Sitting of 22 May 1874

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Special Report—Explosive Substances.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Colonial Clergy * [125].
Select Committee—Homicide Law Amendment * [44], nominated.
Committee—Municipal Privileges (Ireland) (re-comm.) * [119]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment * [96].

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUN VACATION.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday 1st June.—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)

PRIVILEGE—EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES COMMITTEE.—SPECIAL REPORT.
Leave given to the Select Committee on Explosive Substances to make a Special Report.—(Sir John Hay.)
Special Report brought up, and read, as followeth:—
The Select Committee on Explosive Substances have agreed to the following Special Report:—
That the attention of the Committee has been called to a Letter from Mr. R. S. France, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, and that as such Letter appears to reflect upon the conduct of the Chairman, the Committee had agreed to report the same to the House in order that the House may take such steps as it shall think tit.
[Then the said Letter is set forth at length.]
Ordered, That Mr. R. S. France do attend this House upon Monday the 1st day of June next, at half an hour after Four of the clock.

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to appeal to the indulgence of the House

  699
  to enable him to make a statement with reference to a Notice of Motion which stood in his name for that evening. It was for—
  "An Address for Copies and Translations of any Laws, Ordinances, or Regulations relating' to Monastic and Conventual Institutions connected with the Church of Rome, and to the inmates or members thereof, especially to the regular Orders of the Church of Rome, which may be enforced by the authority of the State, and are at present operative in France, in the German Empire, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the Russian Empire, in Italy, in Sweden and Norway, in Belgium, in Spain, and in Switzerland; and, of any projects of Law relating to these subjects that may have been proposed by the Governments, and are under the consideration of the Legislative Assemblies of the above States."
  He found that his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) had put an Amendment upon the Paper, including with the Motion, Returns from several other countries. The Government had notified to him (Mr. Newdegate) that his Address was already objectionable, as likely to produce too voluminous a lie-turn, and he had endeavoured to communicate with the hon. Member to that effect, but found that he had left London. Under these circumstances, in compliance with what he believed to be the opinion of Mr. Speaker in such a case, he (Mr. Newdegate) proposed to defer the Motion until Tuesday, the 9th of June.

GUANO DEPOSITS OF PERU—SURVEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Board of Admiralty have considered favourably the suggestion made by Rear Admiral Cochrane in his letter of the 25th December 1873, viz. "to cause to be employed a party of civil engineers sent from England to survey the guano deposits of Peru?"
  MR. A. F. EGERTON, in reply, said, that the Board of Admiralty had expressed no opinion upon the suggestion made by Pear Admiral Cochrane, as the matter was one which did not come within their cognizance. The question had been referred to the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, and the heads of those Departments would, no doubt, take the matter into consideration.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table any further Correspondence respecting the working of responsible government in the Cape of Good Hope, in continuation of Papers presented last year upon that subject?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the system of responsible government has now been for some time established at the Cape, and since the presentation of the Papers referred to last year, there has been no question, possessing any general interest beyond the Colony, with regard to the working of the Constitution now in force. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government do not feel themselves justified in incurring the expense attendant upon a presentation of further Papers.

THE GENERAL ELECTION—RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DODDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return relative to the General Election, for which an Address was ordered by the House on the 20th of March last, will be presented to the House?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the usual steps were taken as soon as the Address was ordered; and Returns had been received at the Home Office, except from 10 counties and 20 boroughs, and certain counties and boroughs in Scotland and Ire-land. As soon as the Returns were completed, they would be laid before the House.

EXPENSES OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether before proceeding with the adjourned Vote in the Civil Service Estimates, Class 3, for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland, he will lay upon the Table of the House an Account in the same form as that given in the case of the Tichborne Prosecution, of the amount expended in the defence of each of the actions brought against the Chief and Under Secretary, and the police, arising out of the transactions connected with

701
the meeting in the Phoenix Park in August 1871; an estimate of the probable amount still remaining unpaid; and of the future expenditure; and whether, having regard to the recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General, that this expenditure should be placed under a distinct subhead, mentioned in the Appropriation Accounts, he will state under what subhead of the Estimates in the past and present years respectively this expenditure has been provided for?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, it was not his intention to lay upon the Table of the House any account of the nature specified in the Question.

REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARKS—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he proposes to introduce this Session the Bill prepared and brought into the last Parliament by the Board of Trade for the Registration of Trade Marks; and, if he does not intend to re-introduce that Bill, whether he will render any assistance to a private Member to carry a similar Bill during this Session?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I have no intention of re-introducing this Session the Bill brought in by my Predecessor last year. It received very little encouragement in this House and was withdrawn, as also a similar Bill three years before. The Bill of last year embodied the views of the Board of Trade on the subject, and those which I entertain myself. As to promising to assist a private Member to carry a similar Bill, I should wish to see the Bill first, before I give any opinion on the subject.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS AFTER THE WHITSUN VACATION.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked what Business it was proposed to take on Monday, June 1, when the House re-assembled after the Whitsuntide Recess?
  MR. DISRAELI: We shall fix Supply for Monday night.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: And the following Thursday for Committee on the Licensing Bill?
  MR. DISRAELI: Yes. If Supply does not occupy the whole of Monday
  702
  night, we shall go on with the Juries Bill.
  MR. COGANinquired whether the hon. Member for North Warwickshire intended to go on with his Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill on Tuesday, Juno 2?
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in reply, he would wish to go on with the Bill, if possible; but it would depend upon the Business of the House whether he could bring it on.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARMY—MILITARY CENTRES—OXFORD.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in rising to call attention to the selection of Oxford as a military centre; and to move—"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of the selection of Oxford as a Military Centre," said: I know there are many reasons to-night against a long debate, so I will narrow my argument to the one issue of the desirability of now appointing a Committee to consider the question of the military centre at Oxford. In doing that, I must very closely refer to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. But I can assure him that, in all I may say, I shall bear in mind those manly and straightforward characteristics which place him in the first rank among our statesmen, and those personal qualities which endear him so much to those who have the privilege of enjoying his friendship. I am satisfied that I shall say nothing which will not find a response in his heart, whether the obligations and restrictions of official etiquette may or may not enable him to confess as much to the House. I shall travel very rapidly over the question of Oxford as a military centre, up to the 23rd of May last year; for curiously I am making this Motion on the eve of that day 12 months when a similar Motion was made in the late Parliament. The House knows that Oxford was selected as a military centre, and that on the first announcement of the project, a feeling of well-founded alarm was raised

  703
  both inside and outside the University, lest the presence of such persons as usually gather round a military centre, might be prejudicial to the necessary discipline of such an institution. That feeling found expression in a very influential memorial, which I hold in my hand, signed by 24 Professors and 89 tutors of Oxford, on the 28th of October, 1872. But here let me briefly explain why I have taken up the question. Although the two great national Universities have no formal and legal union, yet they are so united by similar objects and similar constitutions, that neither can be insensible to the welfare of the other. It would have been difficult for one right hon. Member for the University of Oxford to have led in a debate against his Colleague, and on the other hand the importance of maintaining the academic discipline of both our Universities intact was a sufficient justification for my taking up the matter. On the 28th of October, 1872, this address of the 24 Professors and 89 tutors appeared; and when I state that the first two names on the list are those of Dr. Pusey and Dr. Jowett, I need say no more to show that all Oxford, without reference to party feeling, united in protesting against the measure. As to the quality of the memorial, I need only quote these words—equally true and forcible—of my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War, in the debate of the 23rd of May last—
  "The memorial represented practically the whole of the teaching power of the University."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 370.]
  This paper was issued in the Recess, and its publication produced considerable sensation; still there were no signs of yielding on the part of the then Secretary of State for War (Lord Card-well). Accordingly, on an early day in the following Session of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the present War Minister, zealous as always for his University, asked a Question, and extorted from the Government their consent to the publication of a Report of Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar on the question of the Oxford centre. As to that Report, I need only say that Prince Edward reported against the Oxford site, on purely military grounds, some of which connected with questions of soil, water supply, and so on, might be curable. But he also reported against it on a
  704
  ground, which could not be got rid of—that, so far from being central, it was on the verge of the district—Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire—which this military centre was intended to supply. But the City of Oxford lies on the confines of Berkshire, and a less central position could hardly be discovered by the ingenuity of man. I do not go into the other objections, for these have, I believe, been met by the site which has been selected at Bullingdon, two or three miles from Oxford. No doubt that site meets some of the difficulties; but it does not meet the difficulty raised on the part of the University. For, again to quote my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, I find him stating in this House that—
  "It seemed to him idle to say that the fact of the station being two miles from town made a great difference. The moment the men were off duty they would direct their steps towards the large town of Oxford."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 369.]
  Therefore, I am supported in my view of the question by the right hon. Gentleman. I will not enter into the question of University discipline, as probably affected by the presence of this military centre. I am merely making out a primâ facie case for inquiry by a Select Committee, and the final conclusion must be based on the evidence which will be laid before it. On the 23rd of May last, the then hon. Member for Nottingham. (Mr. Auberon Herbert) moved for his Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Mowbray) seconded him. He was followed by the then Secretary of State for War (Mr. Cardwell) a great part of whose speech was devoted to cutting up the memorial of the Professors and tutors; but the acknowledgment was extorted from him that this military centre was to be composed of not less than 110 individuals. Mr. Cardwell was followed by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War, who made a speech as logical as it was fervid and telling against the scheme. He laid great stress on the words "near Oxford," and one of the first points he scored was that the dullness of the Bullingdon station would render a town like Oxford doubly attractive to the soldiers. He continued—
  "The way in which the soldiers behaved when in strict discipline …. was entirely irrelevant

  705
  to the conduct of the recruits who were to be brought into this depot."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 369.]
  He also went on to say, that which, if true on May 23rd, 1873, must be equally true on May 22nd, 1874—
  "That it interfered most materially with the discipline of the University."—[Ibid.]
  Then, traversing the case that might be raised with regard to the expense, the right hon. Gentleman, in a burst of noble indignation, said—"Did they not know how many pounds it would require to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his veto on such a proposal? The memorial," said he, "represents practically the whole of the teaching power of the University." Next he proceeded to deal with a question as to which I have no doubt my hon. and and learned Friend opposite the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), will favour us with some very telling comments based on very constitutional precedents drawn from the days of 1688. My right hon. Friend went on to speak of the supposed interests of the town in the promotion of trade, as that word is understood by a class of shopkeepers not unknown to University towns—
  "With respect to the town there were, he would not say sordid, but money considerations, to be taken into account."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 370.]
  The hesitation here implied as to the right use of epithets was short, for in his peroration, which immediately followed, my right hon. Friend—
  "Asked the House to set the interest of the nation against the supposed interest of the locality, to set the moral feeling of the University against the sordid feeling of the town, and to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham."—[Ibid, 371.]
  I call upon him now to give a like support to my analogous Motion. My hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt), who then and now represented the City of Oxford, followed with an able speech from his brief, which I may—with his assent, I hope—describe as a combination of "Rule Britannia," turned into prose, with some variations on the "British Grenadiers." He was followed by four hon. Members, whose names I am sorry to say I can give—Sir Harry Verney, Mr. Barnett, Sir Henry Storks, who, true to military discipline, spoke with brevity, and Mr. Hughes. The last named speaker,
  706
  traversing the arguments of the Member for the City of Oxford, said as to the justice of the comparison between University discipline and that of an army, that although both were good in their place, one was quite distinct from the other, and that no man knew that better than the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the county of Oxford (Mr. Henley) also spoke; and the most memorable passage in his speech was that in which he said—
  "It would be a great national misfortune if the discipline of the University were interfered with. The proposal, therefore, was a matter of speculation; and the Government were taking the responsibility on themselves if evil consequences should result."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 375.]
  That is perfectly true, and the responsibility is independent of party considerations. Whoever may be in power the speculation will be uncertain, while the responsibility assumed by the Government must remain certain. Then came the division, in which Mr. Cardwell succeeded in taking 134 hon. Members with him into the lobby; while Mr. Herbert was followed by 90; and out of these I see, on referring to the division list, that with Mr. Herbert there voted the President of the Board of Trade, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Judge Advocate General—who is so high an authority on questions of military discipline—the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Secretary of State for War, and the Postmaster General. I am sure that I could not have gone wrong when I voted in so goodly a company. This, Sir, I may say, is my case. The Secretary of State for War must have had good reasons for what he said and did then. He made a speech, from which I have read to the House some of the most salient passages, and I believe the House will feel with me that that was far too good and strong a speech to be undone by any other which the right hon. Gentleman may make now, however able that may be. But I am sure that he cannot and does not wish to un-speak that speech. He may now consider that he was then in error; but upon that head I refuse to listen to mere rumour. I do not know what his present views are on the matter, and I

  707
  refuse to know what they are, except from his own mouth, and in an authoritative form; but this I know, that regarding the question as he did at that time; having led into the lobby with him, as he then did—for we cannot but suppose that his speech had an influence as great even as that of Mr. Auberon Herbert!—so many of his most distinguished Colleagues and Friends, he must now be earnest and eager in his desire for an impartial Inquiry. If the establishment of the military centre at Oxford is to go on under the control of the present Government, of which so many distinguished Members voted against the proposal at that time, then I say that they have contracted an additional obligation to commit the case to the inquiries of an impartial tribunal, and such an impartial tribunal can only be found in a Select Committee of this House. He owes that to his Colleagues, and equally to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford. For if the world sees this project of a military centre at Oxford going on, and going on under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Oxford, and under the paternal and dignified patronage of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford, then the world will have the right to inquire how it comes about that the lion and the lamb are thus lying down together. Now, with reference to the main question, my feelings, I must confess, remain unchanged. I do not defend those feelings in my own words. I have quoted the language of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in their vindication. I believe that a military centre and a University are two incongruous things, but both good and necessary things; still, not things that can be well married together in one and the same town. I believed that, when I voted with Mr. Auberon Herbert last year, and I believe it now. But that is not the only issue on which I put the question. I contend, and I believe the House will agree with me, that my right hon. Friend having thrown down the gage to fortune, and having rightfully and strongly committed himself last year against this military centre; if now he sees reasons why, being in another position, and after the many things which have happened since then, it is his duty to carry out what he then protested
  708
  against, it is only wise and just for his own untarnished character, which can only come out brighter after every inquiry, that this Committee should be appointed. I am satisfied that he has done nothing which has not been dictated by the highest sense of duty. If, however, there is an outward discrepancy between the course which was then taken by my right hon. Friend and that which he now takes, that discrepancy ought to be cleared up. No speech which he may make to day can be a better or stronger speech than the one he made last year. It may be as good, but it will not be a better, and I trust that he will not attempt to unspeak that speech. A Select Committee of this House is the impartial tribunal to which such a question as this ought to be referred. In its appointment my right hon. Friend could have the share to which he is entitled. Independent Members of the House would also have their share; and it is the only Court of honour to which the subject can be properly referred. I invite him, then, in a spirit of no hostility to the Government of which he is a Member, in no hostility to the university, and equally in no hostility to the efficiency of the military service, which must be looked to at Oxford as well as in other counties, to accept my Motion, allow a Committee to be named for the purpose of taking evidence, and to permit that evidence to go forth to the world, which is necessary for the satisfactory solution of this somewhat troublesome question. In accordance with the terms of my Notice, I beg to move the appointment of a Select Committee upon the subject.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the expediency of the selection of Oxford as a Military Centre,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) in bringing forward the Motion had relied mainly upon a speech he (Mr. Hardy) had made very ineffectually last year, and the hon. Member seemed to think

  709
  that nothing had occurred since then to place him in a different position, except that he now held office, which he did not hold when he made that speech. The hon. Member appeared to have forgotten the very important changes which had occurred affecting this question since then. When he first acceded to office he was immediately addressed by the delegates from the University, who desired to obtain a re-consideration of the question; and he had informed them that it was not because he was the Representative of the University, that he could over-rule the proceedings of his Predecessor in this matter—especially when a Vote of Parliament had been taken on the subject—before anything had been done to carry into execution the determination to establish this brigade depot, and when, therefore, there was nothing to prevent the re-consideration of the subject. At that time they had a fair field all over the country before them, and they might have selected either Woodstock, Aylesbury, or High Wycombe as the site for the establishment of the military centre for the district, for no step had been taken to fix the locality. But what had since happened? After the Vote was taken in Parliament, the late Secretary for War felt himself at liberty to proceed in the matter. Twenty acres of land were bought for £2,400 in September last, and an agreement was entered into with the corporation of the city for the supply of water to the new depôt, under an arrangement by which the War Department was to pay half the expenses of the necessary works, and to take a certain supply of water daily. Forms of tenders for the works of the depot had been sent out, and of the 12 tenders received, the lowest, for £52,000, was accepted, and at the present time the contractor was in possession of the land, had begun to lay the foundations, had entered into contracts with sub-contractors for the performance of certain of the works and with the owners of quarries for the supply of stone necessary. The whole circumstances of the case, therefore, had entirely changed since he had made the speech relied on by the hon. Member for Cambridge university; for they had the land taken, the water supply arranged, the drainage provided for, the tender for buildings accepted, and the contractor, who had entered into engagements,
  710
  actually in possession of the ground. In fact, matters had gone so far, that, personally, he could not stop them—nor the House, unless it were prepared to pay a sum to re-imburse the contractor; and he felt that it would be hopeless to ask that House to consent to the appointment of the Committee which the hon. Member asked for. At the same time, he must still say that he thought the wishes of the University had not been sufficiently consulted in the matter. He thought—and he said it in the presence of the hon. Member opposite—that the University should have been allowed some voice in the question. As being the national University in the town of Oxford, it ought to have been consulted, and great weight should have been attached to its wishes. He was aware, from communications he had received from men of all parties connected with the University, that they held the very strongest feeling on this subject, and that they most earnestly desired to get rid of this depot. At the same time he—acting under a sense of great responsibility, and seeing that the place had been fixed, that the works had been commenced, and that a staff officer was in command, for whose accommodation a house had been taken until the completion of the buildings—felt that he could not now with propriety ask the House to assent to the appointment of the Committee, as he was prepared to have done last year. He trusted, therefore, that the House, under the circumstances, would see no inconsistency between his speech of last year and his present determination to withhold his assent from the Motion of the hon. Member. He, however, must say he had stated the facts, and he must leave them to judge.
  MR. HALLsaid, that it was agreeable to see the Cam coming to the rescue of the Isis; but, at the same time, he earnestly hoped, on practical grounds, that the House would not accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge University for a Select Committee. He did so first upon the grounds stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War—that the land had been purchased, and that the contractor was actually at work. But there were further objections to the hon. Member's proposal. When they considered that the opinion expressed by Lord Cardwell last year was

  711
  almost as a matter of necessity now endorsed by his successor, he would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Hope), whether he was sanguine enough to suppose he could show so good a case to the Committee as would induce them to take the very decided step of recommending the House to reverse the decision at which two Secretaries for War had arrived, and so to bring about the delay and inconvenience which must necessarily be the outcome of the Motion if it were successful? Coming to the main question, and putting aside all question of sentiment, it was admitted by all who had considered this subject that Oxford possessed peculiar advantages, which justified it being selected as the site for the military centre of the district. It was in the centre of a populous agricultural district, from which many of their best recruits had and might again be drawn—the pick of a thriving and contented country population—men who had not yet succumbed to the new fashion of which the House had heard the other day, in a speech of the hon. Member for Morpeth, of refusing to shoulder arms until they had voted for a Member of Parliament. Oxford was also the centre of a perfect network of railways, although not on the main line; but whose fault was that? Pew places combined greater advantages, and that probably furnished the reasons which induced Lord Cardwell to select Oxford as the site of the military centre; and the only physical objection—that of the want of water—the right hon. Gentleman had just informed the House had been obviated by the public spirit of the citizens of the city, who had undertaken to pay half the expense of the necessary works for supplying the depot with water, the Corporation having agreed to do this in perfect reliance upon the good faith of Parliament. The other and only real objection to the proposal was the fear of the effect which barrack propinquity might have on the discipline of the University. He was quite willing to admit that when this question was first mooted there was a very strong feeling on the subject; but it had now subsided to a great extent, and if the hon. Member for Cambridge University had not brought forward that Motion, very little would have been heard of the matter in Oxford. It must be recollected that there was a very great difference between making
  712
  Oxford a garrison town and making it one of the great military centres which were going to be placed throughout the length and breadth of the land. It was absurd to suppose that the presence of 110 soldiers—the number the hon. Member stated they would be—would interfere with the discipline of the University. But supposing that the hon. Member were to succeed in preserving Oxford from the presence of those soldiers, would not the hon. and learned Member for Limerick immediately feel it to be his duty to ask that Dublin, as a University town, should also be protected in like manner; and he would ask why an English and an Irish University should be placed on a different footing in this respect? The result would be that the House would find itself landed in one of those charming Irish conversaziones to which it had listened on several occasions that Session, not perhaps with pleasure, but with patience. Should the hon. Member press the Motion to a division, he should claim against it the votes of hon. Members below the gangway on the other side of the House. But it was not only barrack propinquity—it was railway propinquity also that the University authorities objected to. Not long ago the Great Western Railway Company was prevented from running their main line to the town, and they were compelled to make a detour by Swindon in order to get to the West of England, to the great and irreparable loss of the City of Oxford. On another occasion the Company proposed to build a few railway carriages in the neighbourhood of Oxford, when again the University authorities took fright, and, as had been rather cleverly shown in a caricature then published, the Jupiter of the University had arisen in his aesthetic might, and had hurled poor Vulcan out of the Oxford paradise. It was now proposed by the hon. Member to treat Mars in the same way, though he presented himself in the more humble garb of a military depôt. If hon. Members referred to the pages of Hansard, they would find that that time last year, during a debate on the same subject, an apprehension was very generally expressed that an officers' mess would be likely to exercise a corrupting influence on the undergraduate mind. Well, he would not stop to inquire whether the undergraduates of

  713
  Oxford or Cambridge had much, to learn; but this he would say—that neither they nor the hon. Member would find anything in an officers' mess which they need fear to copy in their College halls; and he maintained that, whatever might be the relations between the officers and the members of the University, it would be rather to the advantage than to the detriment of the latter. The hon. Member spoke of ill effects as likely to be produced by carrying out the project; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman felt that the effects for evil were not likely to be very serious, and in that he quite agreed with him. More than that, he was sanguine enough to look forward to the time when in that august and mellowed sphere—the University—the advantages of the military depot would be recognized; for, distinguished as Oxford society undoubtedly was, it would be none the less so for the introduction of an element a trifle more sparkling than those still, deep waters which were occasionally apt to be somewhat overpowering to ordinary mortals. For his part, he could not help thinking that they ought to be careful how they did anything, or recommended anything to be done, which would tend to render the relations between the city and the University less friendly than he rejoiced to know they now were. Time was when such was not the case, and he did not know anything more likely to unsettle the existing friendly spirit than that what one Secretary of State, who was Member for the City of Oxford, had from a sense of duty done, his successor in office, who chanced to be also Member for the University, should undo; thereby taking away an advantage which the citizens of Oxford had learnt to prize—in obedience to an University superstition which was fast passing away, even if it had not already entirely disappeared.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLhoped the House would not refuse to listen to a few words on this subject from the University point of view. Notwithstanding what had just been advanced, he could not but regard the proposal to form a military depôt at Oxford as a serious matter for the University of Oxford. It amounted to this—the turning of an ancient University into something resembling a modern garrison town—the mingling of learned Professors and thoughtful students with roystering soldiers
  714
  and licentious camp followers, tending to the demoralizing its ancient institutions. He might be told that he was exaggerating the case, but he regarded the scheme as being at once novel and dangerous. It was all very well to talk about its being a mere military depôt, with a few stores, some 50 soldiers, and a powder magazine with a solitary sentinel walking round it—that would not be objected to; but a military depot meant considerably more than that, for the exigencies of the service might turn Oxford into a great military centre. It meant, should occasion require, that some 3,000 or 4,000 men might be located there every year; and, in fact, he saw not the slightest reason why Oxford should not take the place of Aldershot. It should be borne in mind also that it would be a recruiting district. But it was said the city was in favour of the project; was the city, then, to be allowed to over-ride the University—the city which was favourable to any attempt to embarrass the University and to curtail its powers? That ought not to be, for the University of Oxford had made the City of Oxford. The City depended for its very existence upon the University, and while it could forget, it could not forgive, that fact. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War came to this—that the reputation and the future of the University were to be sold for a sum of £52,000. But then the Universities of London, and Dublin, and Edinburgh were similarly circumstanced. So they were; but would anyone for a moment contend that the position of those Universities was analogous to that of the University of Oxford? Dublin was full of soldiers, from the notorious disaffection and insubordination of the Irish people; London was full of soldiers because it was the metropolis of the United Kingdom; and Edinburgh because it was the capital of Scotland. But the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were founded before standing armies were known or garrison towns existed. He would perhaps be told that the objections of the University were frivolous and sentimental. He denied that they were. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had before now sacrificed themselves to advance the cause of constitutional freedom. They continued to send out men whose genius

  715
  and talent had advanced the fame of England, and they surely had a right to claim that their objections should be listened to, and not treated by the Legislature in a sorry manner, as being frivolous and sentimental. No one had spoken more powerfully in favour of sentiment—even if the objections could be regarded as sentimental—than the Prime Minister; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could sympathize with a young Member who ventured to differ from him in expressing the sentiments of the University which he represented. He had endeavoured to express the opinions of the ablest and most experienced leaders, and of most of the thinking men of the University. They, on a former occasion, had boldly said that if they could prevent it, they would not have Oxford turned into a manufacturing town. When it was proposed to carry the main line of railway through the town, they protested against being over-run with railway roughs and navvies, and now they entertained decided objection to its being converted in to a military station, crowded with its disorderly soldiers. What they wanted was that their quiet cloisters should be loft undisturbed, and that Oxford should remain as it was, a University town, the greatest University city in the world.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the House of Commons could not but welcome a new Member who had exhibited such ability as the noble Lord had just displayed. At the same time, the noble Lord must allow him (Sir William Harcourt) to express his regret that, bearing so great a name as he did, he should have spoken of roystering soldiers, and employed language such as he had used with reference to the British Army, with which that name was so inseparably associated. He was sorry, too, that the noble Lord, who had become a Member of that House by a majority all of whom did not belong to the Tipper classes, should have spoken of "railway roughs," and of the determination of the University authorities to exclude from Oxford all classes except those in whom they were personally interested. Passing, however, from that, and turning to the question before the House, he could not but think, to use a celebrated phrase, that the irony of the situation was complete. Since that comedy of opposing
  716
  this military centre at Oxford was performed on that very day last year, there had been a very important change in the dramatic cast of the performance. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge appeared before them draped in the mantle left to him by Mr. Auberon Herbert, whose sentiments he had adopted, at least in this matter, for he (Sir William Harcourt) could not say he had adopted that gentleman's style. But that was not the only change which had come about. He could not help thinking, as he saw the change in the performers, that, to use a phrase which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had made classical, "a great deal had happened since that time." They had heard the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Oxford answering his hon. Friend the junior Member for the University of Cambridge. But there was one other change which he could not but look upon with some interest. His hon. Friend had been also answered—and ably answered—by an hon. Member whom the House might welcome for his ability—the Conservative Member for the City of Oxford. Then, again, his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge had criticized by anticipation the speech of the Secretary for War. The suggestion that the Secretary of State was going to act, not as the Minister charged with the Imperial interests of the Army, but rather as the Member for the University, was a suggestion he would repudiate as much as his predecessor did the suggestion that he had sacrificed the interests of the Army and of the University to those of the City of Oxford. It was satisfactory to know that the Secretary of State had come to the same conclusion as his Predecessor. On retiring from office Lord Cardwell left the matter open, so as not to preclude his Successor from stopping the contract which was signed under the present Government.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had no Minute to that effect; all he know-was, that he found the matter was in progress when he came into office, and he declined to interfere with the vote of the House, and he acted on the principle that nothing more could be clone until there had been another vote of the House.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But was not the contract signed by the present Government?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: That is quite true.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that verified what the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had informed him—that the contract was specially reserved, and was signed under the present Government, and therefore he was entitled to assume that both right hon. Gentlemen had arrived at the same conclusion. One of the great advantages of a change of Government was that the new Government, whatever language it might have held in Opposition, generally confirmed the policy of its predecessors. It was not always done in the same language; but substantially it had been done recently in respect of the Navy, and that was an instance connected with the Army. What was it the hon. Member for Cambridge University was afraid of? Was it the association of graduates and undergraduates with the officers of the British Army? As he was accused of chanting "Rule Britannia" and the "British Grenadiers," he could only hope that the United Service Club took the same view of his public performances. Had the hon. Member ever dined at a military mess? [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Never.] He had no idea he was going to make so good a guess; but, as once-a-year he dined with his hon. Friend in hall at Trinity College, he would next year bring his hon. Friend into contact with some military officers, so that he might see they could behave themselves. They had nothing to lose in comparison with the best University society. Universities were open only half the year, and was it to be imagined students did not meet with military men at home and dine at military messes with their relatives? Whence came that terror of the military character? Sydney Smith said, apropos of the alarm of a Yorkshire mother at an heiress being carried off by a marching regiment, every mother ought to have a stuffed figure of a red coat, to accustom young ladies to the sight of it; and he would advise the introduction into schools of the stuffed figure of a soldier, to satisfy students that soldiers were not such formidable persons as they were held to be. Was it feared that the
  718
  non-commissioned officers would lower the moral tone of the scouts of Oxford? Was it feared that the private soldiers of the rank and file would lead those venerable vestals—the bedmakers—astray? Why, they had so far resisted superior attractions. If the argument was good for anything, it would justify the isolation of this military centre like a convict establishment on the top of Dartmoor, far removed from the pestilential influences of horses, of men, and of women. Here was a University, with 2,500 students, in the midst of a population of 40,000, and it was to be corrupted and destroyed by the introduction of 110 soldiers, with the occasional addition of the Militia. The military virus must be singular, indeed, if 110 soldiers could do more harm to the University than 40,000 people. Were these apprehensions well-founded? Eton, Dublin, Winchester, Edinburgh, and Westminster had soldiers located near them, but did not suffer in consequence. They had been told by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), that the Irish people were notoriously disaffected, and that Dublin was full of soldiers in consequence. That was not very prudent language to hold, especially in that House, and it might as well be said that the people of Edinburgh and other garrison towns were disaffected because they contained soldiers, and that the students in them were contaminated by the contact. That was not the first time that Oxford had been unnecessarily alarmed, for some 300 years ago she was terrified at the proposal to teach Greek within her walls; but she had survived that. What was the Committee to do? It was said that the character of the Secretary for War would come out of the inquiry untarnished. Well, it did not require rehabilitation. When the Battle of Dorking came, and hordes of barbarians threatened the Bodleian, it might be satisfactory to have 110 soldiers there. Really it was very difficult to treat the matter seriously, although if the Motion was carried, it would be a very serious matter. What would be thought in Prussia of a country which desired to have a scientific Army, holding that military men were not fit for the society of an University-town? If they wished the profession of arms to be respected, that profession

  719
  must be treated as respectable; they must not have language coming from the Conservative benches such as they had heard that evening, when the British soldier was described as roystering and dissolute. He had never disparaged the profession of arms, and he was glad to think that the Army was gradually becoming more scientific than it had been. It was not the best way to get the best men into the Army to appoint a Committee to inquire whether soldiers were fit society. To put them in social quarantine, or treat them as Jewish lepers, who cried, "Unclean! Unclean!" lest anybody should approach them, as proposed to be done by the Motion, was not the way to advance recruiting, and would strikingly contrast with the manner in which Her Majesty always recognized their services. It was not denied that Oxford was the proper site on military grounds, and he asked the House, which yesterday rejected a Motion which appeared to cast an unmerited slur on a distinguished officer, to support both the Ministers of War in the course they had taken in the matter, and dispose in the same spirit of a Motion which, whatever its intention, would inflict an unjust stigma on a great profession.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that having been alluded to by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), he wished to prevent misunderstanding, by explaining what had occurred. The preliminary negotiations had, of course, been entered into—the ground bought, and arrangements made for the supply of gas and water; but the contract for the building had not been signed or approved by the Treasury at the time his noble Friend (Lord Cardwoll) quitted office. His noble Friend intentionally left it open in order that his Successor might not find the door absolutely shut against him, if he thought it proper to change the action of the Department; but he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that after all that had passed, including the Vote of last Session, it would have been difficult to retreat.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The tenders had all been received.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But they had not been accepted.
  MR. MOWBRAYdesired to recall the House to the real issue before it, but must, in passing, allude to the able speeches of his hon. Friend the junior Member for Oxford (Mr. Hall) and his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and congratulate them on the promise they had given of attaining great distinction in that House. For their education and training, the University of Oxford was entitled to claim credit. He was sorry the hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir William Harcourt) should have supposed that the noble Lord, the bearer of one of the most illustrious names in the British Army, could contemplate saying one word which would disparage either officer or soldier. The question before the House was, whether there was not cause for a re-consideration of the project, when a great national institution like the University of Oxford, training upwards of 4,000 of the flower of British youth, had, by a memorial from its Convocation, signed by all the Professors and others engaged in tuition and exhibiting a most extraordinary concurrence of opinion, deprecated the introduction of this non-academic element. He sympathized with the difficulty of his right hon. Colleague's position, and felt with him that he could not on his personal responsibility set aside his Predecessor's action; but now that the Secretary for War was no longer one of the Members for the City of Oxford, the University desired a re-consideration of the question by an impartial tribunal. No doubt, matters had progressed very far when the right hon. Gentleman came into office, but still the tenders had not been accepted, and it had been hoped that the matter would be referred to some impartial tribunal. Originally, Oxford was not selected on military grounds, and, in the Papers laid on the Table by Lord Cardwell in 1872, Aylesbury and Wycombe were suggested. When Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar was sent down to make an investigation, he reported on the various difficulties of making Oxford a military centre, and recommended a site a mile and a-half from Woodstock and six miles from Oxford as more eligible. There was fair ground, consequently, for inquiring whether the moral objections urged by the University outweighed the military reasons. The hon. and learned

  721
  Member had spoken of the impossibility of the Secretary of State for War altering these arrangements, but he (Mr. Mowbray) could recollect how, 10 years ago, the Dover contracts were disallowed, and he might remind the House that a remarkable speech was made in "another place" on the 27th of June last, by a Nobleman who was now a Secretary of State and a Member of the present Cabinet, in which he said—
  "He believed that act of selecting Oxford as a military centre would not be respected by another Secretary of War, should there by any chance be a change of Government, and he for one should not deem himself precluded from asking the new Government to reverse the act of its predecessors. The University was, he thought, perfectly right in keeping the question open, and if any further opportunity should be afforded hereafter for obtaining a reversal of the policy from some future Minister of War, he wished it to be understood that he should not feel himself precluded from availing himself of it, by reason of his not taking further action under the existing Government."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 1491.]
  The right hon. Gentleman who was now Secretary for War having adopted the decision of his Predecessor, his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University had justly lost no time in calling on the House to appoint a Committee impartially to consider this important question. It was clear that both the War Office and the City of Oxford were leagued against the University in the matter; but he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Motion to a division, if only to take the sense of the House.
  MR. M. BROOKShoped the House would excuse him for interposing, as the Chief Magistrate of the City of Dublin; but he could not let the Debate close without entering his protest against the language which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) relative to the City which he had the honour to represent. The noble Lord had uttered what he could not help regarding as an unfounded slander upon his constituents, when he said that a large Army was kept in Dublin, for the purpose of keeping down a disloyal and disaffected population.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he must express his great regret that the subject had been re-opened. He had not voted on this question when it was before the
  722
  House last year, in deference to the opinion of many of his constituents; but he must protest against the manner in which the officers in the Army had been spoken of. One would really think, from what had been said during the debate, that a convict establishment, or a body of ticket-of-leave men were to be brought into the City of Oxford. He knew something of the officers of the Army, and also of the undergraduates of the University, and he could not help thinking that the more the undergraduates rubbed against British officers the more they would be improved.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEbegged to state he had not said one word against the officers of the Army. He spoke merely of the privates and camp followers.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he could also speak for the private soldiers. There was no body of men who had served their country more faithfully than the private soldiers of the British Army. As to subalterns, the morals of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were he believed on a par with those of the officers of the Army, and they were much more likely to suffer by contact with undergraduates than the undergraduates by contact with them.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, as hitherto no one, except University Members, or those connected with the city, county, or University of Oxford, had yet spoken, he trusted he might be allowed to say a few words. He could not help thinking after the remarkable memorial addressed to the Secretary of State for War which had been laid before the House, containing the signatures of all the illustrious teachers of the University of Oxford, it was rather too much for the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford to say that it was difficult to treat this matter seriously. What did that memorial state? It said—
  "We think that a University town has a national claim to be kept free from an unnecessary intrusion of a non-academic element, which those best qualified to judge believe to be injurious to its special work. We deprecate the too probable collision between military and academic discipline, and the introduction into a place where so large a number of young men are gathered together for education," not of the British Army, but "of that undesirable population which, experience shows, is almost invariably attached to Military Centres."
  He challenged hon. Members to say, by

  723
  their votes, whether they did not think that was a matter which they ought seriously to consider, for he thought that modest representation should receive attention. What they were asked to do was to appoint a Committee of that House to consider the very grave question now before them. It was unfortunate that personal matters had been introduced, but the facts that the late Secretary for War sat for the City of Oxford and that the present Secretary for War was one of the Members for the University of Oxford were commented on out-of-doors, and bethought the least that could be done was to appoint a Committee on the subject. In doing so the House was not asked to say whether Oxford ought to be a Military centre, but only to appoint a Committee to ascertain in what condition matters now stood, and whether the Government had any option. His wish was to see the question dealt with in a broad and national spirit, and in a manner befitting the respect due to so illustrious a body as the University of Oxford.
  MR. MELDON, as a graduate of Dublin University, said, he wished to protest against the sneers at that University contained in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. The sneer was quite unmerited. The graduates at Dublin whenever they had the opportunity were able to beat the graduates of Oxford in intellectual exorcises, and they were most anxious to have an opportunity of trying their strength against Oxford in physical exercises as well. For some reason which was best understood by themselves, the graduates of Oxford had always declined the physical challenge; but both intellectually and physically, the graduates of Dublin were certain they could beat Oxford, and therefore the sneer against Dublin, not because it was a University, but because it was an Irish university, was quite unjustifiable. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had said that the cases of Dublin and Oxford were analogous. They were not. Oxford owed everything to her University, and therefore the opinions of the University on the subject under discussion ought to receive more consideration in that House. Dublin, on the contrary was the capital of Ireland, and as a city, far and away beyond Oxford, which, however, would not be raised in
  724
  the eyes of the nation by having 110 soldiers located within its boundaries.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had heard no new fact or argument which had not been brought before the House last year, and why it should now be asked to re-open this question he could not understand. The House was now invited to go into Committee to see whether it could not find reasons to alter its former decision. If, however, the House once entered upon such a course of action, an infinitely greater evil than any inconvenience to the University would be incurred. If the House went on doing and undoing in that way, it would inflict a greater curse upon the country than could be compensated by any possible good that could result from the inquiry. He admitted the respect due to the University authorities who sent up the memorial. They were of opinion—and it was but an opinion—that some inconvenience would be felt with respect to the discipline of the University. He had himself expressed that opinion, but if the House entered upon this course of proceeding, it might be asked to re-establish the Irish Church. If it went on in this way, the coach of the Government would be very quickly upset. The matter was fairly brought before the last Parliament, and not only that House, but he believed the other House of Parliament, backed up the then Government in the decision they came to. For those reasons, he could not support the Motion.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished that the University of Dublin had not been placed in a great capital, and if the University of Oxford, founded before the city which had grown up around it, wished to be as free as possible from military influences, he sympathized with that feeling and should vote for the Motion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 71: Majority 99.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday 1st June.

MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) AND COMMISSIONERS OF DUBLIN POLICE [ALLOWANCES].—COMMITTEE.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. M'LARENsaid, he could not allow the Resolution to pass without observation. An increased allowance of £26,000 was proposed last year. He had then the honour to propose that it should be reduced to £1,000, but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt), spoke on the subject, and suggested that he should make the sum £14,000, which he did. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth) also supported his proposal, and that was why he now spoke on the subject, for the former Government had undertaken that, during the present Session, they would bring forward a measure to provide that the people of Ireland should contribute their fair proportion of taxation for the police of the country. The Bill now before the House contained a clause which provided that the Commissioners of Police in Dublin were to be paid increased salaries. ["No, no!"] It provided that the Lord Lieutenant should fix the salaries at not less than they now were, and might fix them at as much more as he thought fit, getting the sanction of the Treasury before the increase came into operation. He could not think any individual was strong enough to resist the pressure of a locality, and he should therefore oppose that part of the Bill, giving such powers to the Lord Lieutenant His chief objection was, that the City of Dublin received for more already from the Imperial Treasury than any town in Scotland or England; for it received £91,731 for its police—he was not speaking of the general constabulary of Ireland, but of the metropolitan police of the City of Dublin. Why should Dublin be placed in a different position from Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow? The whole of Scotland received from the Imperial Treasury less than the amount the City of Dublin received, for it received only £53,000. He thought that, under those circumstances, they ought not to increase the salaries of the Commissioners of Police of Dublin at the expense of the Treasury, There were clauses in
726
the Bill, also, for increasing the salaries of the magistrates throughout Ireland, and to that he did not object; but what he objected to was Dublin being unduly favoured as compared with the other cities in the United Kingdom. From a Return which was laid on the Table a few days ago, it appeared that the annual value of the rateable property in Dublin—on which the income tax was levied—was only £481,000, or less than one-half of that of the city he had the honour to represent; the rental on which Edinburgh paid taxes being £1,250,000. Why should they be called upon in England and Scotland to pay what might be called an income tax for Irish purposes, while Dublin, like a spoiled child, had hardly to pay anything? Though the present Government was not technically called upon to carry out the pledges of the late Government with respect to this particular matter, he thought they should do so as an act of justice to the other parts of the United Kingdom.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh would have acted with greater regard for the convenience of the House if he had raised his objection on the clause itself, when it came under consideration in Committee on the Bill. The Bill did not propose to fix what the salaries of the Dublin Commissioners of Police were to be, but only to abolish the statutable limits, and to allow the salaries to be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant. Only this year arrangements had been made by the Government for giving an increased grant for police to the cities and counties of England. Without going into figures on the subject, he would observe that the proportion of the charge now paid by the people of Dublin was nearly the same as that which the people of England would have to pay under this new arrangement, so that the reasons no longer existed which might formerly have been urged for a further payment being demanded from Dublin.
Moved, That it is expedient to make provision for the payment, out of moneys to "be provided by Parliament, of the Superannuation and other Allowances that may become payable under any Act of the present Session for regulating the Salaries of Resident Magistrates in Ireland and of certain Officers of the Dublin Police.—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
MR. BUTTobserved that if the City Corporation of Dublin had control of their police, there could not be any objection to their paying more for it. As it was, it was they, and not the Treasury, that were robbed in paying half the expense.
MR. DILLWYNobjected to giving the Lord Lieutenant irresponsible powers in fixing the salaries of the Commissioners, as it would take the control of the payment away from the House.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that as the salaries would always appear on the Votes, the House would always have an opportunity of objecting to the salaries given when they were proposed in the Estimates.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday 1st June.

HOMICIDE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Select Committee on the Homicide Law Amendment Bill nominated:—Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. BRISTOWE, Mr. CHARLEY, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, Mr. EVANS, Mr. WALTER JAMES, Sir JOHN KENNAWAY, Sir COLMAN O'LOGIILEX, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, Mr. SALT, Sir JOHN KARSLAKE, Mr. LEIGH PEMBERTON, Mr. GEORGE LEFEVRE, and Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY:—Five to be the quorum.
House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock, till Monday, 1st June.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* (78); India Councils* (79).
Third Reading—Courts (Straits Settlements) * (60) and passed.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES—PARLIAMENT STREET.—QUESTION.
LORD REDESDALEsaid that, although the houses in Parliament Street which stood in front of the new Government Offices had all been demolished before the meeting of Parliament, and the street might, he supposed, have been opened to its full width before now, nothing had been done since in the way of effecting that improvement. Perhaps the reason of this was that the Department of Works felt convinced that the
682
taking down of the hoarding in front of the new offices would at once suggest a demand that the widening of the street should be continued down to the open space in front of the Houses of Parliament. It was perfectly clear, and had been so for years back, that sooner or later the block of houses which now stood between the new Offices and Great George Street must be pulled down. But as the old houses in that block fell one by one into decay, new ones were erected; so that for this as well as for other reasons the property was becoming more valuable every year. He hoped they would receive some assurance from his noble Friend that it was the intention of the Government to become possessed of it. He begged to ask his noble Friend the President of the Council when Parliament Street was to be opened to its full width in front of the new Government offices; and why nothing was being done now, or had been done for several months, towards completing that improvement?
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the subject of his noble Friend's Question was one of the first which engaged the attention of his noble relative the First Commissioner of Works on his appointment to his present office, and he could assure his noble Friend that there was no ground for the suggestion that the delay in the completion of the undertaking was due to any dread on the part of the Department that they might be called upon to go further and pull down more houses to complete the improvement. His noble Friend started with assuming what was not quite correct—namely, that towards opening the street in front of the new Offices to its full width, nothing had been done for several months. The fact was there had been no cessation of the works. Sowers had to be formed, gas-pipes to be laid, and water-pipes and mains to be placed before the road could be formed; but before a very long time—he could not speak as to weeks or months—the 40 feet or SO feet which had yet to be opened would be thrown into the roadway.

MINISTER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD REDESDALEwished to ask his noble Friend (Lord Hampton), Whether he meant to press his Resolution

  683
  for the appointment of a Minister of Public Instruction. Did his noble Friend mean to urge it in a serious manner? because, if he did, there ought to be a somewhat longer Notice of it than one of 24 hours. The first Notice put on the Paper by his noble Friend was merely one of his intention to call attention to the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education and to ask a Question; but for that Notice he last evening substituted his Notice respecting a Minister of Public Instruction. To press an important Motion of which there had only been such a short Notice would not be in accordance with the customs in their Lordships' House.
  LORD HAMPTONsaid, that his only desire was to make a statement, and he had substituted the Resolution with which he proposed to conclude his address for the Notice he had originally given, merely for the purpose of being in Order; it was not therefore his intention to press the Motion to a division. He trusted, however, that the subject-matter of the Motion would receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to its subsequent adoption, because he believed that the appointment of such a Minister would do much to promote the cause of Education. His object therefore in moving his Resolution was simply to promote as far as he could an object for which he had contended for many years. That object was of a very simple character, and he had never varied in stating it, his opinion now being, as it long had been, that the rapidly growing educational interests of the country ought to be entrusted to a distinct Department of the State, presided over by a responsible Minister, and not entrusted, as it now was, to a body such as the Committee of Council on Education. He would not detain their Lordships by entering at length into the circumstances under which the Committee of Council was constituted. It was in the year 1839 that the late Lord Lansdowne proposed that the administration of the Education Grant, which then amounted to the small sum of £30,000 a-year, should be entrusted to a Committee of the Privy Council. Since that time, however, the interest of the public in education had rapidly grown, and the grants given by Parliament for the purpose had gradually and steadily increased, After
  684
  the Committee had been in operation for several years he and other friends of Education became of opinion that the organization of the Committee did not fit it for the performance of the duties of a Department of Education. In 1836 the noble Earl who was then Lord President (Earl Granville) introduced into their Lordships' House a Bill for the appointment of a Vice President of the Council. This official was, however, very different from a Minister of Education. He must here say that on that occasion the noble Earl spoke in courteous and complimentary terms of him and his advocacy of the appointment of a recognized Minister of Public Education; and he supposed the noble Earl might think him ungrateful for having ever since held that the appointment of a Vice President of the Committe of Council on Education did not meet the requirement. Their Lordships would, of course, understand that when he spoke of the Vice President his remarks were directed to the office and not to the individual who filled it. He had no intention whatever of reflecting on the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) who now presided over the Committee or on the individuals of whom it was composed. He addressed himself wholly and exclusively to the organization of the Committee as a mode of administering a great Department; and he did think that as such a body it was anomalous and inconvenient, and that, above all things, no precedent could be found for it in the government of this country. There were Departments presided over by Boards, such as the Board of Admiralty, or by a Council, like the Council of India; but the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister for India had for their Council, men who had professional or official experience in the particular matters on which they were called upon to advise their Chiefs, but the constitution of those bodies was in no way analogous to the Committee of Council on Education, in which there were a President and Vice President, who were to a certain extent co-ordinate Ministers, and who were assisted by a Council consisting of the heads of various Departments whose time and attention were constantly devoted to subjects other than those upon which they were called upon to advise—none of that business being connected with Education.

  685
  He could not help thinking that it was an inconvenient and anomalous mode of conducting a great public Department, and in that view he was supported by very high authority. In 1856, when the question was before the House on the Bill of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), the late Earl of Derby, who took part in the debate, suggested, whether, if they were disposed to have a Department of Education, it would not be better to have a radical change at once, and appoint a Minister of Education, who should have no other duties to perform, and who should be responsible for the education of the people. The Bill passed and a Vice President was appointed; and no change having been made in the constitution of the Committee after that time, he (Lord Hampton) was so little satisfied with the way in which it worked that in 1865 he felt it to be his duty to move in the House of Commons for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education, and the system under which its business was conducted. The Committee was appointed and sat for two Sessions, and at the close of the Session of 1866 it became his duty as Chairman to draw up its Report. He accordingly prepared a draft Report, which was distributed among the Members of the Committee, but it was never considered, and therefore not presented, a change of Government having taken place at the time, and he and other Members of the Committee having become Members of the new Administration. In consequence of these occurrences the sittings of the Committee were not continued, and his Report only appeared as a draft in the Blue Book. Among those, however, who were examined before the Committee were Earl Granville, Earl Russell, Mr. Lowe, Lord Aberdare (then Mr. Bruce), and Sir Charles Adderley. Nothing could be more remarkable than the discrepancies between them as to the nature of the duties which as Presidents and Tice Presidents of the Committee of Council they were required to perform. Mr. Lowe was of opinion that as Vice President of the Council he was exactly in the same position as an Under Secretary of State. Mr. Bruce entirely dissented from that view, and held that the situation was not that of an Under Secretary of State, adding that he had
  686
  considered himself to be a Minister responsible to Parliament for the manner in which his duties were discharged. Sir Charles Adderley's view was that the Committee was useless, and worse than useless; and he stated that when they met he had "to teach them the questions which they had to consider." Earl Granville approved of the Committee, but admitted that it was better to have the responsibility concentrated than divided, and he also concurred with Mr. Lowe that there was nothing in the office which might not be conducted by one man. He further declared that this Committee had absolutely no responsibility, and that if he differed from the Committee on any question of principle, he should not consider himself bound by the opinion of the majority. What a body the Committee must be when one of its Presidents distinctly stated that he should not consider himself bound to follow its decisions. Earl Russell, however, differed in opinion from Earl Granville. He considered that the Committee had responsibilities, though it would be difficult to determine their extent, and was of opinion that the view of the majority should override that of the Lord President. Now, such discrepancies of opinion on such a matter among statesmen who had actually filled the office either of President or Vice President, were hardly consistent with the proper organization and useful working of a great Public Department; but the climax of anomaly was reached when, in the late Government, the President and Vice President of the Council happened to sit side by side as Members of the same Cabinet, each representing the Department of Education. In 1868, in the first Administration presided over by the present Prime Minister, the Duke of Marlborough, who then filled the office of Lord President of the Council, introduced a Bill, one of the most important provisions of which was the appointment of a Secretary of State who should have under his charge and control all matters connected with education. In moving this Bill, the noble Duke said that Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that the work of education was large enough to engage the undivided attention of a distinct Department of the State. The Bill did not pass; but, on the second reading, the noble

  687
  Duke gave a very effective answer to a question which might also be put in the course of the present debate. It was asked, why should not the President and Vice President of the Council be able to administer the Department of Education quite as well as a Secretary and Under Secretary of State? and to that the noble Duke replied by reminding those who raised the objection that the President of the Council had many other duties to perform besides presiding over the Department of Education—the Public Health, Quarantine, Cattle Disease Nuisances, the Channel Islands, and many other subjects sufficient to engage his whole energies. The duties of the Committee were, indeed, very various. He himself on a recent day introduced a deputation to the Lord President on the subject of improving the training of teachers for middle-class schools, and on another a deputation on the subject of the cattle disease. Each of those subjects was very important in itself, but what connection had the one with the other that both should be dealt with by the same Department? And the question now was whether the time had not come when this jumble of duties should not be terminated, and when the Minister who had to consider all matters relating to Public Health and the Prevention of Cattle Disease should be relieved from the duty of presiding over the Education Department of the country. But if a Minister of Education was necessary in 1868, it was more necessary now—for since that year three great changes had occurred in the question of Public Education. The first was the Bill—now an Act—introduced by Mr. Forster in 1870; the second was the establishment of the Endowed Schools Commission; and the third was the appointment of the Royal Commission on the subject of Scientific Instruction, which was presided over by the Duke of Devonshire, who was carrying on its duties with most able Colleagues. With regard to the Education Act, he desired to speak of it with all praise; but, in his opinion, it had left the question of education in some respects in an unsettled and unsatisfactory state. There was, in his mind, one great defect in the Act, and that was that it did not make satisfactory provision for the religious education of the people. He thought no one would controvert him when he said that the secular
  688
  views of the Birmingham League found no favour with the people. He did not limit his remarks to any particular body—he did not distinguish between Churchmen and Dissenters—but he repeated that the great body of the nation desired that the education of the people should be based on religious grounds. Again, the training of teachers for upper and middle-class schools had become a necessity. At present, too, there were no less than 700 school boards constituted—and hero surely was matter sufficient to occupy the attention of any Minister—the schemes prepared by the Endowed Schools Commissioners had also to be carefully considered; he had himself presented many Petitions in favour of museums as a means of technical instruction; and lastly, the recommendations contained in the Fourth Deport of the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction, which was recently presented to Parliament, furnished additional arguments in favour of the Resolution. These were the grounds on which he ventured to submit that the Committee of Council on Education should give way to a more regularly constituted Department, and the Government now in power carry out the views of which as a party they approved in 1868. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolution pro formâ.
  Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the Committee of Council on Education should be superseded by the appointment of a Minister of Public Instruction, who should be entrusted with the care and superintendence of all matters relating to national encouragement of science and art and popular education.—(The Lord Hampton.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, my noble Friend (Lord Hampton) in the concluding part of his speech, appeared entirely to forget that he had altered his Notice as it orginally stood on the Paper, and that in lieu of a Question as to the intention of the Government he had substituted a Resolution embodying a policy of his own. Accordingly I have now no Question to answer on behalf of the Government. But though I need not be at the pains of replying to a Question which has not been put, I shall address myself to some of the observations made to your Lordships by my noble Friend with the view of showing you that the House ought not to concur in his Motion. My noble

  689
  Friend, in the course of his observations, told your Lordships that he referred to offices and not to individuals, and that he had no intention to reflect on mo, and in return I shall speak as if the Lord President were some other individual than the person who has now the honour of addressing your Lordships. I must, in the first place, remark that I waited to hear from my noble Friend, as he went on, what great failures had attended the carrying on of the business of the Committee of Council. In the early part of his speech my noble Friend commented a great deal on the constitution of the Department. He said it was anomalous, inconvenient, and such as had no precedent in this country. Taking the Committee of Council as a whole, I venture to think that it is a very convenient organization for the carrying on of business, because by means of it the President has an opportunity of advising with the other Members of the Government on the various measures connected with education. In matters relating to education in Scotland we have the advantage of the knowledge of the Lord Advocate, and in all matters relating to education in this country we have the counsels of my noble Friend the Minister for India, and for the Army my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War. My noble Friend referred to a speech made by the late Lord Derby in 1856; but on looking to that speech I do not think it supports the proposition of my noble Friend to the extent he seems to suppose. Lord Derby said the time might come when it would be necessary to appoint a Minister of Education, and that he thought the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education should then be one and the same person. I shall not now, my Lords, go into the question whether the Prime Minister should be President of the Council or I should be Prime Minister; but I do not think Lord Derby's observations were intended to have the application which my noble Friend seeks to give them. As to the various kinds of business which my noble Friend referred to as being discharged by the Committee of Council, I would remind him that many matters relating to the public health are not now within the duties of the Committee; they have been handed over to the Local Government Board. As to museums, and the department of Science
  690
  and Art, my noble Friend did not show us why the arrangements under which the Museums at South Kensington and Bethnal Green are conducted are not to be regarded as satisfactory; and my noble Friend did not state what he proposed to do as to them. My noble Friend referred to the state of things which existed in 1856, and thence down to 1865—but we have got a step forward since 1865. He says there ought to be a Minister of Education. My answer is that there exists a Minister of Education, and I have the honour to be that Minister. That is plain from an Order in Council dated in 1856, after the appointment of a Vice President. There is another Minister, whether you like to call him an Under Secretary or Vice President of the Council, who is second to the President; but nothing can be more decisive, clear, and conclusive than that the Lord President of the Council is Minister of Education, and that he is responsible for everything that goes on in the Department of Education—and he is in truth a Minister of Education with a seat in the Cabinet. My noble Friend does not attack the appointments to either office. That of Vice President has been filled by such men as Mr. Lowe, Lord Aberdare, and Mr. Forster, and I would ask where could you find men better qualified for the post? I think the same question may be put in respect of my noble Friend Lord Sandon, who is now Vice President. My noble Friend (Lord Hampton) has referred to the Bill introduced by the Duke of Marlborough in 1868, for the appointment of a Minister of Education, which Bill fell through; but the state of things in respect of education has entirely altered since then. At that time the Department had to overtake all the work of education throughout the country; but the Act passed by the late Government in 1870, has relieved it of much of that work. True a largo amount of additional work immediately followed the passing of that Act; but it has been greatly reduced since, and there is no such difficulty in carrying on the business of the Department as my noble Friend supposes; and though there is a very large number of school boards—some 700 or 800—very little acquaintance with habits of business enables the Ministers of the Department to get through the business which conies from

  691
  the School Boards. Then as to the Endowed School Commission, I can assure my noble Friend that the questions which come before the Lord President arising out of the schemes give but comparatively little trouble. The details are easily mastered, and I think the schemes which have been dealt with by me have been settled satisfactorily. I think I may assert so much because no complaints have been made on that head in respect of schemes which have received the sanction of the Department. My noble Friend referred to the evidence given by Lord Russell before his Committee; but I see that when asked as to the responsibility of the Department, Lord Russell said there was no responsibility on it beyond what occurred in other offices. And on one point I would remind my noble Friend that if you appoint a Minister of Instruction you do not thereby get rid of responsibility. On looking at the evidence given to the Committee by my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), who presided over the Education Department for many years, I do not think that he alleged that he found any difficulty in conducting its business, and I think the view he took was that he was the responsible Minister. My noble Friend quoted Mr. Lowe, but he did not cite one remark which was made by that light hon. Gentleman. He was asked, how the Department was managed? and he replied that it was managed very much like other Departments. Matters of routine go to the gentlemen at the head of the various permanent offices, from whom they are passed on to the very able Permanent Secretary (Sir Francis Sandford), who considers points and discusses them with the Vice-President, who again takes counsel with the President. Mr. Lowe described it as a system of sieves, and said that what was too large to go through his sieve, he passed on to the Lord President. I do not know whether my noble Friend intends that the jurisdiction of his Minister of Instruction should extend to Ireland? If he has not thought of this point, I leave it to him for his consideration before the next time he brings on his Motion. But supposing he succeeds with his Motion, who is to be his Minister? Would he be a Secretary of State having an Under Secretary? In such case I ask my noble Friend, in pity, what does
  692
  he propose to do with the Lord President of the Council, who now holds official rank in the Government next after the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor? What duties would he leave to the Lord President? In fact, if the scheme of my noble Friend were carried out, and a Secretary of State was to be made Minister of Education, nothing would be left for the President of the Council, except the drawing up of Orders in Council, which are clone in the Department, and over which he has no real supervision, and it seems to me that the President of the Council would subside into a first-class Veterinary Surgeon. I do not think I should discharge the duties of that office to the satisfaction of the country. On that ground, therefore, I should dispute the advisability of my noble Friend assigning me such an appointment. My noble Friend has stated that he has appeared before me on two or three occasions lately as introducer of deputations of schoolmasters and agriculturists. I hope and fancy from what passed on these occasions, that those who presided over the Department—not myself alone, but my noble Friend Lord Sandon—for we act most cordially together, and there can be no one more satisfactory to his Colleagues than my noble Friend—did not exhibit any ignorance of what was going on in either subject. I know I can say for myself that I felt quite equal to my noble Friend on all these occasions. For these reasons I do not think the time has arrived for appointing a Minister of Education. But if there ever was such a time it was before the great measure of education had been passed by the late Government, when there might have been some plea for it. I will not go now into the question whether the people of this country are or are not in favour of a religious education, for I do not think it comes within the terms of the Resolution. The subject has now been sufficiently long before the public and the Department, and the Department are perfectly satisfied that they can deal with everything that comes before them connected with the education of the country. For this reason I shall think it my duty to meet with a negative the Motion of my noble Friend.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Duke—and the noble Duke having said that he

  693
  could not accept this Resolution and having given his reasons for that course—it is hardly necessary for me to add anything; but there is one point on which I wish to corroborate him. On the abstract question I entirely agree with my noble Friend who made this Motion—as to the immense importance of education. Abstractedly I see no objection to a Minister of Education; but, in order to prove his case it would be necessary to do what my noble Friend did not attempt—namely, to prove its necessity and show the practical inconveniences of the present system. As to whom the responsibility attaches I should say there could not be the slightest doubt on that subject, only that a noble Friend and Colleague of mine has given a somewhat contradictory opinion. The more, however, I think on it, the more convinced I am that the opinion I gave before the Committee was perfectly right. It appears to me quite clear, that notwithstanding the appointment of the Vice President of the Council to represent the Department in the House of Commons, the Minute which appointed a Vice President made it clear that it is the President of the Council who is responsible for all that occurs in the Department. The noble Duke the President of the Council is Minister of Education; and the very fact to which my noble Friend referred of the Department having been represented in the late Government by two Members of the Cabinet at the same time, if it tells at all, tells in favour of the Department as showing that two Ministers were likely to have more weight in the Cabinet than one. And hero there is a question which I would ask my noble Friend. Is the new Minister of Education whom he proposes, necessarily, to be a Member of the Cabinet or not? If it is not convenient for him to do so, it is quite clear that Education would lose very much by not being represented in the Cabinet as now by the President of the Council. I own there is something of anomaly in the Vice President of the Council having been, as in the late Government, a Member of the Cabinet. But his position there was not because he was Vice President, but because that office happened to be held by a person who from his political knowledge on all subjects, his weight in the House of Commons, and his power of speaking
  694
  was considered to be a most advisable adjunct. As to the working of the Department, I have had longer experience on that point than the noble Duke, and I can sincerely say I never knew any inconvenience arising from the fact of the Vice President being the representative of the Department in the House of Commons. I think, on the one hand, there is considerable advantage in this case in having a person in this House the responsible Minister of Education; and on the other in having a Vice President of the Council instead of an Under Secretary in the House of Commons, as being higher in rank, and as giving the Prime Minister the power of selecting a person of superior position to fill that post. I do not think there would practically be any advantage in a change. But there is another point which I think worth your Lordships' attention. Is it desirable to increase the number of the great Departments of the State? I doubt it exceedingly. I put aside the question of the expense of the additional salaries of the staff of the new Department; but I think it most important not unnecessarily to create a large number of great Departments. Then the heads of great Departments have a claim to be in the Cabinet. I think in the formation of the present Government it was wisely decided to diminish the number in the Cabinet rather than to increase it. I remember a good many years ago, when a Government was formed by the father of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), many Members of our party regretted that he did not reduce his Cabinet to a much smaller number. Making the Cabinet unwieldy is not a good thing for the Administration. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) stated that the late Lord Derby had said that in his opinion the Lord President of the Council ought to be Prime Minister. I think it has always been a disadvantage that the Prime Minister should have no particular office. I have thought that an easy way of getting rid of the difficulty would be to restore the office of Lord High Treasurer, which in that way would be most useful—but that is not the question now. Your Lordships must have observed that every now and then there is a demand for a Minister of Agriculture, and again another demand for a Minister of Education, both to be Members of the Cabinet. But I am

  695
  quite sure myself that the multiplication of this class of great officials is a thing not to be desired.
  LORD COLCHESTERsupported the Resolution, He had always been in favour of the appointment of a responsible Minister of Education, rather than that the Department should he principally under the direction of a Vice President, in a subordinate position, in the House of Commons. He thought great inconvenience had arisen from the want of such a Minister. Considering the great part the State now took in the education of the country, it ought to be possible to select for that office, without any reference to other duties, the man who would be fittest for the work of Education, and that work alone. If the President of the Council was always responsible for educational matters, what, he asked, was the position of the Vice President? Such men as Mr. Lowe, a noble Lord not now in the House (Lord Aberdare), and Mr. Forster had left their impress on the educational policy of the day. In his opinion, those eminent men might be regarded as Ministers of Education, for they hold a position different from that of the minor Ministers of any Department. What would have been thought in the country, under the late Ministry, if it had been announced that the Vice President of the Council had resigned his office? It would at once have been supposed that the whole educational policy of the Government had been changed. On the other hand, what sort of a spectacle was it to find the Minister actually presiding over the Education of the country, answering Questions relating to the diseases of cattle? It was, therefore, better that we should have a responsible Minister of Education than that the Minister in the House of Commons should hold a subordinate place—especially now that the question of education occupied a totally different position from what it had done before. There might be a question as to how the State should interfere with education; but if it did so interfere, the work ought to be confided to a separate Department presided over by a Minister specially selected with reference to his fitness to deal with the subject.
  EARL GREYsaid, his noble Friend the present President of the Council, as well as his noble Friend (Earl Granville), who so long occupied that office, had
  696
  demonstrated so clearly the inexpediency of adopting the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Hampton) that he should not have thought it worth while to add a word to the debate, if the noble Lord opposite had not made a great mistake in supposing that the constitution of the Education Department was anything new or unprecedented in the manner of carrying on the government of this country. The noble Lord ought to have been aware that in the early days of our Government, when the affairs of the country were far simpler and less complex than at present, the whole Government was really carried on by the Privy Council, and the Ministers of State were merely instruments to carry into effect the directions given by that Body. In short, the Privy Council was bonâ fide the Government of the country. At a much later period, when the Secretaries of State came to exercise a larger and more independent power, a Committee of the Privy Council became the real instrument for governing the Colonies. Our Colonies were then governed by the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and Plantations, the constitution of which was similar to that of the Committee on Education at the present day. Therefore, instead of being anything new or anomalous in this country, the Committee of Council on Education was merely an adaptation of the oldest practice of the Constitution—and, in his opinion, it was a very convenient one. It seemed to him, however, to be irregular that both the President and the Vice President should sit in the same Cabinet. While he admitted that the present system acted well, he was far from saying that, on some future occasion, the whole constitution of the great Offices of State might not very properly undergo revision.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.—QUESTIONS.
LORD COTTESLOEasked the Lord President, Whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to two fatal accidents which occurred recently to passengers by railway, where deaths resulted from leaving the trains while in motion, on which inquests were held by Dr. Lankester on the 20th inst.; and whether that Department has now under

697
their consideration the question of requiring that platforms at railway stations should be of uniform height, and that continuous footboards be provided for all railway carriages, to the want of which the accidents in question were attributed by the coroner and jury?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETalso asked when the Royal Commission on the subject of Railways would commence their inquiry, and what were the names of the Commissioners?
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the matter referred to by the noble Duke had occupied the attention of Members of the Government, including those who drew up the Order to regulate the proceedings of the Commission. Whether the arrangements connected with that matter were complete he did not know—if the noble Duke had given him Notice of his Question, he would have been able to inform him. The Answer to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Cottesloe) was that both the accidents referred to had been reported in due course to the Board of Trade. His noble Friend would recollect that this was not the first time that accidents of this sort had occurred, and that it was not the first time that such accidents had occupied the attention of the Board of Trade. An accident of this sort was the cause of Sir Donald Macleod's death in 1872. The Board of Trade at the time directed that an inquiry should be made into the cause of the accident, and a very full Report was made by Captain Tyler, in which he recommended that by a general agreement the platforms at railway stations should be made of uniform height, and that continuous foot-boards should be provided for all railway carriages. His noble Friend would perceive that foot-boards could not be made uniform unless all the platforms were of the same level. The subject had been under the consideration of the Board of Trade, but the misfortune was that the Board of Trade had no power to require the improvements recommended by Captain Tyler to be made. They could only call the attention of companies to the fact that accidents had occurred in consequence of foot-boards not being continuous. It seemed to him that this was one of the points that might very fairly and legitimately come under the consideration of the Royal Commission which had been alluded to by his noble Friend.

INDIA COUNCILS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to the Council of the Governor General of India—Was presented by The Marquess of SALISBURY; road 1a. (No. 79.)
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday the 1st of June next, a quarter before Five o'clock.