object must be this: the teaching of which I speak is scattered, is heterogeneous, and is combined in no common whole, and has no common plan of action. There are, for example, lectures on law given at the University College by distinguished professors on the same topics and the same subjects as the lectures given close at hand at the Inns of Court. These compete, overlap, do the same work, and involve a large waste of educational force simply because there is no centre round which they can cluster and no co-ordination round which they can close. The London School of Economics—where there is some of the finest teaching of applied economics to be found in this country, and probably in the world—in its variety overlaps the work of King's College and University College, and other institutions, and there is no common centre through which that work can be focused and regulated to the best advantage. Well, obviously the first and primary function of this teaching university must be to do what it can to focus that kind of work and harmonise and distribute it so that it may be made to reach the largest number of students. Well, Sir, how is

  261
  that to be done? There I think a certain amount of confusion enters the mind of my honourable Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, and he supposes that our object is probably the same as it was in Manchester and Liverpool. Why, Sir, if we were starting colleges in London, if we were introducing education of a university type for the first time, it would be perfectly true that you would require a great expenditure of money to start erecting buildings and employing professors and so on. When he asks, "Where are the buildings and the money, and where are your professors to come from?" I venture to answer, "We have got the buildings, the professors, and the money, and all we want now is to organise and co-ordinate." We are not starting as they did in Manchester, founding university education for the first time, and what we want to-day is to make existing institutions efficient, and that would be impossible in the present conflict of interests in these bodies, with whose work no university would like to interfere. With all these bodies which you find in London, with objects and privileges of a heterogeneous and multifarious kind, I say that you cannot adopt the type of university which you have in Victoria, and which you have at Oxford and Cambridge, for it would be only mischievous if you tried to set up such a university. It would begin by running against the rock of vested interests; it would end by becoming a close corporation of privileged institutions jealous of new developments. Therefore the Bill proposes to act upon a different footing, and it does not propose to touch the colleges or interfere with their internal affairs. It does not propose to meddle with their schools, but what it does propose is this: the Bill practically says, "We do not want to interfere with you at all, but we have something to offer you if you will co-ordinate your work and raise it up to the high level we ask you to do. We will give your students and teachers the stamp of university recognition; to the students degrees; to the teachers the position of being teachers in a great university." Sir, that is the lever by which the machinery of this Bill is to be set in motion. It will recognise all duly qualified students who have been pro-
  262
  perly taught and who have passed an examination at the university, and who are entitled to the degree as hall-marked with the university stamp, by the selection of the most distinguished teachers. Let me for a moment, if I am not wearying the House, give an illustration. Under the Bill, supposing it were passed into law, you would have your governing body on which, by the way, care has been taken to place the teaching element in a minority. You will have a governing body which I venture to say will be as impartial in its control of the whole matter as any governing body in London. You will have the affairs of the old university on the external side in the main managed by the existing examining body, and you will have them managed separate from the affairs of the teaching body, but both will be under the direction of the general governing body. In the case of the external university its affairs will be managed by the council for external students, which will be constituted with a majority, as honourable Members will see in the schedule, taken from Convocation, from the body which represents the interests of the old university, and free from the control of the teachers as at present constituted. In this way you give Home Rule, if I dare use the expression, to the old university, and you give it in that very complete manner, subject only to the control of this supreme governing body which has control over the whole matter. As regards the teaching university, that is under the academic council, on which the teachers are largely represented, because that is where their work lies, and there the students have to be mainly attended to. How are these teachers brought there? The council does not consist wholly of teachers, but they form a large element of it. They are elected from the élite and most distinguished of the teachers throughout the metropolis of London. Well now, under the control of that committee, the new examination and the new system of re-organising the teaching will be carried out. There will be meetings in which the teachers will discuss their studies; there will be a university extension committee for extending university teaching to evening classes. The student of the new university on its teaching side will be under

  263
  the jurisdiction of the academic council, and when he wishes to enter the university he will have to matriculate, and he will have, in all probability, to pass a pretty stiff examination. He knows that he will not be a student of the university unless he satisfies the university authorities that he is pursuing a prescribed course of study. Members will find the definition in clause 9, which says—
  "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."
  That means that he must be studying under a teacher, an individual teacher, or rather individual teachers, of the university, who may be of the professors of one of the schools of the university, or may be simply teachers of a public institution recognised by the university, but what this student will have to do will be to study under such teachers, and in the end satisfy the university authorities that he has passed proper examinations. Now I come to this. It was put forward by my honourable Friend the Member for Nottingham that the teachers would examine their own students. That is a most misleading statement and representation of what happens. The teacher does not examine his own students, for the examinations will be conducted as at present, not for University or King's College, but for the students of the entire university. They will be conducted by a body of examiners, probably, as at present. There will be two for each subject, of whom one must be a person who is not a teacher at the university at all. It may be that there are topics taught in connection with this university upon which there is not an expert examiner obtainable. Take for instance, original research in Oriental studies; that may be the most desirable thing in the world that a student should carry out under the instruction of a distinguished professor, but it might be difficult to get an expert outside examiner upon that subject. My point is that the student will not be examined by his own teacher under this Bill, for this is guarded against. The
  264
  examiners, it is true, who may be appointed may be teachers, but they are not the teachers who have been teaching the students, for they are drawn from the general body of teachers of the university. They are not the teachers who have been teaching and "coaching" these students in their instruction, and, to say what has been said in some of the pamphlets which had been circulated, that the Bill was one to give the right to a teacher to examine his own students is to say the thing that is not true. Now I have shown that that contention is not true, and I have shown how this Bill works out, but there are one or two other objections with which I should like to deal on this point. It is said that the scheme under the Bill is to grant degrees without examination. Mr. Speaker, that is a monstrous thing to say. This Bill cuts down the existing right of the existing university to grant honorary degrees. It cannot grant such degrees except in certain limited cases under the existing constitution of the old university of which honourable Members are justly proud. Then it is said that it will lower the status of the graduates if this Bill passes. Now, Mr. Speaker, I own that I am very much astonished at this argument put forward, because it has been put forward as a most prominent argument, as one standing by itself, used in order to induce the House to reject this Bill. It is said that the status of the old graduate will be injured, because the degree hanging up in a frame in his house in some distant part of the country may not perhaps be of the same value in the eyes of their fortunate recipients of 20 years ago, in consequence of this proposal to make a London degree obtainable by study under London teachers. I was more particularly astonished at the quarter from which that objection proceeded. I perceived from the newspapers that this Bill was to be opposed by a body called the Radical Committee, which is, apparently, in its corporate capacity, more active in the Press than in this House. Surely this particular body must have forgotten that the movement for establishing a teaching university was initiated by such men as Bentham, Austin, Mill, and Grote. Is it not curious to have a Radical Committee of this day coming forward as the supporters of privilege,

  265
  and asking the House to refuse to establish a teaching university for London because they think the prestige and privileges of the old-fashioned degree of the University of London would be impaired. Well, I confess I blush for them. That being the position of matters and the university itself, I am strongly in favour of the Bill just because the scheme is one which works out as I have shown. There are just one or two matters which I should like, in a very few words, to refer to before I sit down. Honourable Members will ask what is its relation as the Bill now stands to the Cowper Report. I venture to say something upon this because I took an active part in the negotiations on this subject. Thai Report proposed to found a university of the teachers, under whom the students of the university would study somewhat more exclusively in certain colleges than is provided for under this Bill. The aim of this Bill is to enable everybody to be recognised as a teacher of the university who lives within the radius which is described, and who is of sufficient university standing, and who is giving teaching of a sufficiently high standard in a proper institution. King's College, and other institutions, are not in any way interfered with in regard to their privileges and usefulness, but not they but their teachers as individuals are taken into this university scheme and made a constituent part of it, and thereby we get rid of all questions of tests which were suggested in the earlier stage of this Bill. The scope of the enlargement of the schedule which, this Bill proposes is to bring in the best teaching element wherever it may come from. Sir, I repudiate the phrase which has been used in this connection. We desire to make this a great university by faculties of the type of Paris and Berlin rather than Oxford and Cambridge and Victoria, for we wish to draw in the best individual teachers in London. My honourable Friend has spoken somewhat doubtfully of the kind of teaching. Well, the intention is to have men like Professor Ramsay, the discoverer of argon, men, too, like the late Professor Huxley, who was a distinguished advocate of this Bill, and who gave evidence before the Royal
  266
  Commission, in which he laid down a scheme for a university which is now practically embodied in this Bill. In it we propose that you shall have all the best teaching elements in London. Not only this, but the students will have access to the great research establishments, and every inducement would be used to get their teachers to make their teaching such as to fit in with the hall-marking degrees of the university. This university will be in close relation with the polytechnics and the university extension movement, and you will be able to extend to the children of the working classes step by step the opportunity of receiving that cheap and efficient university education which is enjoyed in Scotland and in Germany, but which we know too little of in this England of ours. You will have a chance of dealing with the problem of technical education, and of giving to workmen that class of knowledge which it is absolutely necessary that we should give to them if we are to keep pace with the artisans of Germany and of France. Those interested in the passing of this Bill hope to see it applied, not only in the direction of stimulating lectures during the day, but also a system of evening lectures of a high university type, and in the nature of systematic training. At the other end you will have equal inducements of a different kind. Under the Bill power is taken by the university to pick out and select the most famous teachers and mark them as professors of the university. I know of no greater distinction that could be given to a man who has reached eminence in the profession of university teaching than to be marked as a professor of the great University of London, of that great metropolis which has the largest number of students to draw upon, and which has a scope and ambition such as is given to no other university, and which may be, and, I believe, will be, the greatest institution of its kind, if this Bill passes, in the whole world. These are the reasons upon which those of us who are interested in this Bill appeal to the House to pass it. We feel that it is a Bill which is required, and which is absolutely necessary, and a Bill without which

  267
  university education in London can make no progress. We feel that it is a stigma upon this metropolis that it should, in this respect, be behind all the other great capitals of the world. We feel that we have no chance of reaching the vast public which is available for university teaching and training unless you put this instrument in our hands. Without it we feel that we can take no step forward. We feel that we have produced a well-considered and well thought-out Measure, the result of much consideration and negotiation by some of the most distinguished men who have ever taken part in an attempt to solve this problem. We feel that we have got here a Measure which in itself embodies the best traditions of the past, and which completes the work of Bentham and Austin, of Mill and Grote, of the men who were the pioneers of university education in London; and that it is a Measure which, if it is allowed to bear fruition, will place us in a position at least as good as that of any other metropolis in the world.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I have heard with interest the eloquent speech made by my right honourable Friend who has just sat down. He has spoken of the great advantages of having a teaching university in London, but he did not attempt to show how this would be effected by the Bill. It is, indeed, generally described as a Measure to create a teaching university for London; and much of the strength of the movement is due to the use, or the misuse, of the term "a teaching university." But there is no proposal that the new university should teach. The teaching would be done where it is now, by University College, by King's College, the Medical Schools, the Royal College of Science, the City and Guilds Institute, and so on. The new university will not be a teaching university any more than the present. No doubt the Bill provides that the senate may appoint professors. So we might now, but the Bill gives no funds to pay them with, nor to provide suitable buildings or appliances. In fact, the teaching will continue as at present, but the teachers are to have additional powers over examinations. Is this desirable? My pre-
  268
  decessor, Lord Sherbrooke, felt very strongly on this point. He said—
  "As people talk very much and understand very little about what they call university teaching, I will try and explain the subject. The word 'university' as used at Oxford and Cambridge has two distinct meanings. Its proper meaning is the body incorporated by the Crown, which has by virtue of that incorporation the privilege of conferring a degree. In this sense the universities are not teaching bodies at all. There is, however, another sense in which the word 'university' is used; it is used to include the colleges, and it is in this sense that the term 'university teaching' is used. Now, is the union of teaching and conferring degrees in the same hands a good or an evil?"
  Lord Sherbrooke went on to argue strongly that the duties of teaching and examining should be kept quite distinct. No doubt a Bill which organised and co-ordinated the higher education of London under the university as its head would be valuable. But this Bill does nothing of the kind. It gives the London colleges indirectly some power in the university, but it does not give the university any real power over the colleges. On the other hand it would doubtless be an advantage to bring the university into closer relation with the colleges. This, however, may be secured at too great a cost. Those who have opposed the Bill have, I understand, done so on four main grounds: firstly, that the result might be to imperil the position of science; secondly, that it might put the country colleges and private students at a disadvantage as compared with the candidates from London colleges; thirdly, that it may tend to lower the standard of the degrees; and fourthly, that it takes away the right at present possessed by my constituents to veto any change which, in their judgment, would interfere with the great work being carried on in the university. We are assured that our fears are groundless. Is this so? Other universities are managed, as it is proposed that the London should be, by those engaged in instruction. And what is the result? Several of them have admirable science schools, but London is the only English university which insists that all candidates should be grounded in science. In the encouragement of science the

  269
  University of London has exerted and is exerting, especially through its matriculation examinations, an influence upon secondary schools which can scarcely be overrated, whether we regard the subjects taught or the method of teaching them, and by doing so has determined the education of many times the number of its candidates. Passing on to the second point, it is possible that the provisions may be sufficient to secure the equality of the two sets of examinations, but I cannot say that I am satisfied. The proposal is very novel; there will be two lines of study and two sets of examinations, and yet the degree is to be the same. I admit that the London authorities seem to be satisfied, though I believe that is not the case with all. I am informed, for instance, that the Inns of Court have withdrawn their assent; but have the country colleges expressed any opinion? Those who are not fully conversant with the affairs of the university may not unnaturally ask, what have the country colleges to do with it? But, in fact, the University of London is an Imperial institution. The London colleges, however, send only a small minority of the candidates. No doubt, the Bill is introduced in accordance with the recommendations of a Royal Commission, but the Commissioners have by no means agreed on the question. In the first Commission three members had, to say the least, grave doubts. These three, Lord Kelvin, Sir George Stokes, and Mr. Weldon, said—
  "Considering that the London University (in the capacity of an examining board) has established a high reputation, and is doing a useful work for the whole Empire, and considering the very large number of candidates who present themselves for the various examinations leading up to a degree, we doubt the possibility of effectually combining the functions of an examining and of a teaching university of London."
  Among the members of the second Commission, Bishop Barry entirely disputes—
  "The assumption which has approved itself to the majority of the Commissioners, that it is possible and desirable to combine in one university two wholly distinct functions. The first is the function of a teaching university of London. The other is the function, which the present university has taken up
  270
  and discharged with signal ability and success—the function of an examining university. With this assumption, however, and with the portion of the Report which adopts and defends it, I am obliged to express emphatically my absolute disagreement. A careful consideration of the additional evidence and arguments on the subject laid before us has only strengthened, in my mind, the conviction, expressed in 1888 by the three members of the former Commission, who had the greatest practical experience of education, that there is the gravest doubt as to the possibility of rightly combining these two functions."
  Again, Professor Sedgwick said—
  "It appears to me impossible that examinations specially adapted to the work of the London teachers of science can also be used for external candidates without abandoning the strict and manifest impartiality towards all teaching institutions which it is the pride of the present University of London to maintain. Separate examinations in the department of science will, therefore, be necessary for the two classes of students; and I believe that they will also be found necessary in some subjects at least in the department of arts, if the work of the university is to be maintained at a really high level. At the same time I think that the difficulty of securing an equality of standard in the two sets of examinations will be found very serious, and will, probably, be a continual source of complaint and friction. In short, a dual system of examinations will be tempting but disastrous—a dilemma which is the natural consequence of attempting to satisfy in one organisation two fundamentally different and incompatible views as to the right relation between university teaching and university examinations. … If, however, in the face of this example, the senate and convocation of the existing University of London are willing to accept the transformation, it should be permitted to take place. But if they should not be willing to accept it, I trust that it will not be forced upon them."
  This suggestion brings me to my last point. Why should not the statutes, as Professor Sedgwick wisely suggests, be submitted to Convocation? This would give the country colleges, through their representatives, an opportunity of being heard. They are much mere likely to concur if they do so voluntarily than under compulsion. Moreover, it must be remembered that this would only be recognising the present right of Convocation. The charter expressly provides that no change shall be made without the consent of Convocation, and my constituents value this right very highly. They are proud of their university, and this provision gives them some voice in its affairs. I do not deny the power

  271
  of Parliament. But why should the rights of my constituents be overridden? This Bill is brought forward on the allegation that everyone is satisfied. Then, why not submit the new statutes to Convocation? The plea alleged by the supporters of the Bill is that it is generally, if not universally, approved. Then, why refuse to put this to the test? The recent senatorial election shows that the majority of my constituents are opposed to the Bill. What have my constituents done that they should be deprived of their rights? My right honourable Friend will hardly say that they are not capable of forming an opinion. That would not be an attack on my constituents only, but would strike at the very root of university education. A charter granted by the Crown should surely not be abrogated, except for some strong reason. This change is not proposed in the interest of the university, but of certain colleges. No one will allege that the university is failing in its duty. I have incidentally quoted the strong approval of Lord Kelvin, Sir G. Stokes, and Bishop Barry. May I also refer to the late Lord Derby, a cool and sagacious statesman, not given to exaggeration or unmeasured promise? In one of the last of his wise and instructive speeches he said—
  "The degrees of the London University never stood higher in public estimation. The number of our graduates is continually and steadily increasing, and if we were willing—which we are not—to lower in some measure the high standard of attainment which we require, we could easily raise our numbers to an infinite extent. But with us the main object has always been to keep up the reputation of our degrees. We think that a right policy, and shall persist in it. Our freedom from special connections and the absolute independence of our examiners give us a marked advantage in respect of the value of our degrees. People know that we are not auditing our own accounts. An examiner whose duty requires him to pluck his own pupil thereby, to some extent, seems to condemn his own teaching. He may act with perfect impartiality, but he has to combat a natural reluctance. It has been our aim to avoid all dangers on that score, and I think we have succeeded."
  Indeed, Lord Cowper's Commission in their Report say—
  "The present University of London has done a great work, and has established for its degrees a high reputation."
  272
  The number—the rapidly increasing number—of candidates coming up for examination bears irrefragable testimony to the high position of the university in public estimation, and the valuable services it is rendering to the country. This is, indeed, all the more remarkable as we have comparatively few material advantages to offer. The degree is its own reward. During the first 21 years of the work of the university, ending in 1858, there were 6,000 candidates, an average of less than 300 a year. During the next 37 years there were 100,000 candidates, an average of 2,700 a year. The numbers of our candidates have been: in 1850, 350; 1860, 800; 1870, 1,450; 1880, 2,570; 1890, 5,000; and last year there were 6,300, the largest number we have ever had. No one, then, can allege that the university has failed in carrying out the great work entrusted to it. The members of the Commission are no doubt all men of great eminence and ability. Three of them are well acquainted with the university, but this is not the case with the majority. My constituents cannot foresee on what lines they are likely to proceed. It is not from any personal or selfish view that they wish to preserve their present rights, but in order to secure the power of the university to perform those high duties to education which it now so eminently fulfils. I am satisfied that any wise scheme drawn up by the Commission would be adopted by convocation, and having regard to the constitution of the constituency, and the manner in which they are scattered over the country, I think they should in fairness be allowed to vote as at a senatorial election. I submit, then, to the House that there is no sufficient reason for withdrawing from my constituents the rights graciously accorded to them by the Crown. Those rights they value very highly, not from any selfish motive, but in the interests of the university itself. No one will allege that the university has failed in its duty. It is doing a splendid work, its degrees never stood higher, its numbers are increasing; and my constituents feel that by this Bill you are incurring an unnecessary risk, and taking a step which may involve grave consequences for the higher education of the country.
  Mr. BRYCE: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with due attention to the speech of my right honourable Friend the Member for the London University, and I fail to see why his constituents should object to this Bill. My right honourable Friend did not address himself to the points made by my honourable Friend behind me. The only point which came out clearly from the arguments of my right honourable Friend opposite was that he conceived his constituents were entitled to have a decisive voice with regard to anything done to the University of London. I would, however, remind my right honourable Friend that Convocation has approved of this scheme, though I fail to see that Convocation has any more moral right than legal right to say what should be done with the University of London. I appeal to honourable Members who know something about the universities of Oxford and Cambridge to say whether strong opposition was not raised by the graduates to the reform of these universities; and I do not hesitate to say that, if the reforms passed some 40 years ago, and passed, as everybody now admits, to the greatest possible benefit and advantage both of the country and the universities, had depended on the graduates they would not have been passed at all. My right honourable Friend now takes up a claim which was not admitted for a moment in this House in the case of the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: The colleges were reformed—not the universities.
  Mr. BRYCE: I do not mean that the universities got new constitutions, but the old hebdomadal board was abolished and a new board was established. Do you suppose that Dissenters would ever have been admitted to Oxford and Cambridge if the votes of the country clergy had been taken on that point? Now, let us see what this Bill is intended to do. It is intended to create a real university for London, because the existing so-called University of London is nothing but an examining board. That is a statement of fair fact. The honourable Member for Bolton is surprised that it should be called a London University, because it is an Imperial University. That is
  274
  true. It ought not to be called the London University, or to be called a university at all. The name "university" is traditionally the property of the whole civilised world with the privilege to teach.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: Yes; but the London University is a unique institution.
  MR. BRYCE: I quite agree. It is a unique institution—an interesting experiment, and an experiment in many respects a great success. But it is not a university in the historical sense of the word, and in the sense that Oxford and Cambridge are universities. Its only parallel is the so-called Royal University of Ireland, which is just as feeble and ineffectual as the London University. The object of this Bill, as I understand it, is to give London a real teaching university—one worthy of London and the tradition attaching to London. As was well said by the Member far East Lothian, whose arguments I need not repeat, it is a scheme for organising the teaching of London, and to bring together the different factors now at work, and to correlate them, assigning different functions to each of these colleges by new organisations of faculties, and to re-distribute and re-arrange the large mass of teaching power already at work in London in such a way as to produce far wider and better effects than can be obtained under the present ill-organised and sporadic system. I must admit there is some force in the criticism of my honourable Friend the Member for Bolton. I should have been more satisfied if the Bill did more. I think it is an imperfect Bill, and I do not think it goes far enough in settling the lines on which the new central university should be drawn. In addition to bringing the different bodies together we want a central body invested with power to do many things which none of the existing bodies are strong enough to do. There are many respects in which none of the existing bodies are able to provide teaching of that high order which we ought to have in London; and I should like to say that it is to be the main function of the new university to provide and organise such teaching. But, after all, the Bill is only a beginning; it is beginning very properly by trying to organise

  275
  existing forces before calling new ones into being. I agree with my honourable Friend that I should like the Bill to have gone further; but are we going to reject what we have got, especially as the scheme has been discussed for many years, and had among its warmest advocates scientists like Dr. Huxley and Lord Playfair, who spent many years of their lives advocating it, and died without seeing their hope realised. When I remember all the hope, the energy, and the earnestness that has been thrown into this scheme of a London university, I beseech the House not to lose this opportunity of passing the Bill into law. We have now a chance which may not recur, and we will be making the greatest possible mistake if we lose this Bill, because it is not all that some of us desire. What are the objections taken to the Bill? It is urged that it does not do enough, and that it would injure the existing university. I have said only a few words about the first objection, because it was adequately and fully dealt with by the honourable Member for East Lothian; but I will say a word or two with reference to the harm it is alleged the Bill would do to the existing university. I cannot see in what possible way anybody connected with the present University of London, from the chancellor down to the latest B.A., will suffer from this Bill, or how the graduates can be injured. What were the associations of the honourable Member for Bolton with the university? His associations were merely examinational. For most of us the memories of examinations are not the most pleasant of our university life. I think a bare room and a small table are the things which we may look back upon without resentment, especially if one achieved the class he aimed at; but they are not the most pleasant associations of university life. What we value in our universities is the teaching they gave, the stimulus they imparted to our minds, and the company of our friends, who drank in the same draughts of knowledge from the lips of the same eloquent teachers, and afterwards helped one another to build up our minds. That is what we want to give London, and with every respect for my honourable Friend's sympathies, I think he will find that the London graduate of the future, will be able to look back upon something far better and more inspiriting than even the recollec-
  276
  tions of the examination hall. I submit that we will not injure the existing graduates. We will make the university to which they belong a far more powerful and dignified body, and incidentally enhance the value of its degrees. Why should the degree fall in value? As far as I know, the tendency of a degree is always to rise. I have been myself an examiner of the London University, and Dr. Carpenter, who was then registrar, instructed me at all hazards to pluck as many men as possible to keep up the standard of the degree. I did not take his advice. I did not try to raise the standard of the degree, but to keep it where I found it. Everybody who knows Oxford and Cambridge knows that the standard of the degree is higher than it was. The standard is now higher at all our universities. The tendency of these standards is to go on rising, and I should be extremely surprised if, as a result of any change made in the London University, there should be any decline. I certainly do not see what the existing graduates have in the way of vested interests to entitle them to be heard. Why are they to be allowed to deprive London of higher degrees because they entertain a fear, for which there is no ground, that the standard of the degree which they had 30 years ago may sink lower than it is now? That is an untenable pretension altogether. Then I come to the question of examination by teachers. Now, it is said that these examinations would be conducted by teachers; but they would not be conducted by teachers in any other sense than that recognised at present. I happen to be a senator in the University of London, and I know that a large number of the examiners are persons teaching in the colleges which sand up candidates for examination, and nobody complains of it. It will be in the future, then, as it was in the past. The House is no doubt aware that this system was in force in the Scotch universities. The professors alone examined. That was a perfectly fair system of examination, and I never heard anything against it. Some years ago a new plan was introduced, under which external examiners were associated with the professors, and the best results were obtained. That is the plan which will be adopted under this scheme. The

  277
  same plan was introduced into the Victoria University, the latest born of British universities, except the University of Wales, and the satisfactory results achieved justify the assurance that there would be no risk on this account. You cannot have anybody except a teacher as an examiner. In most branches of study there are comparatively few qualified to be examiners except teachers, and not only are teachers the best examiners, but teaching is a qualification for examination, which is more difficult than is often supposed. You cannot keep abreast of a subject unless you are teaching it, and unless you keep abreast of it you cannot examine on it properly, and the knowledge gained by the examiner in teaching enables him to bring out the salient points of the subject. I therefore, think that the argument with regard to teachers acting as examiners really falls to the ground, and that the scheme proposed in the schedule is a very fair scheme. Of course, something must be left to the judgment of the Commissioners and the fairness of the senate. As pointed out by the honourable Member for East Lothian, every interest will be represented, and there appears to be every guarantee that the balance between internal and external students will be fairly kept. I venture to think, on a view of the whole, matter, that it cannot be shown that any injury at all will be done to the existing university. The work of teaching is incomparably more important than the work of examining. In fact, the degrees of all our universities are of less value than the work which contributed to them. Degrees, as I can say from experience of several universities, are not so important as many people are inclined to believe. Much superstition attaches to them, but their real use ought to be to test teaching, and to ac as a stimulus to study, and the more they are made subordinate to teaching, and to help it, instead of prescribing what it should be, the better for the universities and the country. We have waited a long time for this Bill. We have tried many schemes, and several of them have failed, and we are driven to accept this scheme, which is the result of very long and painstaking negotiation. It
  278
  has received the unanimous support of all the teaching bodies entitled to speak, and also the unanimous support—I venture to differ from my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London—of the leading scientific men. I have been talking to many of them, and there is not one of them who is not anxious to have a teaching university set up in London; and some of them, who are men of great scientific eminence, cannot conceive that there is any foundation for the fear that science teaching, or science examination, would suffer under the proposed university. That is the last danger into which the new senate is likely to fall. I believe, Sir, that the people of London, the teachers of London, and all who have the well-being of London at heart, and who desire the extension of technical education, and who would like better facilities given to the humbler classes, are all united in desiring that we should have some scheme of this kind passed. I earnestly hope that this scheme will have the support of both political parties, because we on this side brought in a Bill in 1894, and a Commission to carry it out was contemplated. I earnestly hope the House will pass the Second Reading.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take part for a few moments in this Debate, partly because I am a London Member, and partly because I have had the honour of gaining some distinctions in the University of Dublin, which in many of its methods is not altogether different from the university now under discussion. At that university—the University of Dublin—it is customary to enable students who are unable to attend all the lectures, owing to want of means, to substitute for certain lectures examinations, and that has been followed with very valuable results—namely, that large numbers of students who would otherwise be deprived of receiving a university education are enabled to secure it. It is a method which is advantageous in the hands of a self-made man who would be otherwise debarred from receiving that university education. It has been dwelt upon by almost all the speakers that there is a great necessity for a teaching university for London. In that we all cordially

  279
  agree, but I fail to see why this teaching university should be brought to life by strangling the existing University of London. That university can in no way interfere with the great teaching universities. I venture to assert that no student who could by any possibility enter Oxford or Cambridge would dream of going to the University of London. No one who requires the advantages of culture and companionship would dream of entering London University when he has Oxford or Cambridge. Therefore this London University stands upon a different basis to almost every other university. This has been stated to be a purely examinational board, and as such it should be maintained, because I ask, has it, or has it not, fulfilled the purposes for which it is intended? Has it not been the means of furnishing a large number of competent men to almost all the schools and colleges, not only throughout the country, but throughout the Empire? I venture to assert—in fact, I think it is acknowledged—that these schools and colleges that are unable to afford men from Oxford, Cambridge, and other universities, with honours and degrees, invariably select London men. Where a schoolmaster requires a good all-round man, I think it is counted that the London pass degree is superior to all other pass degrees. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you attempt to build up a sham teaching university on the ruins of this educational University of London, or this educational board, as I am prepared to call it, you then destroy its value as an educational board. Now, this university has been founded upon two great principles. The first principle is that they do not ask where that knowledge which is necessary for the degree has been obtained. In fact I think it was stated, I believe publicly, by those who are in favour of this Bill—by some advocates of this Bill, at any rate—that when this Bill had passed we should see no more of the cobbler from Cornwall presenting himself for a degree. Well, Sir, my view is that the more cobblers from Cornwall we get to present themselves for the degree of the University of London the better. It is stated that these educational establishments throughout London will benefit. Why, Sir, of course the Bill is made for these institutions. You are going to destroy
  280
  the other great principle, you are going to destroy the independence and impartiality of the examining test, for it cannot be denied that a certain number of the teachers in these favoured institutions, like University College, King's College, and the City Guild Schools, and others—that a certain proportion of the teachers of these schools are to be on the Board of Examination, and it may be supposed that at some time they may preponderate. Now, I ask, what would be thought of the suggestion that for the open competitive examinations for the Army a certain number of distinguished crammers for the Army should be placed on the Board of Examination? Why, Sir, the result would be that the schools of these particular professors would be filled. And that is exactly what this Bill is promoted for. It is promoted in the interests of certain London institutions which provide altogether not much more than 25 per cent. of the students. It is a manœuvre in their interests, in order that they may fill their classes by getting their pupils to pass an educational test on a lower standard than that passed by their predecessors. I admit that it is a very good and a very useful thing to sit at the feet of Gamaliel, but that Gamaliel should himself afterwards become an examining party is, I think it will be admitted, a somewhat large order. Again, much has been said about convocation, and it has been attempted to show that there was a consensus of opinion with reference to this change. Now, Sir, I am disposed to think, and more especially when we see my distinguished Friend Mr. Fletcher Moulton elected at the head of the poll, upon an occasion when this was made the test, that it cannot be said that there is a consensus of opinion. What does this Bill go to do? It does not improve in any way the education of London; it simply baptises it. We are all proud and are glad, that so much good and valuable work should be done by the Polytechnic schools and other institutions throughout London, but I fail to see in what way the education now given in any of these schools will be improved one particle by the passage of this Bill. It has been suggested that the existing institutions should be utilised. Well, Sir, these institutions are being utilised for the pur-

  281
  pose of converting the existing London University into a teaching university. If it is desired to establish a teaching university for London, that teaching university should be a real, and not a sham, teaching university. It should be, so to speak, an Imperial university. It has been pointed out how large is the number of those who pass through the University of London, namely, some 6,000 annually—more than double the number passing through the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge combined. Therefore the London University has not failed in any one purpose for which it was established; and it has furnished large numbers of teachers to the Colonies. Now, I ask, will the teaching be more effective when this Bill has passed? On the contrary, you will find that the degree will be lowered, the university will be degraded, and you will be robbing the former graduates of the university of a vested interest. These men have passed difficult examinations, for the most part with great self-denial. I myself have personal recollections of being deeply indebted to a man of most humble origin for a training in Oriental languages. This man was nothing but a schoolmaster in an infantry regiment in India. He passed the highest examinational tests in Oriental languages, came back to Aldershot to continue his duties as regimental schoolmaster, and he has now risen to occupy the distinguished position of Inspector of Her Majesty's Schools. That is only one example you will find among scores and hundreds and thousands of men right throughout the country, nay, I will say right throughout the Empire, who, from the humblest origin, have, by means of this university, by the degree they have obtained at this London University, acquired this hall-mark, if I may so speak of it—this stamp—as regards their educational capabilities, and have been placed in the position of being able to earn their bread honourably and with great distinction. I am altogether opposed to this Bill, because it is in all respects anti-democratic. It is against the interests of the poor man. It prevents mien of humble origin, from showing of what metal they are made, and of obtaining a worthy means of so doing; for if you rob them of this degree, or of the
  282
  possibility of getting this degree without residence, you are placing them at a disadvantage as compared with the man whose parents or friends are in such a position as to enable him to attend one of these favoured institutions in London. You are placing all those who are removed at a distance from the metropolis in the worst of positions. We, I say, as a people are the last people who ought to do anything to frustrate any of the aspirations of the humbly born man. Is it not a fact that some of the great mechanical contrivances, and the contrivances which have revolutionised the world, have been done by men humbly born and self-taught? Arkwright, the inventor of the spinning jenny, Stephenson, Watt, all these men were self-made men; they were men who acquired their own knowledge. And what does this London University do? What is it established for the purpose of doing? What but to enable such men, when they have acquired knowledge, no matter by what means, to receive a degree which enables them to prove, so far as it can be proved, that they possess certain qualifications? I do not for one moment mean to underrate the value of high teaching. I have been fortunate enough to have had the advantage of being educated at three of the most important training institutions this country, and therefore I do not wish in any degree to make light of valuable teaching. But I do say that it is not right, nor just, to prevent the man who has not the good fortune to be born in that position from obtaining, as it were, an imprimatur for the knowledge he has obtained. I will venture to assert that men who have acquired this knowledge by self-denial, and only with great difficulty, and under the most disadvantageous circumstances, in nine cases out of 10 are superior as teachers to men who have acquired their knowledge otherwise. I hope most sincerely that all those who are interested in giving that chance to the self-made man which the self-made man ought to have will oppose this Measure.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: With some of the arguments which my honourable Friend has addressed to this House I am in entire accord, but I venture to say those arguments should have

  283
  been addressed to the House in favour of the Bill. I have good reason to support this Measure, because I have had some practical experience of the necessity of some such Measure to benefit the education of the middle classes of London. I thoroughly agree with all that has fallen from the last speaker with regard to the advantage of helping self-made men, but I fail to see that this Bill in any way prevents that work being accomplished; on the contrary, I think it rather widens and extends it. I speak as one who has not had the advantage of a university education, but I speak with some feeling, because, having been a member of the society of which my learned Friend the Member for Plymouth [Sir Edward Clarke] is the most brilliant student, I feel that many of us who have achieved whatever position in life we have secured through the education we received at that college have been deprived by the present position of the University of London from having that hall-mark of which the last speaker has spoken. So far from this Measure being anti-democratic, in my humble opinion it is, as all democratic Measures should be, truly democratic—because there are two aristocracies, an aristocracy of birth and an aristocracy of learning. Fortunately in this country, the aristocracy of learning can always acquire for itself a place alongside the aristocracy of birth. This Measure gives to London what Wales already enjoys; and I fail to see that when we have granted to Wales a university of her own, we should refuse to give this great province of London, with its five millions of people—who, at all events, would be able to make use of the educational system which this Bill establishes—what has already been given to Wales. Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary to argue in this House that because the members of the Convocation of the University of London have elected Mr. Fletcher Moulton as their representative, this House is to reject this Measure. Mr. Fletcher Moulton was, of course, at one time or another a brilliant Member of this House. He has represented several constituencies, but on no occasion for more than one Parliament, and the reason is not far to seek. Mr. Fletcher Moulton is one of those brilliant minds who affect democratic principles in politics, but fail to
  284
  realise what are the real wants of the Democracy itself. I think this Bill does a good deal for the profession of which I am a humble member, in following out the line which Lord Russell sketched out for a teaching faculty for the study of law. The very fact that it incorporates in the senate body representatives from the four Inns of Court and from the Law Society, does a good deal to supply what Lord Russell has been so strongly urging for a long time past upon the members of his own profession, namely, the necessity of making the study of law more a science, and the profession of law something of that hall-mark which the honourable Member has said, and said very properly, members do desire to secure for themselves. Well, now, what are the arguments against this Measure? They are arguments which I could understand if they were addressed from this side of the House by old-fashioned Members of the Party to which I belong, but they cannot be arguments which should have any weight in this House when addressed from that side from Members who believe in an equality of opportunity. That is one portion of the programme of my honourable Friend opposite to which I always wish to bear my tribute of support, and I venture to say this Measure of the Government is one which, though to some extent it is in the nature of a compromise, does offer that equality of opportunity to the five millions of the people of London which hitherto has been denied to them. I know why some of this opposition is levelled against the Bill. I am one, perhaps, of a very few Members who read certain so-called religious papers which appear in the interests of gentlemen on the other side, and there seems to be a fear that there is to be a theological faculty. Well, I do not think this House will trouble itself upon that matter. But I do appeal to this House, as one who has been personally associated with the City of London College now for 30 years, first of all as a student, then as a member of the committee, and now as one of the vice-presidents, on behalf of 2,000 students who year after year are entering that college, who are devoting their evenings to the work of higher education, to grant them that which they ardently desire—namely, the same opportunity of obtaining

  285
  university training and a university degree that is given—and given very justly—to the fortunate residents of the Principality of Wales. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is it that the Convocation of the University of London objects to in this Measure? Their policy is one of intellectual selfishness, and nothing else. The members of the Convocation of the University of London are doing what I was brought up to imagine the universities of Oxford and Cambridge would have done one hundred years ago. They are showing that a body which was created in opposition to spiritual tests and to theological narrowness is pursuing a policy of intellectual narrowness which, in my humble opinion, is far worse than any policy of opposition to reform of which the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have been guilty. The honourable Member who has just sat down has dwelt with great eloquence upon the example of a teacher of Oriental languages, who has risen to his present eminence as an inspector of schools from being a regimental schoolmaster in one of Her Majesty's regiments. But, Mr. Speaker, whilst that one brilliant character, by his opportunity of being in an Oriental country and being gifted with the power of acquiring Oriental languages, has so risen, how many are there in this great city who might have been able to follow his example if the University of London had been a teaching university instead of only an examining body, and have been able to lift, as they could lift, the bright and brilliant students from our different polytechnics in this Metropolis to that position which by university teaching they might obtain? I can speak in this matter from personal experience; I can recall men who were my fellow students, some still in this country and others scattered over different countries of the world, who in my humble opinion are much more brilliant than myself, but wh oave remained in the walks of business because opportunities have not been afforded to them. Well, I am not ashamed to own that I have seen better men than myself passed in the race of life. But I do say this: it is for that very reason that I contend a Measure like this should have the support of those Members who
  286
  pose as friends of the people. I know that year after year in this great city of London, and in Greater London outside, there are young men who are willing and anxious for this university teaching, which at present they are unable to receive. It is because this Measure brought forward by the Government provides that university ladder which I believe is so greatly desired, and because, in my opinion, it is one of a strongly democratic character—for all good democratic Measures should be eminently conservative when they are applied to the arts and learning—that I appeal, at all events, to Members on this side of the House to support the Second Reading, and not to be frightened by suggestions that the self-made man will be effaced. The self-made man will be helped, and in place of one self-made man who, by his own intellectual capacity, has been able to secure the university degree, I venture to say we shall have hundreds. We shall, at all events, have done this: we shall have provided that opportunity for ascending the ladder which many earnest members of the middle class community in London have had denied to them, simply because they lived in London and had not the means of pursuing a university career at the more ancient seats of learning. For that reason I appeal to the members of the University of London in this House to give this Measure loyal support, because it is really a democratic Measure, and because it attempts, and I believe will secure, that intellectual equality which, in my humble opinion, is far better than a mere political gain.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: As a member of the Convocation of the University of London I desire to make a few observations upon the topics suggested by this Bill. I intend to be as brief as possible, because many points that had occurred to me have been anticipated by the preceding speakers who spoke in support of the Measure. But there was one point which struck me, in listening to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London, which took me by surprise. He rather indicated that, in his view, this is a Bill introducing some great change in the constitution of the University of London and something

  287
  which conflicted with the objects of the promoters of the institution. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned to-night—certainly not in any speech that I have heard—that the University of London was started as a teaching university. A sum of £160,000 odd was subscribed, chiefly by people living in London, or whose business interests were centred in London, and the original institution was of a purely voluntary character, and has since developed into a chartered institution. The University College of London was started, I think, in the year 1828, as a teaching university or college. It was not incorporated; it had no power to grant degrees. It was in 1835 that, in consequence of a Minute issued by the Privy Council, the University of London as a degree-granting body was founded, and before that change had taken place King's College had been started, upon somewhat different lines, and somewhat different principles, from the institution in Gower Street, London, as a chartered body. The University of London was founded shortly after this Minute of the Privy Council was issued, and it was started with the idea of only conferring degrees upon persons who had received a proper training, either in University College or in King's College, or in some college affiliated to the university; and from the year 1836, when the university became a practical and working institution, down to the year 1858, the degrees were only conferred upon candidates who could show to the university that they had attended two years' course of study of an approved kind either at King's College or University College, or one of the other affiliated colleges. It was in 1858 that the change took place in the university, and, in consequence of the new charter granted in 1858, the university developed into what it has been, as I unhesitatingly say, a mere examining board. Now, I am not, Mr. Speaker, concerned to deny that the University of London has been a university of great public utility. It would be certainly very ungrateful on my part to do so, but some of those who have spoken to-night in its favour have, I think, shown a tendency to exaggerate the utility of the university in its present form. I have read the pamphlets referred to
  288
  by a preceding speaker, and I have heard, both in public and private, a great many reasons urged against this Bill; but it seems to me, Sir, that much of what the opponents of the Bill say is vitiated by a wholly false theory as to the true aim and function of a university. They talk of a degree—I think my honourable Friend behind me [Captain Norton] referred to it in that way—as if a degree were an object in itself, as if the object of a university were merely to hall-mark its men. I take quite a different view. In my view, if the qualities which a degree should denote are absent, its possession is, from the point of view of the general community, utterly valueless, and if it is valuable to the individual it is only by a species of subtle imposture. The true aim of a university is not to turn out men who have answered a certain number of questions in a particular way, or to give degrees to men full of somewhat undigested information—walking encyclopædias. The true object of a really genuine university is to turn out men who have been, trained in the different faculties or departments of learning, who are able, in consequence of their training, to form sane and reasonable judgment upon problems of life as they arise in different businesses and in different professions, and in the rarer case of those who can devote themselves to a career of study—men competent to advance the sum of human knowledge by properly directed research, and by wise and scholarly speculation. I may not perhaps have expressed myself with the elegance which some of those who are actually concerned in teaching work would be able to do, but I think I have put such persons interested in this question in the possession of the sort of idea I have as to the kind of university we ought to have. The London University has not been performing this work in any conspicuous degree. It has been giving these degrees merely as the result of examination. I should have much preferred myself if the Government had the courage—though I am not blaming the Government for not having done it—to adopt for London the same method adopted in the case of Wales. The Government, as the

  289
  result of the investigation which took place in regard to higher education in Wales in the year 1881, established three colleges, and those three colleges are now State-aided. But the colleges rebelled against the London University. The colleges demanded that they should have a freer hand in regard to their teaching than was possible under the ironbound system of the London University. The Privy Council accepted that. The decision of the Privy Council, after some legal negotiations and discussions, was endorsed by the Government of the day. Well, precisely a similar question, raised in regard to Wales, is now raised in regard to the metropolis and the home counties. We took the trouble to enter into these negotiations and consider all the complicated questions in regard to the founding of a new national institution, and we came to the conclusion that there was no real and substantial demand in the 13 counties we call Wales for a mere examining university. Our point was that you should do everything to encourage men to go to these national colleges. All sorts and conditions of men subscribed exhibitions and scholarships in order to send people to the colleges. Our view is that the purposes of higher education are best served by giving every encouragement to men to go to such institutions and come into contact with good teachers day after day. It is true that they do not have all that amenity of life which is ordinarily associated with our ancient universities. In that respect we could not compete with Oxford or Cambridge. We felt that in starting a university it was worth while doing it on lines similar to those which, on the whole, have secured the admiration of the civilised world. I want to say one or two words on another point, but still in the way of criticising the system of the London University. There are evils connected with it. I assert—and I have not heard any answer to what has already been asserted to-night—that the London University in its present form hampers the education of students of the different educational institutions of he metropolis and neighbourhood. I will give you an instance. I think the honourable and learned Gentleman who spoke before me referred
  290
  to law. Now, I was a student—I am bound to give concrete illustrations—I was a student of law in University College. With regard to jurisprudence, which is in many ways the most interesting part of the curriculum, and which affords the best discipline for any young man who proposes to enter the legal profession, the curriculum is absolutely the same as it was in 1863. When I first attended classes I found that Professor Sheldon Amos was desirous of initiating us, by giving lectures, into some of the Continental systems of law; but he knew the very suggestion of it would ruin the classes. We wanted to work for this examination of the London University; we had no option; we had to read "Austin's Jurisprudence." I will not say anything as to the advantages or disadvantages of reading "Austin's Jurisprudence." You have here the evil of this examining board system in a concrete instance. Here was an eminent teacher, ready and willing to give a course of lectures to students who would be willing to listen to them if by doing so they could improve their minds, yet he could not do so because the rigid regulations of the London University. It is said further that vested interests are attacked. Of course it is agreed that this is not at all the case of a Bill that is interfering with a college university corporation which has property, and the income of which is divided according to its statutes among its members. The only vested interest is the general status or consideration or worth that is attached to its degrees. That is what my honourable Friend on my right suggested. Well, how are the rights of the present graduates of the university in any way affected? I never understood the market value of a London degree. My experience on more than one educational board is that the market value of a London degree is not of itself very high. The question was always asked with regard to a man who was a graduate of the university: "Yes, but where was he educated? Was he educated at University College or King's College, or was he at Oxford or Cambridge?" That is a question which practical men to my knowledge have been asking. Supposing that this Bill passes, a person with a London degree applying for an appoint-

  291
  ment in one of our teaching institutions can always say, "Why, I became a graduate of the University of London before the Bill passed; the value of its degree is immense; I am one of its old graduates." So far as the present graduates are concerned, I cannot see how their position or status or privileges are in any way affected. The only other persons affected are those who intend to come up some time or other to take university degrees, and they have no vested interests at all in the matter. What I say is that people who have no vested rights in the educational system have no reason to complain. But there is a similar answer to it under the Bill which my honourable and learned Friend near me has pointed out as far as external students are concerned. The Bill will make no serious practical alteration whatever in regard to persons coming for degrees after private study. The Bill on the whole seems to be an honest and practical attempt to introduce a better organisation of higher education in the metropolis, and it is for that reason I support it.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I want to mention what appears to me a serious difficulty. I cannot altogether subscribe to the view placed before the House earlier in the evening by the honourable and learned Gentleman opposite, though I do agree that the Bill is likely to do much to intensify the educational forces in London and the neighbouring district; and that is a great advantage. The Bill if it ended there would have my whole and hearty support. But without going into details on the general question I must confess that there is a very great difficulty. I will give you a concrete example. My trouble is with reference to the relative positions of the external and the internal student of the future. I do not myself believe that the graduates of London are likely to be injuriously affected by this Bill. Those who have already attained their degree are not likely to be injured; my fears on that point are altogether removed. Let me take this illustration. A special examination is set up by the Education Department for school teachers, and there are a large number of training colleges
  292
  who send their students now annually to London to matriculate for the intermediate and final degree examination as a complete qualification for the work of school teachers. Of these students who come from training colleges within a 30-mile radius, many will sit for one examination and hold one qualification as internal students. The majority of the students who matriculate at London are external students; they are not provided with residence. The persons mainly interested are outside the 30-mile radius. If this Bill passes, and there seems every reasonable prospect of its being passed, what will be the position of the students who come from, say, Cheltenham or York or Brighton, or any of those colleges outside the 30-mile radius? The students are working for one examination; they are qualifying for the holding of one office. Those who are beyond the 30-mile radius will sit for one examination, framed by one examining board, and they will sit as external students. Those who have the good fortune to find a residence in training colleges, formed on exactly the same lines but within the 30-mile radius, will sit for another examination framed by another examining board and will sit as internal students. I am afraid there will be a double standard set up—a standard for external students and a standard for internal students. Under one clause of the schedule the students who seek to qualify as internal students may elect if they think fit to take examination as external students. Now, why on earth may not the external students have the same opportunities granted to them? In fact, why may not the whole of these students, whether internal or external, sit for one examination under one examining board, so that there will not be any possibility of anything being set up between students trained outside the 30-mile radius and those trained within the 30-mile radius. That is a great difficulty I have in dealing with this Bill. As was pointed out by the mover of the Amendment the majority of the persons sitting for the London examination are persons who have not been in residence within the metropolitan area; they are people who come up from the districts outside, and so far as one can see into the near future, the majority of persons who take their de-

  293
  grees in London will be external students. There is the danger that they will be placed in an unfavourable position. I want to press this upon those who are supporting this Bill. Is there any reason why one examination should not be the examination both for external and for internal students? I cannot relieve my mind from the uncomfortable feeling that there is something behind this double examination. It may be to set up a more favourable condition for those who have the good fortune to reside within the metropolitan area. What is really the object of this double examination? You ought to bring your examination into harmony with your teaching by all manner of means. I dislike very much indeed the cramming for mere passed and the overestimate that is attached to them rather than to the actual work. The latter ought to be the object aimed at by all. I therefore should favour very strongly indeed the teaching university rather than the mere examining board, and I am hopeful that when this Bill passes the number of students resident within the London area will very materially increase, and that greater opportunities will be afforded to them. I am not prepared to buy that advantage at the cost of the larger number who will seek their degree at the London University from beyond the 30-mile radius; and I strongly impress upon those in charge of this Bill the practical difficulties which lie there. I am perfectly certain that a large amount of opposition to this Bill arises from the dread that the external student will in the future be placed at a very serious disadvantage, that he will have to take another examination, and probably a more difficult one than any taken by the internal student; and the chance of his taking his degree in London will be diminished thereby. This perhaps might rather be pressed in Committee, for it may now be regarded as detail. But it is detail of such great importance as may make or mar the success of the Bill. I attach a very considerable amount of interest to it, because I know that in these training colleges the passage of this Bill is regarded with grave apprehension. They conceive that if this double standard is set up it becomes evident that the internal student will have
  294
  a greater advantage. There will consequently be a rush to the London colleges. There would, in that event, be a destruction of the colleges beyond the metropolitan area, which, I believe, the country would very much regret, because one does not want to concentrate in London the advantages of university education, but to extend it as far as possible. You have by a special clause included the Wye College. Why not go beyond that and include other colleges as well? Why not abolish this double examination and include both external and internal students? I do not desire to repeat my arguments on this point, but it is the only difficulty which bears upon my mind in regard to the Second Reading of the Bill. I conceive the Bill will not only do very much for university education in London, but the impetus that will, be given to education in the metropolitan area will probably react on primary and secondary education, which will be of very material advantage to the country generally. If the difficulty with regard to external students can only be got over, my belief is that a very large amonnt of opposition will melt away.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: During this Debate many and warm encomiums have been pronounced on the University of London, and in my opinion one of its greatest excellences has been its perfect freedom from sectarianism. I therefore approach this Bill with a jealous desire to maintain that most honourable tradition, and to a certain extent the Measure satisfies my requirements, while in other respects it falls short of them. For instance, the schedule of the Bill provides that no religious test shall be adopted. Nothing could be better than that; but in the third clause there is a curiously contradictory provision. A sub-section of the Bill states that—
  "The statutes or regulations, whether they are made by the Commissioners 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: 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

  295
  apparatus to be used by him, notwithstanding any conditions attached to any office held by him in any school of the university."
  I cannot but think that this is a saving clause which has been inserted in the Bill for the benefit of King's College. I heard with great surprise the statement of the honourable and learned Member for Haddington that King's College was not to be a constituent of the university. What are the facts? In my opinion King's College is too strongly represented in the Commission which is to be appointed under this Bill. The Commission is to consist of seven members, and two out of the seven are officially connected with King's College. One is life governor, and the other is a member of the council. Why the Bishop of London, or any bishop, should be a commissioner, when Nonconformists are not represented, I do not know. Then, in addition, King's College is to appoint two of the members of the senate of the university; and it is probably the only sectarian institution which will have that right. I venture to say that it would not be allowed to possess it at either Oxford or Cambridge. What is the constitution and character of the college which is thus specially favoured? Its charter originally provided that all its studies should be in conjunction with instruction in the doctrines of the Church of England, and every professor, except the professors of Oriental literature and foreign languages, is obliged to be a member of the Church of England. Indeed, I think that every official in the college, down to the beadle at the gate, must be a Churchman. It may be further said that the college is obstinately sectarian; for many years ago the Duke of Devonshire's Commission on scientific instruction recommended the college authorities to obtain a new charter and abolish the religious test. They went still further, in expressing the opinion that the Parliamentary grant ought not to be continued unless that step were taken. Instead of adopting that course, the college obtained an Act of Incorporation which maintained the exclusive system without any alteration. What has the college done to entitle itself to this exceptional treatment? The inquiry is partly answered by a Report of the Committee appointed by the present
  296
  Government to inquire into the condition and working of the several colleges receiving the Parliamentary grant. That Report spoke in high terms of all the colleges with one exception, and that exception was King's College. The Report damned the college with the faintest praise. If you doubt that, listen to this single passage from the Report—
  "On the arts side it cannot be said that at present any amount of work of a high standard is being done in the college. In arts proper we found practically no honour work being done. Most of the work, both in arts and science, is of an elementary kind, although it is very difficult to form an estimate of the results of the work in arts and science."
  If honourable Gentlemen opposite need any more of the like kind, I can give them further extracts. The only department of the college of which the Report speaks, highly is the Theological Faculty, and the fact is that King's College is mainly a training school for theological teaching of the Church of England. Well, that is a legitimate object; but if the Church chooses to have a strictly denominational college it cannot claim for such an institution national support. Further, King's College may be described as being obstinately sectarian, because some years ago the Duke of Devonshire's Commission recommended that King's College should obtain a new charter abolishing religious tests; and, further, they recommended that the Parliamentary grant's continuance should be made conditional on the college adopting that step. But, instead of doing that, the King's College authorities obtained a new charter of incorporation, in which all the old tests were maintained in their integrity. The college has had the opportunity of freeing itself from these ecclesiastical restrictions, and it has thought fit not to avail itself of them.
  SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Honourable! Members say "Hear, hear!" Of course, King's College has a right to maintain its position as a strictly sectarian institution, but it ought not to come to Parliament for advantages which accrue to strictly unsectarian institutions. I have too painful a remembrance of the difficulties which had to be encountered

  297
  in the abolition of the ecclesiastical tests in the ancient universities not to watch with, jealousy any step in a wrong direction in newer institutions, and my opinion is that in proportion as the influence of King's College prevails in the councils of those who bring this university into existence public confidence will be impaired, and the fear will be entertained that the London University of the future will not enjoy the just reputation it has had in the history of the past.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: So many Members on this side of the House have taken part in this important Debate that I should hesitate to add to their number were it not that I mainly wish to speak from a point of view which, so far as I know, has not yet been taken up by any speaker. We have heard the views of gentlemen who wished to speak as members of Convocation of the University of London, or as members of the Senate of the University of London, or as graduates of the University of London. I am going to speak from the standpoint of a much less attractive personality—that of the university examiners. A good many Member's of this House have from time to time served in the University of London. I myself happen to have served as an examiner in the University on eleven occasions for a period of eleven years. Mainly—in fact, entirely—in the University of London I have been confined to the subject of law; but it so happens that I am able to compare my experience of the University of London with a similar experience in a good many other institutions of a similar kind. I have discharged the same functions in the University of Oxford, in the University of New Zealand, in the University of Durham, in Victoria University, and in the Inns of Court. My experience throughout, with the single exception of Durham, has been confined to the law schools. In Durham it was confined to theology, but I am afraid that was a very long time ago. I know that I was an impartial judge on that subject. May I contrast my point of view with that of my honourable Friend the Member for Bolton, who moved the rejection of this Bill in a speech to which I wish to do all justice?
  298
  I think it was the most able speech from that side of the House which has been made in the course of the Debate, and I confess I was somewhat astonished to find that so strong a case could be made out against the Bill by my honourable and, I will add, my learned Friend. His experience is different from mine. He speaks from the opposite side of the Table. He has a passion for examinations. To most of us examinations have come as a sad experience in our lives, but my honourable Friend has sought examinations for the love of them. In the intervals of business, he has told us, he qualified not only for the University, of London degree, but for distinctions of a still higher character. I venture to think that if my view may be considered somewhat biased, his may be considered so from the other side. Before I proceed to tell the House what I wish to say about the University of London system from the inside, let me say that I agree, to some extent, in what was said by the Member for West Ham as to the difficulty of a system of external and internal examinations. That is, no doubt, a serious difficulty, but I think the danger he apprehended is the result of a misapprehension. He seemed to think that if you have an external examination and an internal examination the internal examination would become the lower standard and the external the higher. If I may speak from my own experience, I say that if there be a danger it is precisely in the opposite direction. It is, in fact, probable that the examinations ever which the professors have some control would have the higher standard. But I think it would be an awkward thing to have the possibility of a double standard set up for the same degree, and I therefore hope that in Committee some Amendment may be introduced dealing with that matter. There is another matter, and that is the objection taken by the Member for Nottingham, who has just sat down. I entirely agree with the spirit in which he has spoken, but I do not believe that at this time of day it is practicable to exclude theology as a scientific subject from the scope of university education. There are those who say that theology cannot be a scientific subject at all, but it may be a subject of scientific study, and I think it would do more harm than good

  299
  if it were now excluded from the scope of our university system. The subject of theology is recognised in Scotland, without much damage to anybody. It is a subject in which degrees are taken by students who compete against each other, although their ecclesiastical connections may be hostile. I do not think any harm has happened in Scotland from that state of things. There is a still more recent example. In the University of Wales theology has been deliberately admitted. I have every reason to believe that the experiment in Wales has been entirely successful. But the practical question, on the Second Reading of this Bill, of course, is this: is it desirable to have a teaching university in London at all? It seems to me that that is the question which the House has to decide. In other words, is the existing University of London sufficient for the higher educational needs of London? Now, I have noted with the utmost satisfaction that even on the part of those who say they are going to oppose this Bill there has been the strongest expression of desire for a teaching university in London. Another small point is this: in some way or other it is conceived that the existing University of London will be injured by the institution of this new body. Well, the alternative of that—which must be accepted by those who declare that they are in favour of a teaching university—is to have two universities; but if you have two universities in London, one consisting entirely of internal students, and another of external students, the result, undoubtedly, would be a degradation of the present position of the University of London. Therefore, I think the Senate and the Convocation of the university have been wisely advised in assenting, as I believe they have done, to a proposal which now comes before the House, not merely on the authority of the present Government, but with the full weight of authority of the last Government, with the support of the Liberal Party. I hope, therefore, that the Measure will not be regarded as a party one at all, but one in which both sides agree. Now, to come to my experience as an officer of the University of London. I think no one who knows that institution, can help asserting, with perfect confidence, the value of the work which it has done for London and the Empire. My experience,
  300
  as I have said, has been confined to one great school, but I do not know that my experience is different from that of examiners in other schools; and I will tell the House what I conceive to be the characteristics of the work of the examining board. The standard of the pass degree in the University of London is very high. Comparing it with Oxford, there is no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the pass degree in the University of London is of more value than the corresponding pass degree in the University of Oxford. The uniformity of thought and expression in the University of London is striking. I do not understand how it comes about, because the men are trained by a great variety of teachers, but the curious thing is that they answer the same questions in the same way and in very much the same words. You do not get in London the brilliant blunders which you sometimes get in other places. I only remember one exception—I remember an examinee who said, in answer to a question about the Estates of the Realm, that they were Grown lands. Another point I wish to press upon the House is this: that, while the pass degree at the University of London stands higher than the corresponding degree at Oxford or Cambridge, the honour degree is certainly much lower, and, as far as that degree is concerned, a London man is not in it with an Oxford man. The same thing prevails in what may be regarded as part of the honours examination—the examination for the LL.D. degree. I was going to mention the University of New Zealand, because, to some extent, the system there corresponds with that which you want to establish by this Bill. That university is one of the most remarkable in the British Empire. The students, I believe, are nearly all taught in different colleges in New Zealand, and the examiners are nearly all in this country, and the papers are sent out from this country. I regret to say that I cannot give the results of the last examination, because I believe the papers are lying at the bottom of the ocean, and will never be recovered, but the papers of former examinations which I have seen justify me, I am sure, in the conclusion to which I have come. So much for examinations.

  301
  We have now a proposal to convert the University of London into a body which will continue examination, work and will also take upon it the control of teaching. I have said that a disproportionate number of Members from this side of the House have spoken upon the Bill. That is not to the discredit of Members on this side, but I should certainly regard it as most unfortunate if a Bill of this nature should meet with anything like formidable opposition from any honourable Friends below the Gangway. There are three things which have an enormous influence on the minds of young men in universities. One is the examination itself, for the examination system, in a properly conducted university, has the greatest possible influence in controlling and influencing students. In the next place I should put the question of teaching, and in the third I should put the mutual influence which undergraduates have one on the other. On this point, I think most honourable Gentlemen who have come from the universities will agree with me as to the great influence which is exercised upon students by their fellow-men. But the influence is one which needs control, and it specially needs the control of the examination system on the one hand, and of the tutorial system on the other. These requirements fulfilled, you have a fully-equipped university, and these requirements, I believe, you have provided for in the present Bill. I do hope that the grace of passing this Bill will not be marred by any opposition, but that it may go to the country with the imprimatur of the unanimous judgment of Parliament.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am emboldened to make the appeal which I propose to make to the House by an observation which fell from the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. He stated, and stated truly, that by far the larger number of speeches in favour of this Bill had been made from the other side of the House. That is not because my honourable Friends on this side are less zealous in favour of the Measure. I have every reason to know that the supporters of the Government almost to a man are supporters of the
  302
  Bill, but they feel, and I think with some justice, that the arguments for the Bill have, as far as they are concerned, been exhausted by previous speakers, and they are naturally unwilling to take up time in dealing with topics on which everything has been said that deserves to be said. I quite feel that this is a Bill to be threshed out in Committee, and only after it has gone through the Grand Committee will the House be in a position finally to decide whether it should pass or not; but I do venture to suggest to the House that we might now bring this Debate to a conclusion, reserving anything further that has to be said upon it until the later stages of the Measure.
  MR. R. WALLACE: I shall carefully remember the appeal which has been made by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, and I should not have ventured to intervene in the Debate if I were not convinced that the passing of this Measure would have a salutary effect upon the educational institutions of the country to which I have the honour to belong, and a portion of which I have the honour to represent. About 10 years ago, I think, the constitution of the Scotch universities was under the consideration of this House, and I then ventured to lead a cause which was connected with the present movement—a cause dealing with the Scotch universities, which was then much ridiculed. The Scotch universities are somewhat narrow in their constitutional regulations. They will grant degrees only to those who have been taught in universities. For myself, I think that the personal influence of the teacher is at least one-half of what may be called the battle of university education, and on the occasion to which I refer, while recognising the value of teaching in the preparation of a university degree, I yet thought that a poor man who could not pay for residence at a university and the fulfilment of its requirements with regard to fees—but who could prove his knowledge and capacity—whence ever he had derived it—should be able to earn university recognition in the shape of a degree. Unfortunately, I was ridiculed

  303
  on that occasion by authorities who, to my surprise—though I do not know why I should be surprised, since no one in this House would be surprised at manifestations of inconsistency—are taking a favourable view of the present proposal. Our great national poet himself would have been denied a degree because he had not the opportunity of attending a university. I welcome the idea of a teaching university in London. I am not going to dwell upon the importance of teaching as compared with examinations, but I think the University of London, if this Bill be passed, will present the notion of an ideal university which, while it encourages teaching, will not deny to self-taught men the opportunity of being recognised as such. I hope that when this great metropolis has a university of that character, it will have some effect upon the narrow ideas which prevail in my own country, and it will be then to my humble self a sort of compensation for the ridicule to which I was exposed when I suggested that the idea now promulgated in respect of the London University might also be a Scotch ideal. Now, Sir, I promised to be brief, but I should like to say that I do not see much that is formidable in the conceived danger of a definite standard of education. The valuable point in the matter is that a man of merit, wherever he has derived his capacity, shall be put forward to the public as having the stamp of a recognised educational institution. I leave it to the public to single out the deficient and the useless man from the perfect and the useful man. I will take as an illustration the hall-marked degree that is given to members of my own profession. I do not suppose that the examination for a barrister in the legal university of London is a very high or difficult one. If it had been I do not suppose I should have had the felicity of possessing that stamp myself. But the public single out the useful man from the useless man. I do not suppose—and I see the Attorney General in his place—the right honourable Gentleman will dispute the remark that very often the men who do not stand out the most prominent in examinations are always the unsuccessful men. I shall only make one other remark with refer-
  304
  ence to an observation which fell from the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who said that he saw no objection to including theology as a branch of science in a university examination. That may be advisable, provided it is not put in a sectarian or denominational sense. I think it is a perfectly scientific question to be examined in the history of theology, but as to the belief in any particular department of theology, that is a separate matter of inquiry and detail.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill read a second time without a Division.

  EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg leave to move—
  "That this House declines to sanction a sterling loan of £10,000,000 until a Select Committee, on an examination of the East India Accounts, shall have reported that such loan is in the interest of the Indian taxpayer, and will not unduly increase the burden be now sustains."
  I trust my Amendment will commend itself to the approval of the House. Parliament is ultimately responsible for the solvency and welfare of India, but it is universally admitted that under existing arrangements the House of Commons does not exercise effective financial control over the Indian Executive. What I therefore propose is, not that the House of Commons shall undertake any new duty, but that it shall adopt measures calculated to carry out effectively its existing duty; and that in dealing with the present Bill, which is a most important one, it shall as a trustee for India give to India's financial affairs the same care which it gives to its own. One main object of the present Bill is to raise money for a vast scheme of railway extension, estimated to cost Rx.30,000,000; and the principal question is whether the financial condition of India justifies borrowing in sterling for such speculative enterprises in the shape of railways. Now, upon this point there is a great difference of opinion in India. On the one hand there is the official opinion, and on the other there is the independent opinion of the people of India. Sir James Westland maintains that there is

  305
  justification, and in support of his plea he has brought forward what has been appropriately called a "prosperity Budget." On the other hand, Indian public opinion, as represented by the Indian representatives on the Viceroy's Council, is unanimously on the other side; and I will invite the attention of the House to the moderate, well-informed, and closely-reasoned speeches of these gentlemen, as reported in the Blue Book just published. The Indian members of the Council repudiate the prosperity Budget, and contend that the alleged equilibrium is only obtained by excessive taxation and by adding to the permanent debt. There exists, therefore, a distinct issue of fact, as between the official authorities and the Indian representatives in the Viceroy's Council, and I maintain that it is the duty of the House to determine this issue, and that this can only be satisfactorily done by reference to a Select Committee. Does any honourable Member think that the House as now sitting is in a position and in the mood to deal adequately with these complex questions so vitally affecting the millions of India? Very few Members attend, and even those who are present are not willing to give me undivided attention for the 20 minutes for which I propose to occupy their time. The subject, no doubt, is not one which lends itself to sprightly or humorous treatment, but I think I may, as an expert, claim the attention of the House for these few minutes, as I have been through the Indian official mill myself, and have besides made a special study of the Indian rayat for nearly 40 years. At the same time I recognise that, although these questions are literally matters of life and death to the Indian peasantry, I cannot now enter upon even the fringe of the subject. I therefore most earnestly ask the House to accept this Motion, and give to the Indian taxpayers' case the chance of a fair hearing. Does this House really desire to know the truth about India? With great respect for the House, I sometimes feel inclined to doubt it. But if honourable Members desire to learn the truth, they must not be content to hear only the official version, which assumes that everything the Government of India does is right, and that the authorities are always well informed as to facts, always
  306
  wise in action, and always successful in results. I cannot believe that independent Members who have watched the unhappy events in India during the past year will be prepared to accept this doctrine. Are there any good grounds for this blind and unreasoning confidence? No; on the contrary, whether it has been the famine, the war, or the plague, the Government have shown an inability to foresee coming events, and have consequently in each case suffered disaster which might have been averted by timely precaution. Does any honourable Member think that I am prejudiced in saying this? I will refer on this point to the words of Sir Griffith Evans, a nominated member of the Viceroy's Council, who has always shown himself a steady supporter of the Government. Speaking lately in the Council on the Budget Debate, Sir Griffith Evans very pointedly drew attention to this extraordinary blindness and deafness of the Government, and asked—
  "How is it that the Government apparently never has any intimation of what is going to happen? Whether it is a mutiny, an outbreak, or a frontier raid, its first intimation of it appears usually to be the accomplished fact. That the unexpected should happen sometimes is inevitable, but that nothing should happen except the unexpected is unsatisfactory."
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is very true, though "unsatisfactory" is a somewhat mild term to express all the bloodshed and ruin which are the result of this inability to see and refusal to hear. But I can give Sir Griffith Evans the answer to his riddle. The reason why the Government of India cannot see is because it shuts its eyes; the reason why it does not hear is because it will not listen. The Government of India are not in touch with the people. They keep at arm's length men like the honourable Members of the Viceroy's Council. They put too much confidence in secret police, in spies, and in traitors to their own countrymen. They are only too ready to listen to flatterers, and they make it very hot for those who tell them disagreeable truths. If I may use a proverb which has lately become classical, it takes a long spoon to sup kail with the Government of India. It needs a bold man who will give the Government of India a mouthful of truth, considering that he will make himself liable to be sent to penal

  307
  servitude, or kept without trial for nine months at a time in prison. That is what the people feel in India. I think when I ask the House not to accept all the assurances that they have received from the officials, their own experience should make them a little cautious in this matter. I will not go into particulars, but will simply refer to the case of Chitral. After the expedition to Chitral, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State was publicly warned of the great danger of encroaching on the independence of these wild tribes—
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member will not be in order in going into that matter on the present Bill.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Upon the point of order, Mr. Speaker, my argument is that the official assurances, which are the only foundation for the present recommendation, are not to be trusted, and that it is within the experience of the House that the House has been very much deceived by official assurances.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is quite at liberty to use that argument, but he cannot illustrate it by going into the history and policy of the campaign.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I will not go into the question, but will only quote the noble Lord's wrords. The Doble Lord told the House that the frontier tribes welcomed the occupation of their mountain strongholds. These are his words—
  "So far were they from regarding it in a hostile spirit, they welcomed the English occupation as the inauguration of a period of security not known before."
  I say that that is optimism gone mad, because in a few short months the whole frontier was in a blaze, and it took 70,000 of the best troops in the world to suppress those tribes who were officially supposed to welcome the extinction of their independence. I will simply quote the words of the noble Lord on another occasion with reference to what happened in the city of Bombay, when widespread riots were impending. The House will remember that the noble Lord read to the House the celebrated
  308
  telegram from the Governor of Bombay. This telegram said—
  "In case of rumours of serious unrest among Mahomedans of Bombay, they are untrue."
  The words had hardly been uttered before the Mahomedan weavers had risen, the city of Bombay was in the hands of the mob, and people were being shot in the streets. I could give many other examples, but as you, Mr. Speaker, consider that I should not proceed upon that line, I think these two examples are quite sufficient. I might refer to the Mansion House Fund. We had the greatest difficulty in persuading the noble Lord to open the Mansion House Fund.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): That is not right.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: The noble Lord will be able to state his view of the case, but I think we prophesied the terrible nature of the famine long before it was officially known.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must rule the honourable Gentleman out of order. The reference to the Mansion House Fund is irrelevant.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Well, I think these instances will suffice, to put it in a mild way, to satisfy the House that the assurances and the prophecies of the noble Lord—I am not speaking of him personally, but as the official representative of the Government of India—should at least be received with caution, and that the House should hear the other side as well before coming to a decision, especially as the taxpayers of India, whose interests we are bound to look after, are so very poorly represented. As regards this prosperity Budget, I do not believe in it a bit. I no more believe in the prosperity Budget than I believe in the affection of the Afridi tribesmen. The fact is, there is no solid foundation for this prosperity Budget at all. The only apparent foundation for it is that there has been one good fall of rain, but one good fall of rain does not make a good harvest for a series of years. The fact is that the Budget has been prepared on the

  309
  supposition of a cycle of good yeans, but there is quite as likely to be a cycle of bad years. Speculative commercial enterprises, under these conditions, are very unwise indeed. The only results of the famine throughout the country are that the cattle have been destroyed, and the rural population diseased and weakened. Therefore, I say there is no foundation for the optimistic views which have been expressed. In fact, the Government itself does not believe in the golden visions which they open up before our eyes, because, if the finances are in such very nice order, what do they mean by asking for 3¾ millions? Why is it necessary? Surely the application for these vast sums of money shows a certain amount of financial embarrassment. The noble Lord said, to use his own expression, that this money was wanted to tide him over a difficulty.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I did not say so.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Those are the words. I copied them out of the Report. I daresay the noble Lord will say what his words were presently. I understood him to say that it would tide him over a difficulty which might be expected from unforeseen war or unforeseen famine. I say that that shows that the Government of India expect a disaster, and that it is not in a financial position to embark upon those perilous enterprises. I understand that the loan is asked for, in the first place, to take up the old debentures. I have no objection to that part of the loan, but I move my Amendment because I hold strongly that, without proper Parliamentary inquiry, this House should not sanction further addition to the permanent sterling debt. Another purpose to be dealt with by the loan is the railway extension programme. With regard to that I hold that it is a mistake to hurry on that programme. Give it time, and leave it to private enterprise. Why should not private enterprise do that work on its own basis in India as well as here? Why should this burden be put on the taxpayer? I say that the trunk railways having been completed, these minor rail-
  310
  ways should be left to be dealt with with proper consideration to the over-taxed condition of the great body of the Indian people. Another object of the loan is to give these 3¾ millions to the Secretary of State. Now, I do not wish the Secretary of State to have a lot of loose gold in his pocket. The effect of his having 3¾ millions at his disposal will relieve him of the necessity of drawing upon India, and will leave the Government of India with balances at its disposal to apply, according to its own sweet will, to any important matter which pleases the Government of India, but which is distasteful and injurious to the great body of the people. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the Amendment.
  MR. ROBINSON SOUTTAR: I beg to second the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for Banffshire, and in doing so desire to say that I have no wish to attack the Government of India, nor, indeed, to thwart the wishes of the noble Lord. I have had some experience of the Government of India, though not so much as has my honourable Friend, and the experience I have had has not been unfavourable. I do not know what the future may bring forth, but at present I desire in most things—I might almost say in all—to adopt, if I may use the term, an attitude of benevolent neutrality. I have very considerable respect for the Government of India, and I have very considerable respect for the Finance Minister of the Government of India. The point at present before us is, however, a proposed loan of 10 millions. As my honourable Friend has just said, part of the 10 millions is to replace securities which are at present at a high rate of interest. As regards that, of course, it is exceedingly wise, and no one has a word to say against it. Then the second portion is for railways, and a considerable proportion, as my honourable Friend has put it, is indefinite—it is to be used by the noble Lord in case of emergency arising. Well, like my honourable Friend, I have not very much faith in the voting of indefinite grants of money by the House of Commons. Indefinite grants do not strike me

  311
  very favourably. We know that in connection with the British Estimates every sum is specifically mentioned. The purpose for which the sum is to be used must be specified, and the money granted by the House of Commons must be used for that specific purpose and for no other; and everybody knows that Parliament took a very long time before it settled that matter. We were centuries as a House of Commons fighting for that principle, and, having so far fixed that principle with regard to Britain, it does seem a pity—I do not want to labour the point—that we should relinquish it with regard to India. I would also like to point out that the scheme of the noble Lord is a little wider, perhaps, than meets the eye. In the first place it is associated with the rupee loan of three millions which is to be raised in Calcutta. In the second place it is associated with what he has called a "systematic programme" for the expenditure of 10 millions per annum for three years in railway construction. Now, I shall not give any opinion on these matters. I only desire to point out to the House that it is not a trifling question, but a very serious one, that we are discussing—that it will add a solid amount to the debt of India; and, though I do not desire for a moment to say it is wrong we should do so, I do think we ought to do so only after serious consideration and with our eyes open. I think the proposal of my honourable Friend to-day as to the consideration of the question by a Select Committee is only a fair and reasonable one. This is not an isolated case; the honourable Member for Cardiff stated in n Debate a short time ago that £25,000,000 had been added to the unremunerative debt of India within the last few years. The late Secretary of State for India, Sir H. Fowler, corrected the honourable Member, and showed that £14,000,000 had gone in reproductive expenditure for railways, etc., but he allowed that £11,000,000 had been recently added to the unremunerative debt of that country. So that, while we here in this country are doing our best to get rid of our debt, India is rolling up her debt, and the ships which are clearing Bombay and
  312
  Madras and other ports are bringing freights for which there will be no return, because they go to pay interest on debts incurred to foreign creditors. I do not say that this is wrong; we know the United States and our Colonies do the same, but the United States and our Colonies have large resources. I think there are special reasons why careful consideration should be given to the matter when we are proposing to increase the foreign debt of India, and I think the request for a Select Inquiry is reasonable. It is still less unreasonable when we consider the financial statement made by the noble Lord when he introduced his Budget, because, in making his request to us, he used two main arguments—the present prosperity, and the prosperity of the past. With regard to the prosperity of the present, India has had a very serious time. It has passed through a period of war, and famine, and plague. In two years its deficits have amounted to £6,000,000, and I think the noble Lord would even have been pardoned if his Budget had been of a somewhat pessimistic character. One would, at any rate, have expected a more conservative spirit and a greater hesitation to add to the burdens of India. Instead of that, the Budget is extremely optimistic, and the Finance Minister thinks that the whole of the deficit can be paid, and that there can be a balance at the end of the current year. But he attains this happy result by anticipating that there will be no war, no famine, and no pestilence; that there will be a normal opium crop, a fine monsoon, and a bumper harvest. The Finance Minister is a fellow-citizen of my own. He is a man of high ability, and we are proud of him in Aberdeen. I have a high respect for him, and I may say I have received from him not a little personal kindness; but his statement rather reminds me of what I have too often seen in connection with shareholders' meetings, when the chairman makes a very rosy speech, and then announces at the end that there is going to be fresh capital brought in and a further issue of stock. My experience in a case of that kind is that the sooner you sell out

  313
  your stock the better. I do sincerely trust that it will be just as the Finance Minister hopes, but I cannot help thinking that a small frontier war or a bad monsoon would spoil all his prospects. And, indeed, the noble Lord seems to be of the same opinion, and hedges—because this Measure is a hedging loan. He wants a trifle of £6,000,000 in case of an emergency. I do not say he ought not to have it, but I do say that there is nothing in the present condition of the prosperity of the country which renders inquiry superfluous. Again, we are told that there has been a surplus of revenue during the last 20 years of £50,000,000, which would stand to credit but for famine, war, and special defence works. Perhaps so, but the words "but for" are important words. Most of the honourable Members of this House would be very rich men to-day "but for"! England might be rolling in wealth "but for" her Army and Navy. The fact is that the Army and Navy are incidents in the Government of England, and I am afraid, Sir, we must include in the incidents of the Government of India famine, war, and defence works. Nevertheless, you may say India has paid her way during the last 20 years. Yes, but it is not enough to say that a country has paid its way. There are very few Governments who do not pay their way, whether they are good or bad. I daresay the Sultan of Turkey might claim to have paid his way. Some of the worst Governments in the world have been fabulously rich. Therefore the fact that India pays its way does not prove very much. You must also prove that the taxation, by which it does pay its way, has been wisely raised, and without oppression to the people. No one who understands this subject is in any way satisfied with the taxation of India. The Finance Minister is not, and he declares he is not, satisfied with the way in which it is raised in India. In Great Britain the necessaries of life are free, and we boast of it; but in India they are not free, but taxed. We know that salt, which is the food of the people, is taxed, and we know that oil, the light of the people, is taxed, and that cotton, the clothing of the people, is taxed also. I know the Government of
  314
  India cannot tax the luxuries of the people, because they have no luxuries upon which they can be taxed; but that shows the poverty of India. But, before the Finance Minister can boast of the condition of the country, the necessaries of life there must be free. Now there is one other remark I wish to make. The whole basis of the statement depends upon the value of the rupee being 1s. 4d. Now you have managed to keep the rupee up in value to 1s. 4d., and you may manage to do so a little longer, but at a serious cost. The rupee is intrinsically worth 11d., and it has been kept up by artificial pressure. The difference between 1s. 4d. and 11d. is 5d., and I ask intelligent men whether somebody has not to be responsible for the 5d. I believe the debtor is responsible for part of it. Every debtor has to pay 5d. more upon the rupee to his creditor than he would have done if you had left the rupee alone. Then I think the merchants pay it, because the bank rate of India is 8 per cent., 9 per cent., and 12 per cent., while we in this country can borrow money at 3 per cent. Why? Because of the stringency which has been created in the money market. You are congratulating yourselves on saving loss by exchange, and you do it by restricting coin. But if that is how you are making India solvent, your policy is not sound. No tax you could impose would be more disastrous, and until the money stringency which is throttling the trade of India is removed, there is, to my mind, singularly little room for an optimistic statement. Doubtless the Secretary of State for India will get his loan, but perhaps I shall be pardoned if I express my regret that when he knew that an increase in the indebtedness of India, was inevitable he did not accept the help which my honourable Friend the Member for Flintshire proposed, and which the House of Commons, at a single word from the noble Lord, would so willingly have given—help which in no way or sense would have pauperised India or endangered her financial independence, but which, whilst being just in principle, would also have produced—morally, financially, and politically—the most satisfactory results in our great Dependency.
  MR. KENYON: I have listened very carefully to the speeches made by the honourable Members upon the opposite side of the House in relation to the finances of India, and the honourable Members appear to me to take a remarkably dismal view of the present state of India. I, on the contrary, am proud to think that India is something to be admired and looked forward to. The honourable Member who has just sat down has spoken about the rupee being intrinsically worth 11d. I am not a bimetallist, but I should like to know, what is the intrinsic value of our shilling. References are constantly being made with regard to the military expenditure of India, especially by the honourable Member for Banffshire, but he always seems to forget the terms of the statement which he sent out in respect to that matter in 1895. In that statement he showed the amounts which had been expended in military expenditure in that country. I wish to call his attention to that statement. He referred to several years; 1885, 1886, and 1887; I think, show that the increase in the Indian Budget was caused by the expenditure of adding 20,000 men to the Army, and by the increased pay of the men. I think it is a very desirable thing to increase the pay; but the main point which I wish to bring before his notice is that it is the conquest of Upper Burmah that has caused the great increase. In the whole of the speeches which honourable Members on the opposite side of tin House have made they have failed to point out the great increase in the Indian Empire during the last 10 years. Since 1886 or 1887 or 1890 the Indian Empire has been increased by 90,000 square miles in Upper Burmah alone. Surely if the increase in the Indian finance car be explained in great part by these conquests, we are entitled to see what we have got for the expenditure and what ii is to cost.
  DR. TANNER: Hear, hear!
  MR. KENYON: I am glad the honourable Member for Cork has cheered me upon that. Now, the country of Upper Burmah is very fertile; and I think that
  316
  the increase of the Indian Empire ought to be taken into consideration when you talk of the finances being increased. There is one more matter to which I might allude; the constituency which I have the honour to represent is very largely engaged in trade with India, and we are most grateful to the Indian officials for the way in which they have managed the famine affairs. I shall at all times raise my voice in praise of the works that have been carried on in India, in the time of trouble.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Two speeches have been made on behalf of this Amendment of a very different character. The honourable Member for Dumfries has brought forward perfectly legitimate arguments of a purely financial character which appertain strictly to the Motion now before the House. I propose to answer his observations at the commencement of my speech. The observations of the honourable Baronet the Member for Banffshire are of a very different character, and I shall reserve what I have to say upon them until the close of my remarks. I am accused of making an optimistic speech. I simply laid before the House the facts and figures of the financial profit and loss during the last two years. They are very much more satisfactory than I expected, and I am pretty confident that unless some extraordinary difficulties occur between now and the end of the financial year, the estimated surplus will be largely exceeded. I cannot understand why any Minister should be called optimistic because he simply lays before the House facts and figures which are indisputably accurate. They may be more satisfactory than honourable Members of the House anticipated, but that does not justify honourable Gentlemen in doubting their accuracy.
  MR. SOUTTAR: I do not doubt the accuracy of the figures.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I quite accept the honourable Gentleman's remark, but I think I shall be able to show that it is advisable to assent to this loan without the appointment of a Select Committee. Now, what are the objects

  317
  for which this loan is required? In the first place it is required to pay off obligations of the Government of India, contracted when the rate of interest was higher than it is now, for the reduction of interest for which India now borrows. That is an advantage, as everybody will admit. The second object is to give the Indian Government the means of providing a certain proportion of the capital which they annually spend in reproductive works. The practice of the Indian Government is to provide as much as they can out of their cash balances, and then borrow as much as the Indian loan market will provide, and only fall back upon the money market here for the residue of the amount required. Now, it is no doubt necessary to see that the indebtedness of India is not unduly run up, and that, in borrowing for reproductive works, the output is beneficial to the taxpayer, and does not ultimately increase the charge upon him. Noticing the great interest taken in my statement, I had a return prepared to show what has been the result of the capital outlay of the Indian Government during the last 40 years, and if honourable Gentlemen follow me I think I shall be able to show that it has been not only beneficial, but has tended to reduce taxation instead of increasing it. The statement to which I refer includes the total charge for interest on debt, for interest paid to companies, for annuities paid in purchasing undertakings, for surplus profits paid to railway companies, and for surveys of lines not yet undertaken Now, the total charge under those heads in 1861, which was almost the first year that the Crown assumed quiet possession of India, was Rx.5,705,000; for the present year, the Estimates reach Rx. 18,799,000. That is an additional charge of about Rx.13,000,000; and, assuming that throughout the Indian Government car borrow at something like three per cent., that would represent the total sun borrowed in the interval of about Rx.400,000,000. Now let us see what we have got in return for that. The net profit from the reproductive works, constructed by borrowed money, at the commencement of that period was Rx.384,000. For the present year the net profit is estimated at Rx.14,138,000. The upshot is that whereas 40 years ago the net burden
  318
  on the revenue of India for indebtedness was Rx.5,320,000, in the present year it is only Rx.4,660,000. India has also the benefit of having invested something like Rx.400,000,000, and that expenditure is of inestimable value. The great difficulty of India is congestion of population in certain parts of the country, and unless the railways had been developed and irrigation had been pushed on it would have been impossible for the Indian Government to have dealt with the famine which has occurred, without the loss of millions of lives. I may add, in giving these figures, that I have in both cases included the charge for exchange. I think the House, therefore, may confidently continue to give its support to this policy of reproductive expenditure. As the honourable Member for Dumfries is aware, there is no question which was so thoroughly examined by the Select Committees of the charge for exchange. I think the House, of a Committee on this subject 20 years ago, when expenditure was reduced to the smallest dimensions; and only when the credit of India rose was a larger scheme of construction permitted, and I see no reason why this loan should not stand without going through the unnecessary delay of appointing a Select Committee. Now, with regard to the reserve, what I said was there should always be a reserve behind the Secretary of State for India, because, if you had any exceptional combination of difficulties, such as famine or a serious war, the cash balance would be so reduced that the Secretary of State would not be able to draw sufficient money to meet his gold obligations in this country. Parliament would have to be at once assembled, and at once there would be questioning all over the country as to the reason for it. I ask the House to consider what the effect would be. I think it is apparent to anybody that the Secretary of State should have this reserve power in case the Indian Government are in difficulties. I think I have answered the objection of the honourable Member for Dumfriesshire. I assure him that I do not look forward optimistically to the difficulties which the Indian Government will have to encounter. I have felt the force of the reservations which he made in the previous Debate as to the conditions of agriculture. I can inform him that Lord Elgin had collected materials for

  319
  legislation on the agricultural distress of the population, and perhaps next Session some measure of legislation will be passed to include that agricultural population. Now, that is all I have to say, so far as the financial arguments are concerned of the honourable Gentleman who has spoken. Now I come to a very different subject. There is no single Member except the honourable Member for Banffshire [Sir W. Wedderburn], who is not proud of the magnificent past service of the Indian Civil Service, to which the honourable Member once belonged, in standing between the Indian people and famine and plague. Not a single word has fallen from the honourable Member in praise of his old service. He never loses an opportunity of attacking and disparaging the Indian Government.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: That is an incorrect statement.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The House will remember, and honourable Members who were in the House—
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Am I to have no right to make a personal statement?
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member has no right to interrupt, and to insist on speaking when another honourable Member is in possession of the House. When the noble Lord has finished his speech the honourable Member will be entitled to make a personal explanation.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: But, Mr. Speaker—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I will not give way to the honourable Member. Those Members of the House who heard the honourable Baronet's speech, and who heard him attack the Government of India, heard him day amongst other pleasant observations—I do not know whether he spoke of his old experiences—that the only people to whom the Indian Government gave credence were spies and people of that character, while it was made hot for people who told the truth. The honourable Gentleman has a perfect
  320
  right to make that statement, so far as his own past experience in the Indian Civil Service is concerned. On behalf of the remainder of the Civil Service. I meet that statement with the flattest denial. The honourable Gentleman has chosen to throw doubt upon the accuracy of the information I possess, and which I communicated to the House. Well, I was wrong in one particular. The honourable Baronet is of opinion that the Indian Government should obtain their information from native sources. I quite agree that the Indian Government should do everything they can to try and ascertain what are the views and opinions of the different sections of the community. Lord Sandhurst adopted that course. Hs consulted the leaders of Mahomedan opinion in India. He was assured that there was no reason to apprehend the slightest danger of disturbances taking place. I can only regret that Lord Sandhurst was misinformed from those very sources to which the honourable Baronet alluded. That is the only occasion to which the honourable Baronet can point as showing that incorrect information was given. I protest strongly against the tactics of the honourable Baronet. He comes down and moves a harmless. Resolution of this kind, and then he makes violent statements which are telegraphed out to India and do much harm there. He wants one of two things. If he wants to strike at the foundations of British rule let him be honest and say so openly, but to make speeches of the kind he has just made, and then pretend to be a supporter of British rule, is to take up a position absolutely inconsistent. I would not, but for these statements of the honourable Baronet as to the incorrectness of my information, refer to a painful incident which occurred last year—the House will well remember—when two British officers were foully murdered at Poona. The honourable Baronet produced a petition on which he wished to move the adjournment of the House, and which contained gross allegations against British soldiers. The honourable Baronet proposed to take action on that, and attacked the Government on the strength of the allegations. The statements proved to be false and the signatures to the petition to be forged. Yet the honourable Member collected a number of

  321
  Members of the House, and provided them with statements containing the grossest allegations against the character and behaviour of British officers and soldiers. These statements were proved to be false, and the honourable Baronet, at the end of the Session, humbly apologised for having promulgated these falsehoods upon his own countrymen. Therefore, I say that when the honourable Baronet questions my good faith—
  DR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether this is in order. Can a charge of falsehood be applied by one Member to another?
  MR. SPEAKER: I need scarcely say that it would be out of order if the noble Lord imputed to the honourable Baronet that he had knowingly promulgated falsehoods. What I understood the noble Lord to impute was that he promulgated allegations which turned out to be falsehoods.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I repeat that the honourable Baronet had to stand up and publicly apologise for associating himself with statements which were proved to be gross and outrageous calumnies upon his own countrymen carrying on the most difficult duties in another part of the world. That being so, I decline to put myself on an equality with him as to the credence to be placed on my good faith.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: The first point on which I rise to correct the noble Lord is as to his statement that I have never recognised the great service rendered by the Indian Civil Service. No doubt the noble Lord had quite unintentionally misrepresented me. When this Bill was introduced the first thing I said was that I associated myself with what had been said of the Government officers during the famine, and that no praise was too great for them. As regards the other statement of the noble Lord, I think there has been some misunderstanding. I did not promulgate or express any opinion as to what was done at Poona by British soldiers or by anyone else. There had been a petition signed by 2,000 persons against the employment of British soldiers there, and I requested the noble Lord to inquire
  322
  into the allegations in that petition. I expressed no opinion one way or the other as to the truth of those allegations. The third point is this, that I called together a few Members interested in India to give them an opportunity of hearing what certain native gentlemen had to say with regard to the occurrences at Poona. One of these gentlemen mentioned the rumour of an outrage by British soldiers at Poona. I consider that when such rumours exist it is for the honour of the British name that they should be properly inquired into. If they are true then redress should be made, and if they are untrue then the people who made them should be punished. When the people who made these statements were unable to prove them at the first opportunity I rose and made an apology in the House. The noble Lord seems to think that that was disgraceful, but I think it was the proper, straightforward, and gentlemanly course to take.
  MR. BUCHANAN: It is to be regretted that this subject has been made a personal matter between the noble Lord and my honourable Friend the Member for Banff. I hope my honourable Friend will not go to a Division. The honourable Member is a member of the Royal Commission, of which I also am a member. That Royal Commission had been sitting for three years to inquire into this very subject. Therefore I do think the appointment of such a committee would be a work of supererogation. There is no one who regrets more keenly than I do the somewhat strong language of the honourable Member for Banff with regard to British officials in India. He knows perfectly well that there is no service in the world that is more unselfishly devoted to public work than the Indian Civil Service, from Lord Elgin down to the humblest member. Therefore it is a matter for regret that my honourable Friend used stronger language than is judicious on such occasions. The subject of reproductive works, and particularly of the railways of India, has been investigated by the Commission, and the Accountant General of India has stated that the capital expenditure on the railways yielded a revenue of 7¼ per

  323
  cent. I say that is not a bad investment of public money. It has been suggested that the main lines should be constructed by the Government, and the branch lines by native capital in India. That very subject was taken up by the Commission, and my honourable Friend the Member for Banff was himself examined on this subject. There was no lack of evidence on this Commission, of which my honourable Friend and I were members. I certainly, like my honourable Friend, and others on the Commission, regret that the Commission has not yet reported. It would be a good thing if the noble Lord would assist us in bringing our inquiries to an end, for then it would be possible to see what conclusion could be drawn after the investigation of this subject and many other subjects connected with military expenditure, and the increase of expenditure in India during the last 20 years.
  DR. CLARK: This is only piecemeal legislation. I think my honourable friend would be quite justified in taking a Division, because no action ought to be sanctioned by the House before it is in possession of all the facts. We ought to know exactly in what position the floating debt would be after the proposed financial operation, and whether the money for reproductive works is to be raised upon a gold basis in Europe, or on a silver basis in India. We ought also to have information as to the three millions set apart for contingencies, for I take it that the Secretary of State desires to have three millions, which it may be necessary to use in consequence of the depreciation of the rupee.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: It is usual to have a reserve of a considerable amount.
  DR. CLARK: I think the evidence is that before a Bill of this kind is allowed to pass the House ought to have the Report of the Royal Commission, which has been sitting for more than three years. We ought to have the facts before us. The House has never had those facts before it, and we are now as we stand. Ever since I have been in this House there has been a chorus of approval with reference to the Civil Service of India. We are always praising their ability, but I never saw that ability.
  MR. LEUTY: I do not want to say one word against the Government of India generally, but I say there is in India quite enough to employ the time of the right honourable Gentleman in removing their grievances. Under his administration of India the country has suffered from the three curses of famine, pestilence, and the sword, and yet the noble Lord comes here and asks us to increase the debt. I will only say that the noble Lord thinks, in what he says across the Table, that he can do here as he does in India—that he can suppress discussion, as in the native Press. I hope he will not succeed either here or there.
  MR. SHEErose to address the House on the stroke of midnight, and the Debate stood adjourned.

  THE FINANCE BILL.
  The Finance Bill, as amended, was considered, and several Amendments were agreed to, on the motion of the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES.
  County of Anglesey, Parish of Llan Rhyddlad; Return ordered, "comprising a translation into Welsh of so much of the Return to the Order of this House of the 17th day of March 1896, respecting Charitable Endowments in the County of Anglesey, as relates to the Parish of Llan Rhyddlad."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL.
  On the Second Reading of this Bill,
  DR. TANNERobjected.
  On the motion of Sir E. LEES (Birkenhead), the Order was discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at 12.12.