Sitting of 9 March 1876

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMTTEE—Depreciation of Silver, nominated; Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, Mr. Charles Lewis and Mr. Cotes added; Oyster Fisheries, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES—Resolutions [March 6] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Mutiny *.
Second Reading—Royal Titles [83]; Cattle Disease (Ireland) * [94].
Committee—Burgesses (Scotland) * [48]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Telegraphs (Money) * [90].
Report—Manchester Post Office* [72–100].
Considered as amended—County Palatine of Lancaster (Clerk of the Peace) * [53].
Third Reading—Council of India (Professional Appointments)* [69], and passed.

SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
(By Order.)
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. FIELDEN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, observed, that of late a practice had been growing
  1704
  up of rejecting Private Bills upon the second reading. He should be sorry to advocate any restriction of the right to reject Private Bills upon the second reading; but, still, it was a right that he thought ought to be most carefully exercised. He was himself a Director of the South-Eastern Railway Company, which company proposed by this Bill to acquire power to enlarge their station at Charing Cross, because the traffic had so increased that the station was no longer large enough to enable them to deal with it. It could not be doubted or denied that additional accommodation at Charing Cross would not only be a great convenience to persons arriving from the Continent, but also to the hundreds of thousands of the inhabitants of the metropolis who used the station daily. He could understand that the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) might have some objection to the way in which this was to be carried out; but he could not understand why on this account he should wish to reject the whole Bill, which contained several other provisions. It proposed that the South-Eastern line should be extended from Sandgate to Folkestone, and that the harbour at Folkestone should be enlarged. It was intended not merely to make a railway in England, but to improve the communication between this country and the Continent of Europe. The Company had for the last 10 years been in communication with the French Government and the authorities at Boulogne, with the view of bringing about a better communication between England and France; and had met with delay after delay. It was not until the wreck of last year blocked up the harbour for about a fortnight that the Boulogne authorities were brought to their senses; but now they were almost agreed as to forming a large harbour at Boulogne. The railway authorities could not improve the channel passage unless they had bigger boats; and they wanted more harbour accommodation, so that they might put on boats of the size of those which ran between Holyhead and Kingstown. In this way they hoped to shorten the journey between London and Paris by half an hour. If, however, the House should reject the Bill, the Company would be relieved from a great trouble and anxiety, and they would have the satisfaction of saying that they had done

  1705
  all that they could, but that the House of Commons would not listen to them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fielden.)
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he was not a railway director, nor in any way interested in that Bill, except in so far as it affected his constituents. He opposed the second reading, and held it to very important that hon. Members should assert their right to do so. At a quarter to 4 that afternoon the solicitor who was guarding the interests of his constituents told him that the promoters of that Bill were ready to surrender all that was objected to in it provided he would withdraw his opposition to the second reading. That proposal had taken him completely by surprise, and he had accordingly asked the other side to postpone the Bill in order to give him time for consideration; but they had refused to do so. The reason his constituents looked on the Bill with distrust was this. On a previous occasion of a similar kind they were served with notice that their buildings would be required for certain alterations, and after they had been at the trouble and expense of acquiring other premises, the railway company abandoned their scheme and left them to seek what compensation they could find. He was aware that Committees of the House could inflict penalties in such cases; but he would appeal to the House to say whether those penalties were ever enforced? He had no desire to prevent any improvement of the harbour at Folkestone. In the hope that the House would aid him in gaining time to see that the proposed arrangement was fair to both parties, he begged to move that the debate on the Bill be adjourned for a week.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that with the view of eliciting full information with respect to Private Bills, he was in the habit of bringing about a conference between the agents of both sides; but in the present case the agents, for some reason or other, had not met him, and he was, therefore, without the information which it was desirable the House should have. The present Bill, so far as he had been able to judge, was one of considerable importance, both from a public and private point of view; and in the circum
  1706
  stances he thought it would be well to adjourn the debate.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENprotested against the further postponement of this Bill for a week. The hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Russell) had confined his opposition to one part of the Bill alone. Upon that part the South-Eastern Railway Company had conceded, and they were now asked to postpone their Bill, because they had made the concession which was asked. If there were no other secret reasons for opposing the Bill, for which the opposition of the hon. Baronet was the shield and pretext, his demand was really unreasonable. If the House wished to revert to the old system, and would hear evidence at the Bar of the House, it could of course do so; but, otherwise, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would pledge himself to make such a statement to the House as should convince every reasonable man that this Bill was one which should be sent to that Tribunal to which the House ordinarily delegated its functions in these cases—namely, to a Select Committee. He was too old a Member of the House to oppose the expressed opinion of the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes) and the evident feeling of the House; but he suggested that an adjournment for a week was unreasonably long, and that the matter might stand over only till Monday.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he scarcely considered the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Russell) a hostile one, and advised the right hon. Gentleman to accept it. The adjournment until Thursday next would not materially delay the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

EAST INDIA ARMY—SUPERANNUATION, &c. ALLOWANCES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Return for the East India Army, showing the total amount of Military Charges, does not omit a charge of upwards of half a million sterling per annum paid on account of the various military funds and other charges included in the head "Superannuation, Retired, and Compassionate Allowances;"

  1707
  and, if so, whether he will amend the Return so as to show all charges on account of the Army in India?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No charge has been omitted from the Re-turn alluded to. The position of the military and medical funds is as follows:—In 1862 the Government of India found that a heavy annual charge was imposed by certain funds established by the East India Company upon the revenues of India, and they wound these funds up, taking over their assets and liabilities, the former of which consisted of a large capital. The annual payments on behalf of these funds exceeds the subscriptions, and the difference is made good out of the capital taken over, which now stands at the high figure of £1,800,000. There will be no charge for some years to come. The funds established in the place of those abolished, are self-supporting.

THE NATIONAL BANK OF EGYPT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have entertained any proposal for taking part in an arrangement to enable the Khedive of Egypt to raise new loans, and charge them on the people of Egypt?
  MR. BOURKE: In reply to my hon. Friend I have to state that the Answer given by the Prime Minister on Monday last substantially covers the whole ground involved in the Question of my hon. Friend, and, therefore, I cannot give him any other information than that conveyed in the Answer of the Prime Minister, to which I must refer him.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice that I will take the first convenient opportunity of moving—
  "That it is inexpedient that the British Government should take any part in facilitating the loan transactions of the Khedive of Egypt."

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—THE LOAD LINE RETURNS.—QUESTION.
MR. WILSON (for Mr. MAC IVER)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that loss of life from the foundering of steamers in the Bay of Biscay during the few months since legislation relating to the marking
1708
of a load line has been in force shows a marked diminution, as compared with any corresponding period in previous years?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I have Returns for the half-year which has elapsed since the adoption of the load line, and Returns for the corresponding period of the preceding year, in relation to disasters happening in the Bay of Biscay. From November 1, 1874, till February 28, 1875, six steamers were lost in the Bay of Biscay, involving the loss of 175 lives; from November 1, 1875, when the use of the owner's load line was begun, till February 29 of this year, two steamers were lost in the Bay of Biscay, involving a loss of 26 lives. I have good reason to believe that the use of the load line has materially contributed to this gratifying diminution in the loss of life and property at sea.

THE ACCIDENT TO H.M.S. "SERAPIS"—CHAIN CABLES.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he would state to the House what was the size of the chain cables which were supplied to H.M.S. "Serapis" before she left England on her last voyage, and by whom those chain cables were supplied; also what was the weight and the description of the anchors supplied at the same time to H.M.S. "Serapis," and by whom those anchors were supplied?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, the size of the chain cables supplied to the Serapis was 2⅛ inches. The cables were provided for the ship by the Thames Shipbuilding Company, and were manufactured by Messrs. H. Wood and Co., of Liverpool, and were tested in the usual manner for Admiralty cables. The length next the anchor, which was where the parting took place in the Piræus, was not part of the original cable, but was substituted at Portsmouth in 1869; it was 2¼ inches, and made by Messrs. Brown, Lenox, and Co. This length was tested at Portsmouth before the Serapis left for India in 1875, and a defective link was replaced. The broken link has been returned to the Admiralty, and had been examined and found to be of good quality of iron and well welded. The anchors were 60 cwt each on Rodgers' plan. They were manufactured by the

1709
Northfield Company, and were tested and fireproved by an Admiralty officer.

CRIMINAL LAW—DISPROPORTIONED SENTENCES.—QUESTION.
MR. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a paragraph in "The Pall Mall Gazette" of Saturday the 4th instant, copied from "The Liverpool Post," in which it is stated that a woman was recently sentenced at Oswestry by the local Justices to twenty-one days' imprisonment for stealing one penny worth of coal; if such statement is correct, and whether it is his intention to take steps for the mitigation of the sentence?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the case, and he found from inquiries made of the Clerk of the Justices that information had been given to the magistrates that the person in question was the wife of the gardener of the prosecutor, and supposed to be, therefore, in tolerably good circumstances. It was also stated that she had been seen carrying away the coal, and that in the night time, by some one who had watched expressly for the purpose of finding out what was being done. He had asked to be furnished with further information on the matter.

MEDICAL DEGREES—"CONJOINT EXAMINATIONS."—QUESTION.
MR. ERRINGTONasked the Vice President of the Council, If he will state whether Her Majesty's Government intend taking any steps this Session to hasten or facilitate the adoption of the "Conjoint Scheme" in examinations for medical degrees?
VISCOUNT SANDON: The Government has reason to believe that as regards England considerable progress has been made towards settling the basis of an arrangement which is likely to receive general assent. We have not the like information respecting Ireland and Scotland; but if satisfactory arrangements are concluded in England, I cannot but hope that they will lead to a like result in the other parts of the United Kingdom. In this state of the case the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give any opinion as to what may
1710
be the views hereafter of Her Majesty's Government as to the expediency or necessity of proposing legislative measures to promote or hasten the general adoption of the conjoint scheme.

ARMY—VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROGDENasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is intended to give the same retiring allowances to old Adjutants of Volunteers as are now given to Militia Adjutants; and, if it is intended to give any additional pay to Volunteer Adjutants who perform the duties of District Recruiting Officers as a remuneration for such services?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it was not intended to increase the retiring allowances of old Adjutants of Volunteers, and that no old Adjutants except those on full pay, or who came under the five years' rule, would be called upon to discharge the duties of recruiting officers.

WEST AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS—CESSION OF THE GAMBIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received a Memorial against the proposed cession of the Gambia, from 228 Native inhabitants of Bathurst, dated December 31st 1875; whether this document gives the status in the Colony of the persons signing it; and, whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, the Memorial referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been received at the Colonial Office. It purported to be signed by about 250 individuals; but he was unable to say how many persons' views were really represented in it, inasmuch as a great many of the signatories appeared to have signed their names twice over. The document gave the status of the persons signing it, and it would be laid on the Table.

POST OFFICE—POSTAL TELEGRAPH SERVICE—THE ROYAL ENGINEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Postmaster General, If his recommendation

  1711
  for the withdrawal of the Royal Engineers from the Postal Telegraph Service "on financial grounds," contained in his letter of the 23rd December lately laid upon the Table of the House, was founded on any Report on the financial results of that employment made by the Receiver and Accountant General of the Post Office; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House, any Report that has been made by that official on the subject?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that his letter was not founded on any Report on the financial results of the employment of Engineers in the Postal Service made by the Receiver and Accountant General of the Post Office. That Report was of a confidential and departmental character, and he did not think that it would be for the public interest to lay it on the Table of the House.

WORKHOUSE SCHOOLS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'CLERYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for a Return of the number of Boards of Guardians in Ireland who have given results fees to their Workhouse Teachers, distinguishing those who gave such fees prior to the passing of the National Teachers Act; Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to such Act as far as Workhouse Teachers are concerned; and, if so, are they to receive the fees earned for last year; and, whether the Commissioners of National Education have withdrawn the gratuities hitherto awarded to Workhouse Teachers; and, if so, upon what grounds, and what compensation is intended in lieu thereof.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Twenty-eight Boards of Guardians in Ireland, or about that number, have given results fees to their workhouse teachers under the Act of last Session, out of which 11 Boards had done so before the passing of that Act. But this does not represent the full effect of the Act upon the condition of the workhouse teachers, because in several instances Boards of Guardians have preferred to increase the salaries of their teachers, when asked to grant them results fees under the Act. It rests with the Boards of Guardians, and not with the Government, to give
  1712
  effect to the Act as far as workhouse teachers are concerned; the teachers will receive the fees earned by them in the year for which the Guardians have agreed to vote them. The Commissioners of National Education have decided to withdraw a small sum of £360 annually spent in gratuities to 40 male and 40 female workhouse teachers. They have done so because this system of gratuities appeared objectionable, and by it the teachers were unnecessarily placed under the Board of Education as well as under the Local Government Board. The whole body of workhouse teachers will receive a far larger sum annually from result fees than the amount thus withdrawn.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE TICHBORNE CLAIMANT.—QUESTION.
DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the Petition of the Tichborne Claimant, addressed to him on the 4th June 1875, containing certain complaints of bad treatment endured by him in Dartmoor Prison, together with a Copy of the Reply, if any; and of any other or further Petition or communication addressed to him by the same gentleman since the said 4th of June, with his answer thereto?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The only Petition that reached me was one dated on the 4th June; it reached the Home Office on the 14th June, but like all other Petitions for mercy from prisoners, for reasons which may be very well guessed at by hon. Members, and in behalf of the interests of prisoners themselves, it never has been the practice of the Secretary of State to lay such Petitions on the Table. But if the hon. Member wishes to see it, and will call at the Home Office, I shall have great pleasure in giving instructions that he shall see it.

CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF THE "AMELIA."—QUESTION.
MR. GRIEVEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the conduct of the Crown authorities at Greenock, consequent on the collision of the "Amelia" with the quay, whereby one man was killed, on which occasion the pilot, having been

1713
precognosced by the Procurator Fiscal, was afterwards called by the Solicitor representing the Board of Trade, and gave evidence at an inquiry, without being cautioned or warned, and was immediately afterwards committed, at the instance of the criminal authorities, on a charge of culpable homicide; and, whether he will take steps to prevent one public Department inducing a man to give evidence on which another Department may commit him for trial, in accordance with the declaration of the President of the Board of Trade, who recently, in the case of the "Strathclyde," stated that no official inquiry could take place until the criminal trial consequent on the verdict of the coroner's jury had been completed?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: I have made inquiries into the circumstances referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Greenock. It appears that on the 20th January last the steamer Amelia came into collision with the quay at Greenock, when one man was killed and another injured. A Board of Trade inquiry was ordered, and took place on the 3rd and 4th February. The master of the steamer, Captain Campbell, and the pilot, James Hendry, were examined as witnesses by the solicitor for the Board of Trade. I have no doubt it is correct that neither of these persons was cautioned or warned by the presiding justices, of whom I understand the hon. Gentleman himself was one. The result of the inquiry was that the master was admonished, but his certificate was, under the circumstances, returned to him. The Court of Inquiry had no jurisdiction over the pilot, who was a river pilot, and they did not deal with him. At the conclusion of the inquiry, a charge of culpable homicide was made by the Crown authorities against the pilot, and the investigation is still going on under the directions of Crown counsel. The proceedings were not taken in consequence of the evidence given at the Board of Trade inquiry, and if a trial takes place that evidence cannot be, and certainly will not be, used against the pilot. I cannot, however, give any undertaking that if a Board of Trade inquiry takes place in regard to a casualty involving loss of life, the magistrates presiding at which had no jurisdiction to inflict any or adequate punishment upon the persons responsible for such casualty, I
1714
shall hold myself, as public prosecutor, precluded from taking the necessary steps for having these persons tried before the ordinary criminal tribunal. I regret that the pilot was not warned or cautioned when he gave his evidence at the Board of Trade inquiry; but that was an omission for which the Crown authorities were not responsible, and of which they certainly will take no advantage.

EDUCATION—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that as there were already two Education Bills before the House and two Notices of Motion respecting them, he thought it desirable to ask the Vice President of the Education Department, If he will state to the House when he proposes to bring in the Education measure mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
  VISCOUNT SANDON, in reply, said, he was sorry to be unable to give an answer to the Question; but in the present state of Public Business it would be obvious to the House that it would be impossible at present to name a day when the measure referred to would be brought forward.

INDIA TARIFF ACT, 1875.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any reply has been sent by the Government of India to the Despatch of the Secretary of State for India, dated November 11th 1875, published in the Correspondence recently issued in reference to the India Tariff Act of 1875?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, they had not received any reply.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—THE SERPENTINE.—QUESTION.
MR. PEASEasked the First Commissioner of "Works, What is the object of the mounds of earth now being erected on the south side of the Serpentine; and, if he will state to the House what will be the cost of the mounds when completed and planted?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for South Durham, I beg to inform him that what he calls "mounds of earth" will

1715
shortly be turfed and planted with flowering and other shrubs. The total cost of these shrubberies was stated at page 9 of last year's Estimates, but as the item probably escaped the notice of the hon. Member, I may as well tell him that the total cost was estimated at £750, of which £400 has been already voted, and the remaining moiety of £350 appears at page 9 of the Estimates now before the House. The object of these shrubberies being placed there was to meet a very general complaint made to me and in the Press that ladies riding and walking in Rotten Row were greatly annoyed by the abundant display of "nude bathers," who during the summer evenings disport themselves in great numbers on the banks of the Serpentine.
MR. PEASE: In Committee I shall move to reduce the Vote for these shrubberies by £350.

ARMY (METROPOLIS)—SENTRIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, How many of the sentries at the West End have been taken off; and, whether a corresponding reduction has been made in the strength of the Guards?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that there had been some six or seven sentries taken off at the West End, which represented 18 men. In several of the Guards there had been reduction, but in others there had not; and, therefore, the total reduction in the Guards altogether amounted to nine men.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—SCURVEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Times" of March the 7th: that
  "The bark 'William Wilson,' bound for Liver-pool, arrived on the 6th March in Penarth Roads with eight of her crow down with scurvy. The captain and three officers only were able to work the vessel. The men state that they have been ill for the last two months, and that during the last three days the lime-juice and provisions were exhausted. They were landed and taken to the hospital ship. They are very much emaciated, and the recovery of some of them appears doubtful;"
  1716
  what steps he proposes to take with regard to this matter; whether his attention has been drawn to the occurrence of scurvy on board the "Talisman," lately arrived in London; also to arrival in Liverpool of the "Black Prince" and "Duke of Northumberland" with scurvy on board, and to the arrival at San Francisco of several British ships with scurvy on board; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any new provisions for the prevention of scurvy in the Mercantile Marine?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The Board of Trade has received a Report from the Receiver of Wreck at Cardiff that the William Wilson, of Whitehaven, has put into that port with six severe cases of scurvy on board, and that the provisions and lime-juice were exhausted when the vessel arrived. The medical officer was instructed to proceed at once to Cardiff to hold an inquiry, and report. Another medical officer, Dr. La Trobe, is at present holding an inquiry into the case of the Talisman. In the case of the Black Prince, an inquiry was held. The Medical Inspector, Dr. Spooner, reported that the causes were dirty habits of the crew, bad water taken in at Bassein, and the use of cook's slush by the men. He also observed that scurvy increased where teetotalism was practised, and recommended a ration of spirits in such cases. The Duke of Northumberland, of Swansea, arrived at Liverpool with one case of scurvy, and no complaint was made; therefore, no inquiry. No new provisions for preventing scurvy have occurred to Her Majesty's Government. The penalties on shipowners for any default of precautions are ample. The provisions of the Act of 1867 have greatly reduced scurvy.

COOLIE IMMIGRATION FROM INDIA TO GUIANA.—QUESTION.
MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, with reference to the evils which, according to the report of our Consul in French Guiana attend the system of Coolie immigration from India to that Colony, it is the intention of the Government to continue to sanction the immigration in question; and, whether the remonstrances on the subject which, in the noble Lord's letter to the Aborigines

1717
Protection Society of December 24th last, he stated Lord Derby had addressed to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on November 1st have been answered; and, if so, will he state the purport of the answer?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, a reply from the French Foreign Minister was received on the 17th of December, 1875, in which the Duke Decazes stated that the observations of the Indian Government upon the condition of coolies in French Guiana applied to a state of things which did not now exist, and he forwarded a copy of a circular issued by the local Government of Cayenne on the 16th of September, 1874. This correspondence was sent to the Government of India. The question of suspending emigration rests with the Government of India; but in all probability, before taking so grave a step, it will await the Report of 1875 of Mr. Consul Wooldridge, now due, upon the treatment of Indian coolies in that colony for the year 1875.

NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—INCREASE OF PAY.—QUESTION.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the proposed increase of pay of two pence per diem to the soldiers of the Army is to be extended to the Marines; and, if so, whether it is to be immediate or reserved?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, no decision had been come to on the subject.

ARMY—MODEL CAVALRY BARRACK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he would have any objection to produce, for the inspection of Members, the Plans of the Model Cavalry Barrack for which Mr. Wyatt received a prize some years ago?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that if the plans designed by Mr. Wyatt 20 years ago would answer any useful purpose, he should have no objection to produce them. They were, however, drawn up irrespective of all the sanitary conditions recently introduced. They were made as far back as the year 1856, and even then it was said that of all the plans submitted in competition, not one could be recommended
  1718
  for adoption without alterations which would change its character and design. Therefore, he thought the production of Mr. Wyatt's plan would not afford the House any useful information.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE FENIAN PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. M. BROOKS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers on the auspicious occasion of an accession to the Royal style and title of Her Majesty to advise that that event should be signalized by the gracious exercise of the Royal mercy towards any prisoners now undergoing punishment for offences in connection with insurrectionary designs or breach of their allegiance to Her Majesty?
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Titles Bill, on the passing of which the act of mercy referred to in the Question of the hon. Member is, according to him, contingent, has not yet passed. When the Royal Titles Bill has passed into an Act, I shall then have the honour of answering the Question of the hon. Member.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—NOTICES OF MOTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RITCHIE: I wish to ask you, Sir, a Question on a point of Order. I desire to know. Whether it is in accordance with Parliamentary usage that several Members should, in pursuance of an agreement among themselves, enter their names on the Notice Paper for giving one and the same Motion, in order that such Motion may be brought forward by any of the Members whose name is first called, and thus an undue priority be secured to such Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: According to the Rule of the House, a Member can only give Notice of one Motion, with a view to obtaining, under the Ballot, priority for such Motion. If several Members combine to enter their names on the Notice Paper, and to give Notice of one and the same Motion, that rule is practically evaded. Such a proceeding would be highly inconvenient, if not irregular; and, if persisted in, the House might

  1719
  feel it necessary to cheek such a proceeding by requiring each Member, when entering his name on the Notice Paper, to enter also the subject-matter of the Motion. I trust, however, that, if such a practice has existed, as has been indicated by the Question of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, it has been through inadvertence; and that the House may rely on the good sense and the right feeling of hon. Members for the faithful observance of its Rule.

ROYAL TITLES BILL— [BILL 83.]
(Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Lord George Hamilton.)
ROYAL TITLES BILL— [BILL 83.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, I take the opportunity of noticing a Question which was addressed to me a few days ago by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson). I thought at the time that the Question was unfair and improper. The Question was, whether I was then prepared to inform the House of the title which Her Majesty would be advised to adopt with respect to the matter contained in the Bill before us, and my answer was that I was not then prepared to give that information to the House. It appeared to me that that Question, as I ventured to remark, was unfair and improper, because, in the first place, on a controversial matter it required me to make a statement respecting which I could offer no argument, as the wise Rules of this House, as regard Questions and Answers, have established. I should therefore have had to place before the House, on a matter respecting which there is controversy, the decision of the Government, at the same time being incapacitated from offering any argument in favour of it. I thought the Question was improper, also, in the second place, because it was a dealing with the Royal Prerogative that, to say the least, was wanting, as I thought, in respect. Both sides of the House and the whole country agree in the view that we are ruled by a strictly Constitutional Sovereign. But the Constitution has invested Her Majesty with Prerogatives of which She is wisely jealous; which she exercises always with firmness, but ever,
  1720
  when the claims and feelings of Parliament are concerned, with the utmost consideration. It is the more requisite, therefore, that we should treat these Prerogatives with the utmost respect, not to say reverence. In the present case, if Her Majesty had desired to impart to the House of Commons information which the House required, the proper time would certainly be when the Bill in question was under the consideration of the House. It would be more respectful to the House, as well as to the Queen, that such a communication should be made when the House was assembled to discuss the question before them; and such information ought not to be imparted, I think, in answer to the casual inquiry of an individual Member. Prom the beginning there has been no mystery at any time upon this matter. So far as the Government are concerned they have acted strictly according to precedent, and it has not been in my power until the present evening to impart any information to the House upon the subject on which they intimated a wish to be informed. But, upon the first night, when I introduced this Bill, I did say, alluding to the Prerogative of the Queen and Her Majesty's manner of exercising that Prerogative, that I did not anticipate any difficulties on the subject to which the House had referred. To this point, in the course of the few observations I have to make this evening, I shall recur; but before doing so, I will make some remarks upon the objections which have been made to a title which it has been gratuitously assumed that Her Majesty, with regard to her dominions in India, wishes to adopt. It is a remarkable circumstance that all those who have made objections upon this subject have raised their objections to one particular title alone. One alone has occurred to them—which primâ facie, it may be observed, is rather an argument in favour of its being an apposite title. No doubt other objections have been urged in the debate, and I will refer to them before proceeding to the other part of my remarks. It has been objected that the title of Emperor or Empress denotes military dominion; that it has never or rarely been adopted but by those who have obtained dominion by the sword, retained it by the sword, and governed it by the sword; and, to use the words

  1721
  of a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) who took part in the recent debate—"Sentiment clothes the title of Emperor with bad associations." Now, the House must at once feel what vague and shadowy arguments—if they can be called arguments—are these—"Sentiment clothes the title of Emperor with bad associations." [Opposition cheers.] I very much doubt whether sentiment does clothe the title of Emperor with bad associations. I can remember, and many hon. Gentlemen can remember, the immortal passage of the greatest of modern historians, where he gives his opinion that the happiness of mankind was never so completely assured, or for so long a time maintained, as in the age of the Antonines—and the Antonines were Emperors. The right hon. Gentleman may be of opinion that an Imperial title is a modern invention, and its associations to him may be derived from a limited experience of which he may be proud. But when so large a principle is laid down by one distinguished for his historical knowledge, that "sentiment clothes the title of Emperor with bad associations," I may be allowed to vindicate what I believe to be the truth upon this matter. Then a second objection was urged. It was said—"This is a clumsy periphrasis in which you are involving the country if you have not only Royal but Imperial Majesties." Now, the right hon. Gentleman who made the remark ought to have recollected that there would be no clumsy periphrasis of the kind. The Majesty of England requires for its support no such epithet. The Queen is not "Her Royal Majesty." The Queen is described properly as "Her Majesty." Therefore, the "clumsy periphrasis" of "Royal and Imperial Majesty" could never occur. There is, however, a stronger and more important objection which has been brought to the title of Empress, which has hitherto been merely assumed in argument. This greater objection I will place briefly before the House. It has been said that we diminish the supremacy of the Queenly title by investing Her Majesty, though only locally, with an Imperial dignity. Now, Sir, there appears to me to be a great fallacy in that position. I deny at once that you diminish the supremacy of the Queenly title, by investing Her Majesty, though only locally, with an Imperial dignity. I
  1722
  deny that any Imperial dignity is superior to the Queenly title, and I defy any one to prove the reverse. ["Hear!"] I am happy to have that cheer; but I hear and read every day of an intention to invest Her Majesty with a title superior to that which She has inherited from an illustrious line of ancestors. It is necessary, therefore, to notice this statement. In times which will guide us in any way upon such a subject I doubt whether there is any precedent of an Emperor ranking superior to a crowned head, unless that crowned head was his avowed feudatory. I will take the most remarkable instance of Imperial sway in modern history. When the Holy Roman Empire existed, and the German Emperor was crowned at Rome and called Caesar, no doubt the Princes of Germany, who were his feudatories, acknowledged his supremacy, whatever might be his title. But in those days there were great Kings—there were Kings of France, Kings of Spain, and Kings of England—they never acknowledged the supremacy of the Head of the Holy Roman Empire; and the origin, I have no doubt, of the expression of the Act of Henry VIII., where the Crown of England is described as an Imperial Crown, was the determination of that eminent Monarch, that at least there should be no mistake upon the subject between himself and the Emperor Charles V. These may be considered antiquarian illustrations and I will not dwell upon them, but will take more recent eases at a time when the intercourse of nations and of Courts was regulated by the same system of diplomacy which now prevails. Upon this question, then, I say there can be no mistake, for it has been settled by the assent, and the solemn assent, of Europe. In the middle of the last century a remarkable instance occurred which brought to a crisis this controversy, if it were a point of controversy. When Peter the Great emerged from his anomalous condition as a powerful Sovereign—hardly recognized by his brother Sovereigns—he changed the style and title of his office from that of Czar to Emperor. That addition was acknowledged by England, and by England alone. The rulers of Russia as Emperors remained unrecognized by the great comity of nations; and after Peter the Great they still continued to bear the titles of Czar

  1723
  and Czarina, for more than one female Sovereign flourished in Russia about the middle of the century. In 1745, Elizabeth Czarina of Russia, having by her armies and her councils interfered considerably in the affairs of Europe—probably (though I am not sure of this) influenced by the circumstance that the first Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, in the middle of the last century, was about to meet—announced to her allies and to her brother Sovereigns that she intended in future to take the title of Empress, instead of Czarina. Considerable excitement and commotion were caused at all the Courts and in all the Governments of Europe in consequence of this announcement, but the new title was recognized on condition that Her Majesty should at the same time write a letter—called in diplomatic language a Reversal acknowledging, that she thereby made no difference in the etiquette and precedence of the European Courts and would only rank upon terms of equality with the other Crowned Heads of Europe. Upon these terms, France, Spain, Austria, and Hungary admitted the Empress of Russia into their equal society. For the next 20 years, under Peter III., there were discussions on the subject; but he also gave a Reversal disclaiming superiority to other Crowned Heads in taking the title of Emperor. When Catherine II. came to the Throne, she objected to write this Reversal as being inconsistent with the dignity of a crowned Sovereign, and she herself issued an edict to her own subjects, announcing, on her accession, her rank, style, and title, and distinctly informing her subjects that, though she took that style and title, she only wished to rank with the other Sovereigns of Europe. I should say that the whole of the diplomatic proceedings of the world from that time have acknowledged that result, and there can be no question upon the subject. There was an attempt at the Congress of Vienna to introduce the subject of the classification of Sovereigns, but the difficulties of the subject were acknowledged by Prince Mettermich, by Lord Castlereagh, and by all the eminent Statesmen of the time; the subject was dropped; the equality of Crowned Heads was again acknowledged, and the mode of precedence of their Representatives at the different Courts was settled by an alphabetical arrangement,
  1724
  or by the date of their arrival and letters of credit to that Court at once and for ever. The question of equality between those Sovereigns who styled themselves Emperors and those who were Crowned Heads of ancient kingdoms, without reference to population, revenue, or extent of territory, was established, and permanently adopted. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) said the other day—"If Empress means nothing more than Queen, why should you have Empress? If it means something else, then I am against adopting it." Well, I have proved to you that it does not mean anything else. Then, why should you adopt it? Well, that is one of those questions which, if pursued in the same spirit, and applied to all the elements of society, might resolve it into its original elements. The amplification of titles is no new system—no new idea; it has marked all ages, and has been in accordance with the manners and customs of all countries. The amplification of titles is founded upon a great respect for local influences, for the memory of distinguished deeds, and passages of interest in the history of countries. It is only by the amplification of titles that you can often touch and satisfy the imagination of nations; and that is an element which Governments must not despise. Well, then it is said that if this title of Empress is adopted, it would be un-English. But why un-English? I have sometimes heard the Ballot called un-English, and indignant orators on the other side have protested against the use of an epithet of that character which nobody could define, and which nobody ought to employ. I should like to know why the title is un-English. A gentleman the other day, referring to this question now exciting Parliament and the country, recalled to the recollection of the public the dedication of one of the most beautiful productions of the English muse to the Sovereign of this country; and, speaking of the age distinguished by an Elizabeth, by a Shakespeare, and by a Bacon, he asked whether the use of the word "Empress" applied by one who was second in his power of expression and in his poetic resources only to Shakespeare himself in the dedication of an immortal work to Queen Elizabeth was not, at least, an act which proved that the word

  1725
  and the feeling were not un-English?. Then, of course, it was immediately answered by those who criticized the illustration that this was merely the fancy of a poet. But I do not think it was the fancy of a poet. The fancy of the most fanciful of poets was exhausted in the exuberant imagination which idealized his illustrious Sovereign as "The Faery Queen." He did not call her Empress then—he called her "The Faery Queen." But when his theme excited the admiration of Royalty—when he had the privilege of reciting some of his cantos to Queen Elizabeth, and she expressed a wish that the work should be dedicated to her—then Spenser had, no doubt, to consult the friends in whom he could confide as to the style in which he should approach so solemn an occasion, and win to himself still more the interest of his illustrious Sovereign. He was a man who lived among courtiers and statesmen. He had as friends Sidney and Raleigh, and I have little doubt that it was by the advice of Sidney and Raleigh that he addressed his Sovereign as Empress, "the Queen of England, of Ireland, and of Virginia"—the hand of Sir Walter Raleigh being probably shown in the title of the Queen of Virginia, and it is not at all improbable that Elizabeth herself, who possessed so much literary taste, and who prided herself on improving the phrases of the greatest poet, revised the dedication. That example clearly shows that the objection to this assumed adoption by Her Majesty of the title of Empress as un-English could hardly exist in an age when the word was used with so much honour—in an age of "words which wise Bacon and brave Raleigh spake." I think it is obvious from these remarks, made upon the assumption that the title which Her Majesty would be pleased to adopt by her Proclamation would be "Empress," that the title would be one to which there could be no objection. I am empowered, therefore, to say that the title would be "Empress," and that Her Majesty would be "Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, and Empress of India." Now, I know it may be said—it was said at a recent debate and urged strongly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)
  1726
  —that this addition to Her Majesty's style, and in this addition alone, we are treating without consideration the colonies. I cannot in any way concur in that opinion. No one honours more than myself the colonial Empire of England; no one is more anxious to maintain it. No one regrets more than I do that favourable opportunities have been lost of identifying the colonies with the Royal race of England. But we have to deal now with another subject, and one essentially different from the colonial condition. The condition of India and the condition of the colonies have no similarity. In the colonies you have, first of all, a fluctuating population—a man is Member of Parliament, it may be, for Melbourne this year, and next year he is Member of Parliament for Westminster. A colonist finds a nugget, or he fleeces a thousand flocks. He makes a fortune, he returns to England, he buys an estate, he becomes a magistrate, he represents Majesty, he becomes High Sheriff; he has a magnificent house near Hyde Park; he goes to Court, to levees, to drawing rooms; he has an opportunity of plighting his troth personally to his Sovereign, he is in frequent and direct communication with her. But that is not the case with the inhabitant of India. The condition of colonial society is of a fluctuating character. Its political and social elements change. I remember 20 years ago a distinguished statesman who willingly would have seen a Dukedom of Canada. But Canada has now no separate existence. It is called the "Dominion," and includes several other Provinces. There is no similarity between the circumstances of our colonial fellow-subjects and those of our fellow-subjects in India. Our colonists are English; they come, they go, they are careful to make fortunes, to invest their money in England; their interests in this country are immense, ramified, complicated, and they have constant opportunities of improving and enjoying the relations which exist between themselves and their countrymen in the metropolis. Their relations to the Sovereign are ample; they satisfy them, the colonists are proud of those relations, they are interested in the titles of the Queen, they look forward to return when they leave England, they do return—in short, they are Englishmen. Now let me say

  1727
  one word before I move the second reading of this Bill upon the effect which it may have on India. It is not without consideration, it is not without the utmost care, it is not until after the deepest thought that we have felt it our duty to introduce this Bill into Parliament. It is desired in India. It is anxiously expected. The Princes and nations of India—unless we are deceived, and we have omitted no means by which we could obtain information and form opinions—look to it with the utmost interest. They know exactly what it means, though there may be some hon. Members in this House who do not. They know in India what this Bill means, and they know that what it means is what they wish. I do myself most earnestly impress upon the House to remove prejudice from their minds and to pass the second reading of this Bill, without a division. Let not our divisions be misconstrued. Let the people of India feel that there is a sympathetic chord between us and them; and do not let Europe suppose for a moment that there are any in this House who are not deeply conscious of the importance of our Indian Empire. Unfortunate words have been heard in the debate upon this subject. But I will not believe that any Member of this House seriously contemplates the loss of our Indian Empire. I trust, therefore, that the House will give to this Bill a second reading without a division. By the permission of the Queen I have communicated, on the part of my Colleagues, the intention of Her Majesty, which She will express in her Proclamation, if you sanction the passing of this Bill. It will be an act, to my mind, that will add splendour even to her Throne, and security even to her Empire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  MR. SAMUELSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, in the observations which he had made to the House, had condescended to make an allusion to a Question which he had asked the other evening, and which he had described as unfair and improper. He thought that expression was hardly courteous—was hardly more courteous than the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to his Question on Tuesday last.
  1728
  Now, he (Mr. Samuelson) thought the name of Her Majesty had been very improperly imported into the debate by the right hon. Gentleman. If the question which the House had to determine were one solely affecting the pleasure and gratification of Her Majesty, he was sure the House would act as it had always done, and give to the consideration of this Bill its most favourable attention. Her Majesty had reigned now for nearly 40 years, and in the course of that time the love and affection of her people had been evinced from year to year, and within the last two days She had performed an act which would more than ever endear her to her subjects. It was as Queen of England she would always be remembered, and it was by her Queenly title that her memory would descend to posterity. The question, however, they were now asked to entertain was not one affecting Her Majesty. It was one of high policy—a question in which by this Bill the House was invited to take part. [Cries of "Agree."] It was not often that he troubled the House with any remarks, and he begged for its indulgent attention. To his mind it was more than doubtful whether the addition of the title of Empress was an act of high policy. It was, in his opinion, an act of the most questionable policy to have introduced this Bill at all, and he had not heard any reason calculated to remove the prejudices which existed with regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the time had come when the relations between the people of England and the people of India were such that some recognition of Her Majesty's title had become absolutely necessary; and, furthermore, that it was desirable to recognize the transfer of the dominion of India from the East India Company to the Crown. That transfer took place 18 years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that it was acknowledged by the Proclamation of Her Majesty when the Queen was styled "of the United Kingdom and of her dominions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, Queen, Defender of the Faith." The right hon. Gentleman had said that this addition to Her Majesty's title would be agreeable to the Princes and people of India; but he had produced no evidence in support of that assertion. The right bon. Gentleman had endeavoured

  1729
  to explain away the prejudices which existed against the title of Emperor, and had referred to the time of the Antonines. Instead of going back to that time, some 1,700 years ago, it would have been much better had he devoted his attention to the events of the present time, when he would have discovered why the title of Emperor was not consonant with the feelings of the people of this country. He need not remind the House of the antecedents of the Second Empire in a neighbouring country in our own days—how it was founded in the orgies of the Camp of Satory—how it was confirmed by the slaughter and the barricades of Paris, and how it ended ingloriously in the catastrophe of Sedan. With regard to the German Empire, whatever might be the facts in reference to the policy of its creation it had been contemporaneous with an outbreak of religious strife between Catholics and Protestants. In dealing with India it must be remembered that there were great varieties of religions and race suggestive of strife. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he knew what were the sentiments of the Princes and Natives of India. Now, he must be considered a bold man who would undertake to say what was the current of public opinion in India. Did we know at this moment what had led to the Sepoy rebellion? And if the assumption of this title should happen to coincide with monetary derangement which seemed impending in consequence of the depreciation of silver, how did we know in what light the connection of the two subjects would be regarded in India? He himself considered this to be a gratuitous act on the part of the Government, one to justify which, as he had before said, no sufficient evidence had been adduced. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, having recently elevated certain persons to the Peerage, and given a step to certain Noblemen in its hierarchy, would have done better had he rested there. In his (Mr. Samuel-son's) opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ought, on the first reading of the Bill, to have plainly answered the Question put by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and thought it was not quite fair the House should be called upon that evening to decide the matter without time being given for reflection. The country ought to have
  1730
  proper notice, so as to have an opportunity of expressing its views. The Princes of India should not alone have been taken into the councils of the right hon. Gentleman to the exclusion of this House and of the people of this country. Therefore, he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Samuelson.)
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had on a former evening ventured to express his humble concurrence in the general policy of this measure. In every way it was desirable and would be acceptable to the people of India that some step should be taken distinctly to mark the Imperial character of our reign in that country. As to what the new title should be, he had expressed no opinion, and he did not desire to express a very decided opinion now; but he would state some facts which might, perhaps, lead to the formation of an opinion on the subject. Looking at the question from an Indian point of view, whether the title was that of Empress or that of Queen, the end to which he looked, and to which he believed the Government also looked, would equally be attained, and the one title would as well answer the purpose in India as the other. The question as between Empress or Queen was, therefore, one that might and should be determined with reference to English considerations. He had created a good deal of hilarity on a former evening, when he gave it as his opinion that in taking the step she was now advised to take, it would be well that Her Majesty should mark that she succeeded to the position of the Great Mogul. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Hackney, instead of being amused by that suggestion, lectured him very severely for making it, describing the Great Moguls as fierce and barbarous conquerors and oppressors. Now, he said that the memory of the Great Mogul was not one that excited either laughter or hatred in India. His memory and name were very great. It might be that, judged by a modern standard, his Empire was not a perfect one; but judged by the standard of the 18th century, it was very great and glorious, and was in many respects an excellent and

  1731
  good Empire. It was remarkable for religious toleration to a degree that did not exist in Europe in those days. Hindoos were tolerated, and placed in a social position under that Empire which Nonconformists had not then attained in Great Britain. In some respects the poor were protected from the rich and the grasping in a way which was not done in our own Empire. Great arts, great monuments, great laws, many great reminiscences of that Empire had made the memory of the Great Mogul a power in India which continued to the present day. When our power was overthrown by the Mutiny, the King of Delhi was set up in our place, which showed that the memory of the Great Mogul, to whose power Her Majesty had succeeded, was still existent. Whether the Queen took the title of Queen or Empress, he thought it would equally be translated by the Oriental word Bad-shah, which was derived from a Sanskrit root, and signified "Protector King." That was peculiarly appropriate, and the question really was how it was to be translated into English. They had always translated it King. That being so, the question became one whether there was now any necessity for the title of Empress of India. The Prime Minister had shown with great force that in reality the title of Empress was not higher than that of Queen, and did not carry greater state or dignity. Therefore he was at some loss to understand why he should consider it necessary, as an appeal to the imagination of the people, to give the title of Empress rather than that of Queen. Another consideration urged was this—In modern Europe—as in the ease of the German Emperor—Emperor, it was said, was the title of a Sovereign who reigned over Kings; and in that respect it might be thought that Emperor was superior to King. Well, if there were Kings now ruling in India, it might be desirable to have a title superior to them, and to adopt the style of Empress instead of Queen. But in reality in India there were no Princes who assumed or claimed the position of Kings, and therefore there was no necessity that the title of Empress should be taken in preference to that of Queen. The titles of the Native Princes were all taken from, and borne in subordination to, the former Sovereigns of India. Most of them
  1732
  held under the Great Mogul. The Nizam of Hyderabad and of the Deccan was Governor General of the Dec-can. The other great Mahomedan Viceroys, in Bengal and Onde, for instance, took titles which were distinctly marked in subordination to the Great Mogul. Similarly, as regards the Mahratta States, Scindia, Holkar, and the Prince of Baroda did not assume Royal titles, but were marked in subordination to the head of the Mahratta confederacy. True, there were Rajahs and Maharajahs, and as Rajah came from the same root as Re or Rex, it might in some sense be translated King. But it was well known in India that many subjects bore the title of Rajah and Maharajah, and therefore these titles could not be taken to refer to a "King." He believed the visit of the Prince of Wales was an occasion on which the Native Princes had shown openly their disposition to accept their position as feudatories of the Queen, and the people of India their loyalty to the Crown. As, therefore, from the Indian point of view, there was no reason for the title of Empress in preference to Queen, it remained to refer to the feelings of the people of this country, and he feared Her Majesty had not been advised to take the wisest course in adopting the title of "Empress." When one met a dozen men in the street and all concurred in one view, it might be taken as some evidence of the opinion of the people. He had consulted many in the street, and found that all held that the title "Queen of England" was a magnificent title, and that it would be a great pity to alter it. He would advise the Government to consult the feelings of the people of this country.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEentirely differed from the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the people of this country required any notice of the adoption of any additional title by Her Majesty. She was supreme Ruler and Governor, subject only to that Higher Power "by whom alone Kings reign and Princes decree justice." He was glad to hear that Her Gracious Majesty was not to be shorn of those appendages to her style and title the omission of which would indeed give great offence to the people of this country. Her Majesty was, "by the grace of God," Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and "De

  1733
  fender of the Faith," and he hoped that she would long continue to reign in that capacity.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there is one sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), towards the conclusion of his speech, which certainly I feel the force of. He expressed his great desire that there should be no division on this subject. I go so far, at least, with him that I am deeply convinced that this is a matter which cannot be settled in a manner satisfactory to the feelings of those concerned by any mere majority. The acceptance of the Bill by the mere vote of a majority—and, possibly, a Party majority—would, in my opinion, be very far from attaining the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view; and the loss of the Bill through an adverse vote would likewise, in my opinion, be attended with serious evil. On this account I, for one, have been desirous to take time, and to avoid all hasty and precipitate declarations of opinion on the question; and, although the leaning and tendency of the sentiments I entertain will be obvious enough from what I have to say, yet I do not desire to give any opinion at this moment on the question whether it would or would not be right—for I have no control over the vote of any Gentleman in this House—to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, and to allow the second reading of the Bill to pass without a division. What I shall attempt to do is this—I shall endeavour to weigh the reasons which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman for the measure he has introduced. I shall point out certain considerations which undoubtedly appear to me greatly to recommend—not with any hostile view, but in order simply to obtain full deliberation—the Motion made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Samuelson), for which, I may say, I have no personal responsibility; and I may likewise add a few words on the question of the title the Queen now bears as compared with the title which it is proposed to give. Now, I would point out what appears to be an incorrect and misleading use of an important phrase that has more than once been observable in the speech of the Prime Minister. When asked for a declaration on the subject of the advice it was his intention to tender to Her Majesty, he spoke of the pressure ex
  1734
  ercised upon him as an attempt to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown; and he has told us to-day, in words that are perfectly true and undeniable, of the manner in which that Prerogative has been exercised by the Sovereign during her reign, as if he considered that in this matter we had, at any rate, some concern with the Prerogative of Crown. I wish. Sir, to get rid of this misleading expression. Prom the beginning of this discussion to its present stage, and from its present stage till its close, we have had, and shall have, nothing whatever to do with the Prerogative of the Crown. Statute and Prerogative are logically exclusive of one another. The Prerogative of the Crown does not require, and does not depend on, statute; the statutory power conferred upon the Crown has no relation and no concern with Prerogative; and the question now before us is as to the policy of conferring any statutory power upon the Crown with respect to its Royal style and title, and the question is what that power shall be and how it shall be used. Now, if I understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he alleges two grounds for his proceedings—one is precedent, and the other is the desire of India; but as to positive argument in support of his proposal, I do not find a trace. Now, as regards precedent, it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman has been wholly misled in his reading of what he terms the precedent of the Act of Union. For what is it that has given rise to uneasiness, and has created difference of opinion in this House? What is it that creates—I will not use too strong a word—misgiving and mistrust in every circle and in every portion of society with which I am conversant? but, as far as regards this question, I have been hardly able to trace any political distinction (as in respect to the Suez Canal) in the feelings and opinions on the subject. But what is the force and effect of the precedent the right hen. Gentleman thinks he has found. In the first place, the precedent is wholly detached from the matter which is now, if I may so say, in dispute, because it has exclusive reference to the enumeration of territories and powers which were granted; whereas the matter about which differences of opinion now exist is not the enumeration of territories at all, but the designation of the

  1735
  Sovereign herself. The right hon. Gentleman appears to me not to have perceived the very peculiar circumstances out of which the adoption of the empowering method, instead of the enacting method, arose in the year 1801. If I read the circumstances of the time aright, it would hardly be too much to say that Parliament had no power but to proceed by empowering enactment; and why? Because there was the question of a Treaty between two perfectly independent Legislatures, and if Parliament had done what was done in the reign of Henry VIII., when the title of Supreme Head was conferred on the Crown by statute, it would undoubtedly, as it appears to me, have invaded the province of the Legislature of Ireland had it attempted to give—what it had done by Resolution—statutory powers in Ireland by its own act to the title which it was in contemplation the Sovereign should assume. By the expedient adopted, the Crown was placed in a position to exercise the power that Parliament had conferred, according to the known intentions of the Parliament of England and likewise the known intention of the Parliament of Ireland. But, as I said just now, this precedent quoted by the right hon. Gentleman has no concern whatever with the designation of the Sovereign, and my authority for saying so is a speech by Mr. Pitt himself. In moving the Resolution he used these words—
  "It will be seen that the article merely relates to the name of the United Kingdom, upon which, I apprehend, no difference of opinion can exist."
  The power given had relation to the name of the kingdom which is not now at all in question, and in 1801 the designation of the Sovereign was equally out of the case and out of the view of Parliament. I come now to the other argument which the right hon. Gentleman alleges, the desire of India, and he alleges this desire in very strong and very remarkable terms. It is said that this change is desired by Princes and by people, and we are told that the Government have ample means of making inquiry, and that they have not neglected those means. Upon this statement I have two remarks to make. First, it would appear as if the people of India had been much more in the
  1736
  confidence of the right hon. Gentleman than the British Parliament. We have not known what advice was likely to be tendered to the Sovereign; whereas, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the Princes and the people of India have been aware of it all along, and have conclusively made known the feelings they entertain on the subject. But if that is so—if the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of this evidence of the feelings of the Princes and the people of India—why has he not laid it before us? I say that we have every title—every moral title, every Parliamentary title—to be put in possession of that evidence, and that my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Samuelson) is within his right when he asks that before he is called upon to decide upon the very delicate question contained in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-night, time may be given him for the purpose of receiving such evidence. I urge this matter most seriously upon Her Majesty's Government. I beg we may have in an official shape this evidence which the right hon. Gentleman possesses of the manifest desire of the Princes and people of India with respect to the title which it is proposed Her Majesty should assume. In my opinion, this is a matter of the greatest importance. We have had some declarations in this House with respect to India. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham), who is well known for his ability, on the night when the right hon. Gentleman first made his proposal, said that an Imperial title would be the one most suitable, because it would signify that Her Majesty governed India without the restraints of law or constitution.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: I said that the Government of India was a despotic Government, not in the hands of one person, and not, as in this country, a Constitutional Government in the hands of the Queen and the Houses of Lords and Commons. The Government of India is essentially a despotic Government as administered by us, although it includes more than one individual.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very much obliged, and I perceive completely the hen. Member's meaning; but I am sorry that to that meaning as it stands I take the greatest objection. If it be true—and it is true—that we govern India without the restraints of a law except

  1737
  such law as we make ourselves—if it be true that we have not been able to give to India the benefit and blessings of free institutions—I leave it to the hon. Gentleman—I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks fit—to boast that he is about to place that fact solemnly upon record. By the assumption of the title of Empress I, for one, will not attempt to turn into glory that which, so far as it is true, I feel to be our weakness and our calamity. What do we know of the juridical effect of the measure which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed? Of that subject he has not said one word. I am not competent to enter into it; but the learned Gentleman behind me (Dr. Kenealy), who is accomplished in his knowledge of the law, is able to do so. There are many hon. Members in the House who can supply the defect; but I wish to bring to the attention of the Government that which appears to me to be a very serious point in this question, of which the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the slightest notice. He has introduced to us a Bill which states that an Act of Her Majesty enacted—
  "That the Government of India, theretofore vested in the East India Company in trust for Her Majesty, should become vested in Her Majesty, and that India should thenceforth be governed by and in the name of Her Majesty."
  I am not now speaking of the word "Empress," but of India, and I wish to bring into view a serious question, and a question wholly unexplained to this moment, which may be involved in any statutory establishment of the name of India in the title of the Sovereign. If I read the Act for the government of India correctly, the recital of the Preamble of this Bill is inaccurate. As I read it, it is not true that the government of India has been vested in Her Majesty; and it is not true that it has been enacted that—"India should thenceforth be governed by and in the the name of Her Majesty." Now, this is a matter of very considerable delicacy and importance. The Act for the government of India provides, in the 1st clause, that—
  "The government of the territories now in the possession or under the government of the East India Company, and all powers in relation to the government, vested in or exercised by the said Government in trust for Her Majesty, shall cease to he vested in or exercised by the said Company, and all territories in the possession or
  1738
  under the government of the said Company and all rights vested in or which may have been exercised by the said Company in relation to any territories, shall become vested in Her Majesty, and exercised in Her name."
  That is the great operative part of the clause. It is clear that the operative part of it does not embrace the entire country of India. ["Oh, oh!"] Let the hon. Gentleman who disposes so easily of this question point out to me a legislative or a judicial decision, and I shall then pay the greatest respect to what he says; but for the present I must be content to proceed on my way without the advantage of his approval or support. The operative part of the clause is carefully limited to the countries which had been held in trust for Her Majesty by the East India Company. The clause ends by saying—
  "And for the purposes of this Act India shall mean the territories vested in Her Majesty aforesaid, and all territories which may become vested in Her Majesty by the aforesaid."
  I may he wrong; but it is clear that this was the draftsman's expedient, as it was impossible to go on reciting the long and cumbrous description which I have read—namely, the description of these territories. It is plain, therefore, that the government of India—that is, the entire India—never has yet, by statute, been vested in Her Majesty; but that which has been vested is the government of the countries which were held in trust for Her Majesty by the East India Company. I would be the last man to raise this question if it were a mere verbal quibble. It is as far as possible from being a question merely verbal; the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down indicates that it is no verbal quibble. He says his desire is—though I am glad that he at any rate hesitates as to the title of Empress—that the Queen shall assume some title in respect to India which shall show that she is assuming the possession of the powers of the Great Mogul. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: As the representative of the nation.] I quite understand that; my hon. Friend is much too constitutional a Member of Parliament to omit that qualification. If I understand my hon. Friend aright—and he speaks with much authority on the subject—he distinctly assures us that the supremacy of the Great Mogul extended over all the Na

  1739
  tive Princes of India within the limits of the dominion which we call India. What I want to know is this—has that supremacy, that dominion, ever been, legislatively or even judicially, up to the present moment, assumed either by the East India Company or by the Queen, who succeeded the East India Company? It would be the utmost presumption if I were to speak dogmatically upon this subject; I believe it to be a question admitting of very considerable difference of opinion. As we have very great varieties of relations with the remaining Native States, as in some cases any independence that they possess is nothing more than nominal, as in some cases our powers over them either have been obtained by Treaty or are of a limited character, I would point out to the House that in regard to our power in India—that vast and curiously-constructed fabric of which we are the stewards, and which it is our duty to maintain so long as any obligation connected with that power remains to be fulfilled—we are under the most solemn obligations to proceed with caution, with circumspection, with a strict regard to principles of law, with strict regard to the lessons of history, in every stop we take in this great matter. Whether my principle be right or not in the allegation made respecting a former Sovereign of India, I am under the belief that to this moment there are important Princes and States in India over "which we have never assumed dominion, whatever may have been our superiority of strength. We are now going by Act of Parliament to assume that dominion, the possible consequences of which no man can foresee; and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us the Princes of India desire this change to be made, does he really mean to assure us that that is the case? If so, I require distinct evidence of the fact. There are Princes in India who, no doubt, have hitherto enjoyed no more than a theoretical political supremacy, but do they desire to surrender even that under the provisions of this Bill? I cannot conceive a stronger argument addressed to Her Majesty's Government, and it is with them and not with us that the burden of proof lies upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman is going to advise the Queen to become Empress of India. I raise the question, What is India? I have said that the dominion
  1740
  now vested in Her Majesty is limited to the territories vested in the East India Company. I ask whether the supremacy of certain important Native States in India ever was vested in the Company or whether it was not? We are bound to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and I think he is bound to answer the question through the medium of his best legal authorities—whether this supremacy is so vested or not, and whether he can assure us upon his responsibility that no political change in the condition of the Native Princes of India will be effected by this Bill. If there is a political change effected, I do not hesitate to say I do not think it would be possible to offer too determined an opposition to the proposal of the Government. Instead of saying, as I do, that I feel every desire to postpone coming to a decision, I should say it would be an act of temerity almost approaching to insanity, for any purpose such as the right hon. Gentleman has described, were we, the British Parliament, to consent to effect a change in the political status and position of the Sovereigns of India, with respect to whom we at least are not in a state of ignorance. I feel with the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, I feel a little more than the right hon. Gentleman—the greatness, the unsullied greatness, of the title which is now borne by the Queen of England. I think I use the language of moderation when I say that it is a title unequalled for its dignity and weight, unequalled for the glory of its historic associations; unequalled for the promise which it offers to the future, among the titles of the Sovereigns of Europe, among all the states and nations on the earth. Sir, I have a jealousy of touching that title, and I am not to be told that this is a small matter. There is nothing small in a matter, in my judgment, which touches the honour and dignity of the Crown of England. These matters are all great—they are far-reaching—they have an importance even for the life of our Sovereign, which I hope will be long preserved, and they reach far into the future of England. You should not take a step in advance now which hereafter you may possibly have to regret or retract. You should consider very carefully the whole of these questions which touch the Sovereign—such are the lessons I have learnt from my political instruc

  1741
  tors, and such are the lessons I try to hand down—you should consider all that touches the Crown as matters of the highest delicacy, of the highest importance, and part, the most sacred portion, of the same power which we are called upon to administer on behalf of the Empire. I own I think there ought to be strong reasons—reasons of much more strength than I have gathered from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—to induce us to run the smallest risk of putting in jeopardy this magnificent and noble title of the Queen of England. I am not speaking of the institutions of France; but speaking of the associations and history of the title of "King of France," it might have put itself into competition with the British Crown, but that title of "King of France," has been entirely swept away, and an article of modern manufacture, when Royalty has been set up in France, has been substituted for it. It has been the misfortune of that great country to feel itself compelled in a considerable degree to encounter one of the heaviest of all calamities—namely, to break with its own past, to sever its present traditions from those which it had accumulated in other days. We have all our misfortunes and dangers, but that is a calamity which this country has never been called upon to encounter, and which, I trust, it never shall. What I fool about this Imperial title is that, with the greatest possible respect for Emperors now subsisting, and more oven than respect it may be, and not at all questioning that the perfect legitimacy of the titles which they bear, as justified by the circumstances in which they stand, I am not very willing to have the title of Queen of England—without very strong reasons shown me—brought into any sort of competition with theirs. The right hon. Gentleman has, indeed, manfully contended that there is no inferiority in the title of King as compared with that of Emperor, and I believe the state of the matter diplomatically is this—that the question of precedence has never absolutely been ruled upon as between one King and Emperor or another King and Emperor. That has never been absolutely ruled amongst the Courts of Europe. But this, I think, has been the case—that practically, whenever the title of King has come into competition with that of Emperor, up to this moment
  1742
  either the former title has been completely absorbed or has assumed the second place. If I take the Kingship of the Emperor of Austria when he was King of the Romans and also King of Hungary, I find that he was never heard of as King of Hungary or King of the Romans, except in the days when he was crowned with the iron crown in the Cathedral of Milan. He was called Emperor of Austria, and in that title his Kingship was practically swallowed up. Under the teaching of circumstances which perfectly warrant the act, the King of Prussia, as he was a few years ago, has become the German Emperor, and has ceased to be King of Prussia; but whether that title is technically used or not I cannot speak positively; but we know that his Kingship is entirely absorbed in that of Emperor. Now, I want to know why I am to be dragged into novelties, or into comparisons on a subject of this sort? If it be that Queen of the United Kingdom is still to remain the superior title, what do we then do? We introduce a completely new anomaly into the nomenclature of titles, because undoubtedly the title of Emperor has certain pretensions: they are not given up, but they are exhibited by the facts I have just recited, that, where the two come into competition, the title of Emperor prevails. But why are we to invent another innovation and say that from the principal and central, and I do not hesitate to say the superior, dominion Her Majesty shall derive the title of Queen, but that from the scondary dominion she shall derive the higher title—namely, the title of Empress. Is there a difference between the two titles; and, if so, is it a difference of which we ought to take note? History, in my opinion, goes far to determine that question. There is on the title of Emperor a historic stamp. The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the whole of the records of history by quoting Gibbon and the peculiarly exceptional and solitary period of the Antonines. We have not always got Antonines to govern us. If we had, oven some of the machinery and labour of this House might be dispensed with. The title of Emperor is distinguished, it seems to me, in history from the title of King by two characteristics. The title of King is commonly and by usage hereditary. If we except Poland, there is no other very strong case we can

  1743
  quote historically of the elective character in conjunction with the title of King. The title of King is, as I have said, hereditary; the title of Emperor is not, according to history it is elective. I do not, of course, mean to deny that you have now certain hereditary Empires—Empires, in comparison, of yesterday, because the German Emperor has been an Emperor only a few years, the Emperor of Austria only from the commencement of this century, and the Czar only from a period in the last. But the ancient Empire which gave its historic character to the title was elective from the first. I do not mean regularly elective, because force often stepped in; but originally the title of Imperator was a military title voluntarily conferred, and it was historically derived from that military title when it was borne by the Roman Emperors. Those Emperors, I may add, did not exercise their regular prerogatives of government in virtue of their being Emperors. They had quite enough of King-craft in them, or Emperor-craft, if yon like so to call it, to know on what they ought to base their authority, and consequently they availed themselves of the ancient titles of the Republic; and while assuming in the face of the world the title of Emperor, they also took the old constitutional title of Consul or other officer, in order that they might be legally entitled to exercise the functions of government. As Emperors they had no lawful powers. Powers they had, but they were not powers restrained by law. As to the Roman Emperorship, I need not enter into detail of the manner in which it was commonly disposed of and of the part exercised by the Prætorian Guards in the choice of the incoming candidate. The same may be said of the Emperors of Constantinople. In Germany the justice of the view which I have endeavoured to lay before the House was still more strongly illustrated. The Emperor of Germany is a gigantic figure in the retrospect of history, and I was astonished, I confess, when I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the Emperor of Germany had no precedence over the Kings contemporary with himself. I do not know whether he retained it down to the very latest period of the existence of the title; but undoubtedly in the period of Charles V., and in all
  1744
  antecedent ages, if not in some of those that followed, until the Empire of Germany became so tremendously weakened with the religious wars following the Reformation, the precedence of the Emperor of Germany over the Sovereigns of Europe was undoubted. This is not a place or time for literary controversy; but it is clear that the Emperorship of Germany, which is the great and cardinal example of modern Emperorship for Christian Europe, was strictly an elective institution. Moreover, being an elective institution, it was an institution—and that is the second point of distinction between the two great titles—altogether exempt from the control of law. These are juridical questions, raised as to the rights of the Emperor with respect to the Pope, which lie entirely outside of this discussion; but speaking of the Empire of Germany, what legislative powers did the Emperor, after he had been elected, possess? None, What he possessed he possessed by the strong hand, and that is the character of the German Emperor. I am not saying that the powers were ill-used, or that he was not, on the whole, probably a very beneficial person for the Europe of those days; but what I am saying is that the title of Emperor is one which in the course of history has been almost uniformly dissociated from hereditary succession, and associated with elective succession, and, on the other hand, dissociated from the regular control of law, and associated with the undefined exercise of will, and very often with the simplest way of enforcing it. I confess these are very serious considerations, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have anything like an unanimous or general assent of the British Parliament to the proposal he makes, he must give us further information and other reasons besides those which he has heretofore laid before us in order to bring about any such result. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore, I hope, be disposed to accede to the wish of my hon. Friend. I am perfectly certain that if this were an ordinary Bill my hon. Friend would be justified in pressing his demand by the usual means which are in the hands of Members—namely, by challenging the judgment of the House, and if he does not press it, it will not be because he has not occasion for pressing it, but be

  1745
  cause he is unwilling to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman in the form of a division, at any rate until the necessity becomes absolute. There is one other point on which I am anxious to make a few comments. I was, I own, struck by what fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) the other evening in reference to the colonies. Whether it be desirable to make any recital with regard to the colonies or not, it is a subject which requires much consideration whether we can wisely introduce reference to India in the title of the Sovereign, while we at the same time take no notice of the colonies. The right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, assured us on the first evening of the discussion that such a proceeding would be wholly superfluous, inasmuch as the Colonies were included in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I should gladly accede to his proposition if I were aware of any sufficient ground—I might almost say of any ground—which can be alleged for a statement so novel and so paradoxical. The legal inclusion for certain purposes, not in the title of the Sovereign, but in the scope of Acts of Parliament, and up to certain limits, is a thing perfectly well known; but as to the inclusion of the colonies in the title of the Sovereign and in the name of the United Kingdom, as far as the title of the Sovereign is concerned, I really am not aware of it, and I have yet to learn what authority can be quoted in support of such a proposition. I think it is a very serious matter indeed if, when we have had no opportunity of consulting the colonies or of ascertaining their feelings on such a subject, we were to become parties to an Act which, by its very frame work, excludes the colonies. If the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to us—at least to me individually as a Member of Parliament, along with others—the request that we should give to the Government a discretion to advise the Crown upon the enumeration of countries in the title of the Sovereign, I, for one, should have been disposed, though not seeing any great cause for such request, to acquiesce in it; but the right hen. Gentleman, unfortunately, does not do that. He recquires us to give him a discretion to make an addition in respect to India, but he excludes from the power which he asks of us any
  1746
  means of making an addition in respect to the colonies; and I do not hesitate to say that I, for one, am not prepared to be a party to the exclusion of the colonies from the scope of this Bill. I am willing to leave it to the Government to consider that matter; but my impression is that if anything is to be done, the colonies ought to be noticed, and consequently I am not willing to be a party to their exclusion. Sir, I conclude with expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some further consideration to this question. I must say I think that when his opening speech on the former night was heard by the House it was felt that the examination and scrutiny of the matter had hardly been carried up to the point which its gravity and its delicacy required. My disposition is, if it were possible, not to go to issue with the Government on a measure of this kind; but I own that I must hoar from the Government, or those who may support this measure, arguments of a different character and a different gravity from those which hitherto have been adduced, or at some stage or other I fear it will be my duty, reluctant as I may be to enter upon its performance, in some manner or other to mark no inconsiderable degree of dissent from the framework of the measure as it stands.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is much of the speech of my right hon. Friend—I mean the antiquarian and historical portions of it—which I think the House will not desire me at present to follow; but there are one or two points in regard to which it is desirable that an answer should be given to his remarks. There was one portion of my right hon. Friend's eloquent speech in which he touched a chord which must have found a response in the heart of every Member of this Assembly when he spoke of the love and veneration attaching to the old and beloved title of our English Queen. But we have no question before us as to the maintenance of that old and truly British title. There is no question of losing that which is entwined in the hearts of all Englishmen. It is a question of a totally different character that we have before us to night. Will hon. Members look for a moment at the position in which we stand? My right hon. Friend said he regarded the measure with some misgiving and mistrust,

  1747
  and the hon Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) in plainer language said he could not deny that he viewed it with something like prejudice. But, in point of fact, are we now doing anything very extraordinary? Are we proposing anything very much out of the usual course of English history, or are we not rather following the precedents set in former cases when there have been changes in the Constitution and limits of the Empire? My right hon. Friend says—"Let us look to precedents." Well, there have been several changes in the style of the Sovereign of this country. In the first place, there is the style given to the Sovereigns who ruled over the three portions of the now United Kingdom, and when we had our King of England, of Scotland, and of Ireland. When the union was effected between England and Scotland you changed the designation, not because there had been any difference in the acquisition of power by the King, but because you were bringing together two portions of the Empire, and placing them in different relations one towards the other, and you substituted for "England and Scotland" the term "Great Britain." In a similar way, when the union was effected between Great Britain and Ireland, you dropped the separate titles and adopted the title of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." My right hon. Friend opposite, when he was speaking as to whether this was done by statute or prerogative, charged my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government with taking a fallacious view with regard to prerogative. Now, I would ask him by what power it was done on the occasion of the change to which I have referred at the time of the union with Ireland, when the title of "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was assumed? By what authority was it that the title of "King of France" was at the same time abandoned? Was that by statute or by prerogative? It was by prerogative. It was in consequence of the power given to His Majesty to exercise his prerogative that that change was made. Similarly in consequence of the power now given to exercise the prerogative, Her Majesty will exercise it in order if this Bill is passed to effect the change which is about to be made. What are the circumstances of this change? Up to the
  1748
  year 1858 the territories which are now governed by Her Majesty in India were held and governed in trust for Her Majesty by the East India Company. On the occasion of the abolition of the power of the East India Company an Act of Parliament was passed which said that those dominions should henceforth be governed in the name of Her Majesty herself, and not by any one in trust for her. It would have been perfectly reasonable if at that time some step had been taken such as was taken at the time of the Union with Scotland and the Union with Ireland. Similarly it would have been perfectly natural and right, and no one would have questioned it at that time if it had been thought expedient to give a title distinctly to mark Her Majesty as Ruler of India. Indeed, I believe there are right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that Bench who at the time talked of that course being taken; but for good political reasons connected with the circumstances of the Mutiny that stop was not then taken. Well, it not having been taken then there has never been any occasion on which it would have seemed desirable or fitting to remedy the defect until the present year. It can now be done in a graceful manner without any hints as to sinister designs or any intentions of changing the relations between this country and the people and Princes of India. It has become a reasonable thing for us to ask that Her Majesty should be empowered to take the title which would have been given to her in 1858 but for circumstances which have now ceased to exist. My right hon. Friend said—"Let us be well assured that no change is intended in the political status of the Princes of India." But does my right hon. Friend really think it necessary seriously to put such a question as that? If he can allow such a suspicion to enter his head he had better give up his words of distrust, adopt the more candid language of the hon. Member for Banbury, and speak of prejudice. There may be something which reveals itself to my right hon. Friend, but which does not reveal itself to ordinary minds; but, for my part, I am wholly unable to see how the addition to Her Majesty's style and titles of a title which is to mark her as being specially connected with India can in any way whatever affect the political status of Indian Princes. The

  1749
  Proclamation which Her Most Gracious Majesty was pleased to issue when she assumed the direct Government of India is still in force, and by that Proclamation and by the law of the land will the Government of India continue to be governed. But my right hon. Friend says—"After all, what is it that we have to look to? You are talking to us of the wishes of the people of India." Well, it is from an Indian point of view that the question ought to be regarded; and if hon. Members would only bring themselves to regard it, as they ought to do, from that point of view, we should hear much less of these feelings of misgiving and mistrust, and statements about the character of the Emperor of this country and of another, all the examples being drawn from European history. We are told that there is no wish expressed on the part of the people of India for this new title. The people of India have expressed themselves on this subject. The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell), who knows India well, spoke in a different tone from the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the opinions of the people of India.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I spoke of the Princes and some of the people of India.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I admit that we have not attempted a plebiscite in India to collect the opinions of the people there; but we are not without some evidence of their feeling. In the first place, the title of Empress has been used. On August 18, 1873, Lord Northbrook, in writing to the Ameer of Yarkand, described the Queen in this manner—"Mr. Forsyth," the Envoy sent on this occasion, "is also the bearer of a Poyal letter from Her Majesty the Queen of India and the Empress of Hindostan."
  MR. SAMUELSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the kindness to inform the House whether Yarkand is in British India?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No; but Lord Northbrook was the Viceroy of the Queen, and it was in India and from India that he sent a letter bearing this title. I have not searched all the Indian journals, but here is an extract from The Friend of India, dated December 12, 1873, referring to a fete given by the Talookdars of Oude, which, for the satisfaction of
  1750
  the hon. Member for Banbury, is, I may state, in India. At this fete the Talookdars presented to the Governor General a loyal address, which thus concluded—
  "We would entreat your Excellency to assure Her Majesty, Empress of Hindostan, of our eternal gratitude and constant loyalty.
  … In conclusion, we earnestly beg your Excellency to convey to our beloved Sovereign our long-wished-for and fervent prayer that Her Majesty, in addition to her numerous high titles, be graciously pleased to be called in accordance with the immemorable usage of our country."—
  and I will not venture upon the Hindostanee word, but I am told that it is equivalent to "Empress." ["Name."] Well, it is true that I held for a short time the Seals of the India Office, but I did not during that time learn the language of India. The word is "Sháhán-sháh-i-Hind Zil-i-Subháni." I am told this word corresponds in the minds of the Natives of India with the word "Empress." To me, however, it docs not signify whether the words exactly correspond or not. The fact remains that there was, and is, a desire on the part of many of the Natives and Princes of India that Her Majesty should take a title distinctly denoting that she holds a certain sway in India. We are told, and truly told, that in Europe there is no difference between the ranks of Queen and Empress; but although it is true that in Europe it could make no difference whether one title or the other was used, except that there is, perhaps, a prejudice against the title of Empress, may it not be equally true that among Eastern nations there is a great deal of difference between the two titles, with a prejudice the other way in favour of Empress? Let the House remember that among Oriental people an enormous value is attached to very slight distinctions. What to us may appear exceedingly trumpery and trivial distinctions, are in their eyes of the greatest importance. It is of the highest consequence, therefore, that we should take care that Her Majesty should in no "way suffer in India by the assumption of any title or the use of any language signifying that she holds a less exalted position than any other Sovereign. We have still sitting on the opposite Bench right hon. Gentlemen who were Colleagues of the late Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston was very jealous on this subject. About a year or two after Her Majesty came to the

  1751
  Throne, Lord Palmerston had a serious conversation with the Persian Envoy of that day, complaining that the title given to Her Majesty by the Persian Government was an inferior title. The Persian Envoy at the time was Hossein Khan, and the title given to the Queen was Malikeh; whereas Lord Palmerston contended that Her Majesty should be called by the Imperial title of Pádsháh. In the end, Lord Palmerston compelled the Persian Envoy to admit that the Queen was entitled to the higher and more important title. Now, Persia is not in India, and Yarkand is not in India, and the same may be said of many other countries in Central Asia; but the people of all those countries are continually brought into close relations with the Natives of India, and throughout all those countries there is one Power in particular which exercises a great and deserved influence. Is it well that to the Emperor of Russia should be given in those countries a title which appears to the people there to be higher and greater than the title borne by the Queen? The announcement has been made that it is Her Majesty's wish to mark the visit of the Prince of Wales to India by taking some title which should seem to connect that country more closely with our own; and after this first step has been taken, will anybody be satisfied that she should adopt a title which may appear in the eyes of the people of India to be lower than the title of the Emperor of Russia? It is all very well to say that in this country and in this House the title of Queen is as high as the title of Empress. We know it to be so, and to ourselves the title of Queen is so dear that we should not like to see Her Majesty barter it for any other. But in India the case is different. Whatever you may think of the propriety of marking this epoch by completing that which was the original intention in 1858, consider in what position you will be if, after making the proposal, you either go back or appear to hesitate. We have made the proposal, and for our part we do not hesitate on the ground directly stated by the right hon. Member (Mr. Lowe), that we may have to surrender this title if we lose India; and again put forward or rather hinted at by my right hon. Friend just now, when he said that this is a step which we may one
  1752
  day have to regret: but let us show tonight that we have no fear that we shall lose our Indian Empire, or ever be compelled to retrace the step we are now adopting.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not concur with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the power given by the Act of Union to George III. to take any title he thought fit was to be exercised as a matter of prerogative. On the contrary, he regarded it as the use of a power given by a statute. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely misunderstood the argument of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. His right hon. Friend did not suppose that the Government intended to make any change in the position of the Princes of India; but he pointed out that, without intending it, such a change might be made. Of course, if there was any ground for that fear it would be possible to remove it in the later stages of the Bill. The really important question before the House was whether Her Majesty should have the title of Queen or Empress; and, in his opinion, it was a question which at present they were hardly in a position to discuss. They had an important Bill before them, and it was only now, upon the second reading, that they were told what the object of the Bill was. He thought that, under such circumstances, they were scarcely in a condition to consider the arguments either for or against the proposed addition of the title of Empress. His hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel-son) therefore would be perfectly justified in persisting in his Amendment; but, at the same time, it was a matter of some importance that they should come to a unanimous conclusion. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the Prime Minister; but he did not hear him advance any argument to justify the proposed title. He said that it was the same as Queen, yet it would affect the imaginations of our Indian fellow-subjects. His object in rising now, however, was simply to say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not only misunderstood his (Mr. Forster's) remarks about the colonies, but, what was of much greater importance, he misunderstood the feelings that would be excited in the colonies. He regretted exceedingly that when the very important step was taken

  1753
  of proposing an addition which was tantamount to a change in the titles of our Sovereign—no change having been made since the beginning of the present century, and only two or three changes in the whole course of the existence of our Monarchy—the question of including our great colonies had not been more thoroughly considered. He thought the difficulty was very much increased by the fact that when the Queen was proclaimed throughout India—perhaps not legally, but certainly officially—a new title was assumed, and the Queen was known to be proclaimed as Queen of the United Kingdom and its colonies and dependencies; and now, when an official change of title was about to be made, the colonies were passed over and entirely ignored. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of slighting the colonies, and he thought the observations which he had made on that subject would be received with satisfaction by our colonial brethren; but he could not say as much for the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He said the colonies were part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but every one knew that they were not. For instance, no Government could contemplate parting with a portion of the United Kingdom, as with Gambia. The right hon. Gentleman made use of a further argument—namely, that people went to the colonies to make their fortunes and came back to spend them in England, and that the colonists constituted a fluctuating population. He (Mr. Forster) objected to that view being taken of our colonists. The colonists did not regard themselves as a fluctuating population, but as the founders of mighty communities; they were conscious that they were already great communities, and the people of England were equally conscious that they were so. It was therefore much to be regretted that when a change of title was about to be made the colonies did not receive that recognition which they deserved by being included in the new title.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that as he rose only to support the Motion for adjournment, he did not think it necessary to speak on the main question, for he took it that the adjournment would be conceded by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The
  1754
  right hon. Gentleman must be aware from the grim silence with which his announcement had been received on that (the Opposition) side of the House that they were deeply disappointed with the title which he intended to recommend to Her Majesty. The country also, he believed, would be deeply disappointed; and as soon as they knew that Empress was the title to be adopted they would speak out very loudly about it. They in that House knew it that night for the first time; and he thought they would be false to their trust if they did not give the people an opportunity of considering the subject before the Bill was adopted. It had been urged that the title of Empress would gratify the feelings of the people of India; but, in his opinion, the feelings of the people of this country were of very much more importance than the feelings of the people of India or even than those of the colonies, though these were of some account too, and were now being ignored. They should not, therefore, decide this question until they knew what were the feelings of the people regarding it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that Lord Northbrook had already used the title of Empress in reference to the Queen's Sovereignty in India. But who had given the noble Lord authority to do such a tiling? They were not going to justify him in what he had done, and confirm it because he, on some occasion without authority, had given the Queen a new title. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the awkward position in which they would be placed if the House now hesitated to go on with the Bill after the Government had announced their intentions; but that was not the fault of the Opposition, and if anything wrong had been done, let it be laid on the shoulders of those alone who were responsible for it. He ventured to predict that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would live to regret the day he touched this question at all.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he had lived in India for 30 years, and he was in a position to declare that the assumption of a titular dignity in India by Her Majesty, where her Sovereignty was already known, acknowledged, and felt, would give to the Natives of that country the greatest possible satisfaction. When this Bill was introduced on the 17th of February the discussion that ensued was

  1755
  most unsatisfactory. He came down prepared to hear the Prime Minister introduce the Bill, and he thought the opportunity would be immediately taken by the noble Lord who led the Opposition to second the Motion cordially, and that the discussion would immediately terminate. But nothing of the sort occurred. The noble Lord was in his place, and apparently quite in his usual form. But he remained doggedly silent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) jumped upon his legs as soon as the Prime Minister had sat down, and made a speech of the greatest bitterness against the Bill. That speech was altogether unworthy of the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman as a statesman, and, he believed, created considerable amazement in the rank and file of the Opposition. The action of Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench on that occasion seemed to betoken divided counsels, and that the Leadership of the Liberal Party, on that night at least, was in commission. Assuming that Her Majesty would take the title of Empress, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London condemned it on the ground that it would imply the exercise of political personal power by Her Majesty in India, and he quoted Blackstone in corroboration of his argument. But the people of India knew nothing of Blackstone, and cared less. What they did know was that the Representative of Her Majesty in India had exercised political personal sway of the most absolute kind, especially with regard to the Princes of that country. The Natives of India knew that the Viceroy acted under the instructions of a Secretary of State who was responsible to Parliament; therefore, whether Her Majesty assumed the title of Queen or Empress was merely a matter of sentiment, the style was not one which would make the slightest difference in her government of India. Then, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the title of Queen of India would be equally objectionable, because the colonists of Australia and Tasmania would be displeased. He (Mr. Smollett) knew nothing of them; he had heard they were rather a rough lot, but they could not be so stubborn or pig-headed as the right hon. Gentleman would lead us to assume. There was no similarity
  1756
  between India and the colonies. India was not a colony; it was a subject Empire, with 200,000,000 of people, its revenue was £50,000,000, its trade, import and export, amounted to £130,000,000 sterling annually, and £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 of British capital were sunk in that country. It was therefore worth 100 such places as Tasmania. He had stated in rising that any titular designation assumed by Her Majesty in India would be agreeable to the people, and he might add that it would be most acceptable to the Princes in Asia. He would tell the reason why. During the 30 years that he (Mr. Smollett) resided in India every Ruler in a Native principality lived in a state of sullen discontent and filled with gloomy forebodings of ruin. They looked upon themselves as a doomed race. Every Governor General who went out to India wont with the craze of annexation upon him, and that craze was contagious. Some of them declared that that annexation policy was our irresistible destiny; but that was a "sham." Lord Dal-housie, the greatest Viceroy under the dynasty of the East India Company, had no dissimulation in him, and he laid it down that the whole of India ought to be brought under British rule, and that no opportunity should be neglected for dethroning a Native Prince and bringing his dominions under our sway. Being a Great Mogul, he found opportunities as thick as blackberries; and one of his last and most discreditable assumptions of power was the seizure of Oude. He justified his annexation of Oude on the ground that the people would be delighted to come under British rule. Lord Dalhousie said he would not require the services of another regiment to defend the annexation, and yet within 18 months of that time the Bengal Sepoys rose in rebellion, and the people of Oude joined the mutineers to a man. The Mutiny was quenched in blood, and when order was restored the Government of India was transferred from the Company to the Crown. The Proclamation then issued by Her Majesty made the name of Queen Victoria the most popular name in Asia, because it repudiated the doctrine of annexation; and from that day the Princes of India had enjoyed what he called a new lease of life. The auspicious visit of the Prince of Wales would serve greatly to stimulate the loy

  1757
  alty of the Native Princes. The people would look on the proposed addition to Her Majesty's title as a proof that she was proud of her Eastern dominions, and the Princes would regard the act as a renewed pledge of her protection to them for the future. The House must jealously watch the action of Secretaries of State and of future Viceroys, for they were not to be trusted; and it must also take care that every promise made in that Proclamation to Prince or people was fulfilled to the letter, for the Proclamation, though received with favour by the people, was cursed in their hearts by the ruling class in India. The civil and military servants of the Crown in India had always advocated the spoliation of Native rulers.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The House is evidently anxious that the debate should be brought to a close, and I have no intention of prolonging it, partly for this reason—that there appears to be no debate to be continued. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich can scarcely be said to have received an answer from the other side of the House; and I trust that the subject which he has proposed for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government will receive that consideration, at any rate before we reach the next stage of this Bill. I certainly do not intend to follow the observations of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Smollett), except to remark that he began by taunting me for not having risen on the night when this Bill was introduced, and immediately seconding the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury. Now, considering that I not only was not then aware what use was to be made of the powers which were proposed to be conferred on Her Majesty, but also that I had not at that moment, any more than the hon. Member, been favoured with a sight of the Bill that was to be brought in, it would, I think, have been rather premature for me to have offered myself as the Seconder of the measure. I now merely rise to call the attention of the House to one feature which I think may have been observed in the speeches that have been delivered to-night. The right hon. Gentleman opposite began by imploring the House, if possible, to arrive at a unanimous conclusion. My right hon. Friends who have spoken on this side also urged on the House the ex
  1758
  treme undesirability, if it can be avoided, of dissension in such a matter as this, and they have all indicated that if there must—as I fear there must—be a division of opinion among us before the Bill leaves this House—at all events, that division should be postponed till the latest possible period. I cannot say I think the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) was unreasonable. It is hardly reasonable that a Bill should at once be read the second time, the purport and object of which was only communicated to the House this evening. But it appears to me that in assenting to the second reading the House will do no more than give its assent to one of the principles recited in the Preamble of the Bill—namely, that it is expedient that there should be a recognition of the transfer of government so made by means of an addition to be made to the style and titles of Her Majesty. The objections taken by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and I believe by many other hon. Members on this side of the House, to the title which Her Majesty is to be advised to assume can certainly be discussed with equal advantage at a later stage of the proceedings. Therefore, I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury may think fit, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Motion that he has made; and I hope, on the other side, that the Government will be willing to meet him in a conciliatory spirit by postponing the Committee on the Bill a sufficient time to enable Members of this House to consider the announcement which has been made to them to-night, and also for the consideration of the subject by the country. For although we are told we are legislating primarily in the interests of the people of India, we cannot forget that what we are doing may, to a great extent, affect this country and our colonies also. I hope therefore, the Government will consent to postpone the Committee on the Bill to a reasonable period.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, it appeared to him that the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) were unanswerable, and remained entirely untouched by anything that had been advanced on the part of the Government. He had hoped

  1759
  that the Government would have been able to produce documentary proof of the necessity for this Bill; but instead of that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had contented himself with sneering at the idea that the title of Emperor or of Empress was associated with military power, and he had to go back some 16 or 17 centuries, to the time of the Antonines, to refute it. The fact itself, however, tended strongly to confirm the assertion. The dedication of the Faery Queen, by Spenser, was not an argument, and ought not to have been seriously treated as such. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was serious in employing it. He (Dr. Kenealy) objected to the title of Empress because it was a despotic one, and one not fitted for a constitutional Sovereign to adopt. Upon high political grounds he asked the right hon. Gentleman to defer this question until the country, with the information it now possessed, had pronounced upon it. The Imperial title had evil associations in India, and should we ever lose our hold on that vast country, where the light of education was beginning to spread, and whore the spirit of freedom might soon awaken, how ignominious it would be for the Sovereign of this country to have to abandon the title which it was now proposed to assume!
  MR. SAMUELSONexplained in reference to the imputation to himself of prejudice on the subject of the Bill, which had been made against him on the part of the Government, that he had given his reasons for objecting to the title of Empress; but he said that if prejudice did exist on the subject, nothing that had been said in reference to it by the Government had tended to remove that prejudice. He only wished to add that he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment if the House thought it better that the further consideration of the question should take place on going into Committee. ["No."]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 284: Majority 253.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he should be glad to know when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to go into Committee on the Bill. There had been very little time hitherto to consider it, and as the ques
  1760
  tion was a new one opportunity ought to be given to them to consider it thoroughly.
  MR. DISRAELI: There is only one clause in the Bill, and, therefore, I propose to take it this day week.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

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

ARMY—KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKErose to move—
  "That this House ought not to be asked to vote the first instalment of £100,000 for the proposed reconstruction of Knightsbridge Barracks without the plans prepared by Mr. Wyatt being first produced and sufficient time being-allowed for their consideration by Members."
  The hon. Member observed, that it might be that Mr. Wyatt, the architect, would be able to carry out the improvements of which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for "War had spoken on Friday last; but he failed to see how hen. Members could fairly be expected to vote the money for a purpose which was so unlikely to be attained until they had seen the plans of the architect. It was true that yesterday certain plans had been presented, but they did not include an elevation; and, besides, the House had only 24 hours to consider even the small instalment which had been produced. The right hon. Gentleman wanted the House to pass a Vote which virtually prejudged the question, and asked them to do this on his assurance that the wonders he described would be brought about. When he raised this question last year he asserted that the barracks were in a very bad condition, having been assured that they would not last another year. The right hon. Gentleman, however, put him quietly and firmly aside, and said that many years hence we should see the barracks still standing securely on the same site, and that only some slight repairs were required. This year the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to confess he was wrong. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman

  1761
  that if he failed in this matter the failure would be most conspicuous, and that every time he rode in the Park he would he exposed to the criticisms of his friends. He did not wonder at the right hon. Gentleman not being in a hurry to produce the plans, because it was not an agreeable thing to submit details involving artistic questions to a miscellaneous body of Gentlemen like the House of Commons. Earlier in the evening the right hon. Gentleman had replied to a Question about a plan of a model Cavalry barrack, designed many years ago by Mr. Wyatt. He understood it was in consequence of that plan that Mr. Wyatt had, in his right hon. Friend's opinion, attained a position which entitled him to be selected as the architect of the new barracks. He thought it desirable that hon. Gentlemen should have an opportunity of comparing the old with the new plans of Mr. Wyatt, in order that they might see how far the ideal differed from the actual, and how far that departure had become necessary owing to the restricted site on which the building must be erected.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House ought not to he asked to vote the first instalment of £100,000 for the proposed reconstruction of Knightsbridge Barracks without the plans prepared by Mr. Wyatt being first produced, and sufficient time being allowed for their consideration by Members,"—(Mr. Reginald Yorke,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he could not conceive why his hon. Friend, with the assistance of some elderly ladies and gentlemen at Knights-bridge, should have taken such an antipathy to the barracks, and should have got up an agitation against them, both as they were and as they would be. He had attended one of the hon. Gentleman's meetings, when he heard an elderly general officer, who never was quartered at the barracks, denouncing them, but no "model private" appeared on the platform, and he had heard another old officer taking an entirely different view. He might mention that his hon. Friend had seen the plans and had them explained to him by an eminent Engineer officer. If the barracks were to be rebuilt on the present site—
  1762
  and he saw no reason for their removal—the best use had been made of the land according to the plans. Mr. Wyatt had been selected not merely because of the model plan which had been referred to, but because he was also the architect of many ornamental buildings in London. If barracks were to be agitated against, they would have agitation for the removal of the Wellington and the Regent's Park Barracks. They must have barracks; and, considering the high character the soldiers received, he did not see why the inhabitants should wish for their removal. He had lately seen a letter in The Pall Mall Gazette, signed by the well-known name of "Henry Cole," suggesting that in place of the three acres on which the present barracks stood, three acres should be taken from the Park on the other side of the road; a suggestion which was highly worthy of attention.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it might be true that Knightsbridge was the proper site for Cavalry Barracks, but they were going to put 450 horses upon the ground-floor, and above them they were going to quarter a great number of men and women and children. Some years ago there had been a Commission of Inquiry into the proper mode of constructing barracks. The mortality which had occurred in our barracks in India and at home was not creditable to us, and was due to the construction of these barracks in violation of the principles of common sense. The Commission he referred to was, therefore, appointed, and condemned, on sanitary grounds, the placing of men over horses in barracks. It was said that shafts were to be constructed in order to carry off the foul air from the stables; but there would be windows in the stables, and if these opened, the foul air would rise into the quarters above, and what would be the use of the shafts? If the barracks were to be placed at Knightsbridge, a slice should be taken from the Park, the road diverted, and proper barracks constructed, not such as would be a disgrace to the sanitary science of the present day, and would embody every evil protested against by the Sanitary Commission.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the proposed barracks would be erected upon the best sanitary principles, combined with architectural fitness. Sir William Muir, the Director General of

  1763
  the Army Medical Department, had carefully inspected the plans and had been satisfied with them from a sanitary point of view. In the model barracks which had been proposed by Mr. Wyatt, comprising 22 acres, the horses were to be put underneath the men's quarters; and Shorncliffe and Colchester, which were our most recently-constructed Cavalry Barracks, were both built in the same way. At Colchester it was found that the men were, in some respects, more healthy over the horses than in separate rooms, and the sanitary results were much the same either way. In London, where the coachmen, with their wives and children, slept over the stables, he did not hear of any excessive illness or mortality among them. But the new barracks would not be treated in this way. The stables would project beyond the rooms above, a larger space would be given to the horses than was required by the Sanitary Commission, and so it would be with the rooms above, and the ventilation of the stables would be quite distinct from that of the rooms over. Thus overcrowding would be avoided and proper sanitary provision would be made. Unless these precautions were taken he should not sanction the construction of the barracks. A deputation had waited upon him today, and nothing could be more comical than their various suggestions and differences. In the first place, Millbank was abandoned by everybody. Then it was recommended that he should put the barracks where the Hanger's house was, and thus exhibit his architectural skill in the middle of the Park. But if people doubted his power to build anything worth having at Knightsbridge he was not prepared to run the risk on the site of the Ranger's house. Sir Henry Cole, a gentleman of enlarged ideas and great æsthetic taste, said—"Don't talk about estimates, but place your barracks where you have now the exercising ground." He did not think, however, that the best site for such a building would be where it would obstruct the view of the Albert Memorial; and, besides, it was a place which on Sunday was the most frequented part of the Park. Then as to Chelsea, if he built there he must build on concrete, which would add greatly to the expense, the boys would have to be removed to another building, and the pensioners of
  1764
  Chelsea Hospital would have to be sent to the country, which would also add greatly to the cost. Then Kensington was spoken of the other night; but if he set about building a barrack there, what reception would the owners of the palatial residences in that quarter be likely to give it? In short, the question came to this—he wanted to build; at Knightsbridge was a site ready, and, according to high engineering, architectural, and medical authorities, he could raise a building there which would be picturesque in appearance and would meet every sanitary and military requirement. When hon. Gentlemen talked of the health of the Horse Guards, they usually seized on the year 1873 to prove their case; but it was enough to say that the Horse Guards were not in Knightsbridge Barracks at all in that year. The proper thing to do, however, was not to take one year; and if a period of 10 years was taken, it would be found that the health of these troops was very much the same as that of the other Cavalry. But the fact was, the Horse Guards were bigger men than the rest of the Army, and bigger men it was alleged were more liable to consumptive diseases than smaller men. Allusion had been made to the part which an officer of high position had taken in this matter. He would not say that the officer in question had literally infringed the Queen's Regulations. But here was a colonel on full pay discussing questions under the consideration of Government in public, and suppose instead of one colonel 20 or 100 had gone to the meeting and expressed their opinion, where would the discipline of the Army be? With regard to the position of Mr. Wyatt, he wished to say a few words in explanation. Some years ago, when sanitary matters were beginning to be understood, there was a great competition for building barracks. The Inspector of Fortifications, however, reported that of all the plans sent in there was not one which could be adopted as a model, though some had merits in one way and some in another, and he recommended that no prize should be awarded, but in the end one was given to Mr. Morgan for Infantry Barracks and to Mr. Wyatt for Cavalry. Mr. Morgan had built infantry barracks, and since that time every Secretary of State had admitted

  1765
  that a pledge was given to Mr. Wyatt that when Cavalry Barracks were to be built he should have the contract. We were now, therefore, in this position—there was a site, he had laid before the House the plans which would fulfil every sanitary and other requirement, and he called upon them, therefore, to put him out of his misery and say what he was to do.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not try to construct a picturesque barrack, but would erect a plain building, without ornament, in good proportion, and adapted to its purpose. The picturesque buildings which they had lately had were an example of what ought to be avoided.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the public feeling was against the right hon. Gentleman in this case, and such feeling should not be ignored. The public did not want a barrack at Knightsbridge; but he must confess he sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman, because wherever he might take the barracks nobody wanted them and every one would protest.
  GENERAL SHUTEsaid, that whether the new barracks would be ornamental or not there was no doubt but that our magnificent Household Troops were highly ornamental, and ought not to be buried in the slums. He lived at Rutland Gate during the Session and could testify that their conduct was admirable on all occasions. He thought the neighbourhood of the barracks objectionable, but the licensing magistrates were chiefly to blame. Since the debate of last Session in the other House he had made a point when passing and repassing of occasionally looking into the public-houses there, and he had not seen a Life Guardsman or a man of the Blues in one of them. Questionable characters of the other sex were there in large numbers, but he never saw any of the Household Cavalry speaking to one of those women. He saw a number of horsey-looking, slangy fellows in tight trousers, and felt puzzled to know how they got into them or how out of them. He believed that Tatter-sail's was, next to the magistrates, most responsible for what they saw at Knights-bridge. It was not for him to say where the barracks should be built; but if ever the Household Cavalry should be wanted to act in support of the civil authority, it
  1766
  was not desirable that they should have to march through streets to gain the place of assembly.
  MR. MUNTZbelieved that the only public opinion which was against the proposed site was that of gentlemen living in the immediate vicinity. The reason given by the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) was, to his mind, conclusive that the barracks should remain on or as near as possible to their present site. The hon. Member was an economist. What would he say to a demand for perhaps £100,000 for a new site, when improved barracks could be erected, as proposed, without the cost of purchasing a new site? The Mover of the Resolution suggested that they should place the barracks near the powder magazine. If they did that and a flash of lightning fell on the powder magazine, they would have the whole of Her Majesty's Life Guardsmen blown up.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, it was conceded that in a strategical point of view Knightsbridge was the best site they could have for those barracks, and also that if they were erected anywhere else the inhabitants would raise the same objections as were heard at present. If any one class more than another ought to set the example of placing the soldier on an equality with themselves and showing that they thought him fit to live with the rest of the community, it was men of high social position as Members of that House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 46: Majority 149.

ARMY—ACCOMMODATION IN BAR-RACKS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. A. M'ARTHURcalled attention to the overcrowding in many barracks throughout the country, and contended that the Secretary of State for War would not succeed in getting steady and respectable men for recruits, if, in addition to increasing the soldiers' pay, he did not provide them with proper accommodation in their barracks. There were, he must admit, difficulties in the way of carrying out improvements in this respect at some of the barracks, where the space was limited, but that was not the case at

1767
Aldershot and other places, where the room was abundant. He thought that from £200,000 to £300,000 might be well spent in increasing the comfort of soldiers at those places, instead of devoting the money to increasing the Army, because he believed it would hold out an inducement to men to stay longer in the service than they did now. He hoped the Secretary of State would direct his attention to this important subject.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, the Secretary for War had had this subject under his consideration for some time, and it was one in which his right hon. Friend toot a great interest. As the hon. Member had admitted, there were difficulties to contend with—such as the peculiar construction of casemates and the difficulty of ventilation—and very little could be done under the circumstances; but what little could be done would be done by his right hon. Friend.

ARMY—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT EMLYN, in calling attention to the pay and allowances of Adjutants of Militia, said, he was sure that when the Warrant regulating the pay of those officers was issued the Secretary for War had every intention of dealing fairly with all the Adjutants of Militia; but he thought the right hon. gentleman was not aware how it would act as to some of them. The effect of the Warrant generally was this: It increased the pay of Infantry Militia Adjutants from 10 s. to 11 s. 7d. per day, or £28 a-year, and of Adjutants of Artillery from 10 s. to 11 s., which would be an increase of £18 a-year; but every officer receiving half-pay would be excluded from the allowances which were paid to Militia Adjutants as Paymasters and Quartermasters. So that, under the new Regulations these officers would receive considerably less than they did before; and, as he was sure the Secretary of State for War could not desire this, he hoped that some alteration would be made in that respect.
  SIR RICHARD GILPINalso expressed a hope that the condition of the officers would receive the attention of the Secretary for War.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, since some of these gallant Gentlemen had accepted their position of
  1768
  Adjutant, the Secretary for War had thought fit, no doubt acting on advice, to issue a new Warrant with regard to the pay. What was the effect of the Warrant? Why, an able and deserving officer was liable to lose from £30 to £40 a-year. This the officers could not afford, and it was of the highest importance to the efficiency of the Militia that the grievance should be removed.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERconsidered the defence of our coast a most important question. On our South Coast we had Plymouth, Portland, Portsmouth, and Dover, not only almost impregnable fortresses, but also vast entrenched camps, capable of holding so large a force that no enemy dared have them in his rear; but on the East and Northeast Coast there were no similar defences. In the beginning of this century towers copied from that at Martello, in South Italy, were erected on the South-east Coast. It was true the poet had sung—
  "Britannia needs no bulwarks,
  No towers along the steep;
  Her march is o'er the mountain wares,
  Her home is on the deep;"
  but his practical mind would be the first to perceive how necessary for security would be fortifications near the coast. In these days we had moveable fortresses, and it seemed to him (Sir William Fraser) most desirable that troops to the number of 30,000 men should be practised in embarking and disembarking; besides the regimental embarkation which was constantly going on.
  COLONEL NAGHTENbelieved the Militia to be one of the chief defences of the country, and thought the subject which had been brought before the House deserving of its most serious consideration, and that the grievances under which the Adjutants were labouring ought to be attended to. He complained that the duties of Paymaster and Quartermaster were thrown upon the Adjutants, and strongly recommended that they should be allowed horses, the use of which was one of the necessities of their position.
  MR. STANLEYhaving congratulated the noble Lord behind him on the able and temperate manner in which he had laid the grievances of which the Adjutants complained before the House, explained that the state of things which

  1769
  his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Department found prevailing when he came into office was so anomalous that he decided to anticipate the operation of the depot system, and to place all the Adjutants of Militia on the same footing as those of the Line. A great many complaints were, concurrently with that decision, made by the old Adjutants of Militia that they had new duties to perform. They were anxious to retire; but the allowance was so small, that it offered no inducement to them to retire. The Secretary of State took up the question, and having regard to the fact that a great number of officers were on compulsory half-pay, who were anxious to return to the Service—who were costing a great deal of money without doing anything for it, he proposed an arrangement by which an exceptional rate of retiring allowance should be given to the Militia Adjutants who chose to retire, filling up their places by officers who were on half-pay. But it was clearly stated, and so understood, that that was an exceptional and not the normal rate of allowance. Those officers who did not retire remained with their eyes open, knowing that they would be liable to the duties performed by other officers at the depôt. Then, as to the complaint that the allowances of the officers had been cut down, he need only point to the fact that their total emoluments formerly were £308 10 s. 9d. per year, whereas now they amounted to £329. One item of allowance—namely, £3 for recruiting—had certainly been cut down; but if the officer had to go considerable distances the £3 would not be gained. They were now placed on the Line footing, and received the actual expenses out of pocket. With respect to another matter which had been referred to, he might say that steps would be taken not to put the new scale into operation until the day the Circular was received. He had to inform his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bedfordshire (Sir Richard Gilpin), that the system of appointing the officers referred to supernumerary Majors of their regiments had been attended with great benefit to the public service, the old Adjutants remaining and being of special service to the young officers. With regard to the drawback of pay, it was true that in the older Militia Acts there was a reservation in favour of half-pay; it was made
  1770
  under totally different circumstances from those which now existed. It had been said that a difficulty was experienced in certain cases in finding officers willing to come forward for a limited time. All he could say was, that so far from there being any want of officers, there had been, with only two exceptions, not only a sufficient, but a very large number of officers from the active battalions willing to serve with the Militia. Complaint had been made that Paymasters' and Quartermasters' duty had been thrown upon the officers, and it was true that such was the case during the intermediate arrangements consequent upon the formation of the brigade depôts. He hoped that in a short time that would cease to be so; but if it did not, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War would make some allowance for what was certainly a very arduous duty. With regard to the suggestion that the troops should be practised in embarkation and disembarkation, he could state that the present practice was fully equivalent to that of the troops of any foreign country. It should be remembered that from the nature of things the Army of this country had a greater opportunity of learning how to shift for itself under various circumstances of embarking and disembarking than any other Army had. As to directing such practice to take place on particular points of the coast, he must speak with great reserve; because, whatever might be the advantages of internal manœuvres, great discretion should be used in laying down the points of the coast which were considered most applicable to such operations.
  EARL PERCYsaid, that without blaming the Secretary of State, inasmuch as he had simply carried out the policy his predecessor had inaugurated, he could not help thinking that faith had been broken with those old Adjutants who had entered the Militia on the understanding that they were appointed permanently, and who had, in consequence, given up their chance of promotion in the Regular service, and served Her Majesty thoroughly well in the Militia. The War Office had called upon them to do a large amount of additional duty, and to place themselves at the beck and call of several masters, and if they did not like to do so they were to receive a pension far below

  1771
  that which they were before receiving. This was rather hard upon officers who had done good service, both in the Regular Army and the Militia.
  MR. STANLEYsaid, he hoped he had made it clear that there had been many applications for retirement from these officers.

ARMY—PAY OF SOLDIERS AND MARINES.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCKrose to move—
"That, while recognizing the necessity for increased expenditure on the Army, in consequence of the largely increased inducements of the labour market, this House is of opinion that it is inexpedient to provide for the Militia Service, without having before the House a detailed statement of the mode of application of the largely increased sum for deferred pay and increased pay, and of its total amount for the present and for future years; and that no mea-sure for increasing the efficiency of the Army is complete that does not include an improvement of the Militia Reserve and the diminution of the present competition between the Line and the Militia for the same class of men."
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he was not unfavourable to the principle of deferred pay.
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. and gallant Member could not now move the Amendment, the House having voted that the words "That I now leave the Chair" stand part of the Question.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, he would defer his remarks; but he wished to express an opinion that instead of voting so large an amount of deferred pay, it would have been wiser to proceed by tentative steps. The Army Estimates were increased this year by £600,000, and it appeared that this increased item for deferred pay would, in 21 years, amount to £500,000 a-year. He should have preferred a return to the system of bounties, objectionable as it was in some respects, until it was seen whether this largo increase of expenditure was necessary, although in principle he was favourable both to deferred pay and increased pay.
CAPTAIN NOLANdenied that the pay of the soldier had been increased. Formerly he was enlisted with the prospect of a pension, which was equivalent to 1s. 10 d. a week distributed over his weekly pay. The Secretary for War
1772
proposed to give rather less than 1s. 2d.—less because deferred—which was Sinless than we formerly gave. He denied that the 4d. given to the Reserve was any increase of pay, because it no more than fairly balanced the contingent liability to be called out for service.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that with regard to the Marines a Question had already been asked by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) as to I whether, in consequence of this addition to the soldiers' pay, a similar addition would be made to the pay of the Marines, when the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that nothing had been settled in regard to the subject. He thought he might assume that the Secretary for War had since then been in communication with the First Lord on the matter. With regard to India, he understood that an increase would also be given to the soldiers there, and he desired to have an accurate statement of the effect of that increase on the Indian finances. It would have been better if the information as to the effect on our own finances which had been furnished that morning had been supplied before the Vote was taken. If, instead of proposing deferred pay, the Secretary for War had proposed an immediate increase of 2d., the proposal would have excited more attention than it did now, when only £19,000 was added to the Estimates, although the increase of liability amounted to £320,000 a-year. He acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of any idea of lightening the present Estimates, because he proposed deferred pay on its own merits; but when a measure involved a large liability and an accruing charge, the fullest information ought to be furnished as to the effect upon the finances both of India and England from year to year.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcordially supported the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland, and urged that the information which he asked for as regarded the application of the large additions to the pay of the non-commissioned officers and soldiers should be furnished, even though the Resolution could not be put. It was only right that time should be afforded for Members to study the details. Large increases had of late years been made to the pay of the soldier, particularly by General Peel and subse

1773
quently by Lord Cardwell, without any visible good, in inducing men to enlist. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, he also cordially deprecated unnecessary increase of the military expenditure of India, which, year after year, had occurred. It was desirable that the House should have the full details of the measures of the right hon. Gentleman placed before them, both with regard to the Army in India as well as at home. The additions made by General Peel to the pay of the Army at home had increased the military expenditure in India, as was reported, by one-third of a million, without the slightest good being effected. Since then the charges for bounty and kit on soldiers extending their service to India had been continued, adding thereby most uselessly to the military charges of India.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought he had some reason for surprise at the course which had been taken on this subject. With regard to deferred pay, he had stated the sum total in the first instance. It was rather over than understated; and with respect to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschon), that they should vote the whole sum as it arose, there never was any such financial proceeding. They might as well in the matter of buildings insist on taking at once the whole sum that would be spent in future years. The normal amount of expenditure would not arise for many years, and a great many things might occur to modify it. This was a very outside Estimate. The House had not been at all left in the dark. He had told them the whole sum that would be required; therefore, there could be no delusion with respect to it. There had been two nights' debate practically on the first Vote, and now the same discussion was revived. He made no complaint. He invited discussion at the first; he only wanted the House to understand that he had kept nothing back. With respect to India, when he came into office he found it difficult to arrive at any accurate conclusion as to the cost of different branches of the Army, and he admitted that this year he did not pretend to do more than give a rough estimate. There was no doubt, however, that India would have to pay a considerable sum in consequence of
1774
the deferred pay. The Reserve would not affect India. It was kept for our own purposes, and would therefore be paid by this country alone. As to the question of the pay of the Marines, this was hardly a proper question to address to the Secretary for War, who had no control whatever over the Marines. The great increase of pay which had been talked of would probably turn out a very moderate increase; but so essential did he deem this proposal to be, on the eve of the time when there must be a large increase in the number of recruits, that he should have found it necessary to make the proposal even if it had cost much more. The cost might be great, but the necessity was great. He had made the proposal in as moderate a form as possible, had made it as openly as possible, and did not think there was fair ground for the criticisms which had been made on this point.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the increased pay involved, almost inevitably, a similar step as regarded the Navy, and there ought to have been a statement from the responsible head of the Navy. He complained, too, that the Treasury, to whom the subject would be referred in the ordinary course of business, did not seem to have inquired what was proposed with regard to the Marines. The Navy Estimates contained no provision for increased pay to the Marines, though the invariable practice had been that the pay of this corps should be the same as the pay of the Army. As to India, though it was admitted that the charge would throw increased burdens upon that country, we had no information what the amount of those burdens would be. The statement placed on the Table should have shown the total increase, and then the charge to both countries. As it was, though the increase was only £19,000 for the year, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would ultimately entail upon the country and India a total burden of something like £600,000 or £700,000 a-year. Such an increased charge might be necessary or unnecessary, but it required more careful consideration than had hitherto been given to it.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £672,700, Militia Pay and Allowances.
COLONEL HAYTERcalled attention to the deficiency in the ranks of the Militia, mounting to 33,858 men, and urged that the only way to remedy it was to carry out the Brigade Depot system completely. The Vote had been growing of late years; this year it had been greatly increased, and no satisfactory accounts had been produced.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYexplained that the reason so many regiments were so far below their full strength was that the quota assigned to them was beyond their power of completing, and it would be best to fix the establishments according to the resources at their disposal. He intended to institute a searching inquiry into the condition of the Militia, and he hoped to be able to put it in a satisfactory condition.
MR. RITCHIEstated the Militia officers had to undergo a searching examination before they could obtain promotion. He called attention to the fact that sergeants of the Line who helped in the training of the Militia regiments received higher pay while engaged in that duty than their superior officers, the Militia sergeant majors.
LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONexpressed an opinion that a great mistake had been made in substituting the system of enlistment for that of enrolment in the recruiting of the Militia. If the enlistment system were persisted in, the Militia force, especially in Ireland, would cease to exist.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was glad there was to be such an inquiry into the condition of the Militia as the Secretary for War had indicated, that the nation might see how far they could rely on that Force. We heard the First Lord of the Admiralty speak of our Navy as a Paper Fleet, but the designation was far more applicable to our Militia. The test of the state of that Force was afforded by the figures in the annual training Return. Out of 3,859 Militia officers only 2,835 were present on the day of training; one-fourth of the sergeants and corporals were absent, and 10,069 privates were absent without leave,
1776
and only 84,316 privates out of a total of 123,668, forming the established strength, were present. If from these he deducted the Militia Reserve, available for the Regular Army, then we had only about 55,000 privates remaining in the Militia; the most serious evil was the rivalry for recruits between the Militia and Regular Forces. It was useless to assert that these two classes of soldiers were drawn from different parts of the population. All our experience in the early years of this century was at war with that assertion. The latest and best evidence was that of Sidney Herbert, who, in his speech of 17th February, 1860, distinctly asserted that the class of men who entered the Militia for permanent service were—
"In point of fact exactly the same as those who are embodied in the Army, so that you are establishing a competition against yourself."
But there was also another, and a more serious objection, and that was the positive want of men to meet the recruiting requirements of the Forces now maintained. Theoretically those Forces ought to be entirely replaced in six years, allowing for the various casualties, and consequently needing about 60,000 recruits annually. But judging from the numbers obtained by conscription and universal service in France and Germany, the population of the United Kingdom could not supply 130,000 youths in each year fit for military service, even if the conscription were inforce. And deducting from that number the classes of youths who at present refused to serve either in the Militia or Regular Army, as private soldiers, then the numbers available out of the classes who now supplied recruits, could not equal the number of 60,000 he had mentioned. In proof of that, there was seen to be no fewer than 26,069 privates of Militia actually wanting, so that they had nearly one year's supply deficient. All that proved how necessary it was to investigate the state of this Force, in order to decide as to whether its old constitution of a purely local Force was not more suitable.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £74,400, Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances.
MR. STANLEYexplained that, in reality, there was no reduction made in the amount of the Vote. The whole question was under the consideration of

1777
his right hon. Friend, who would no doubt do justice to all parties.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £458,000, Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, it was very satisfactory to find that so large a proportion of the Volunteers were in an efficient state. A very large proportion of the officers also was efficient. With respect to firing the Volunteers were very much superior to the Militia.
SIR WALTER BARTTELOTobserved, that there was a great deficiency of Volunteer officers, and urged that something should be done to increase their number.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYadmitted there was a deficiency of officers, but with regard to the Volunteers themselves there was an increase of over 7,000 this year. He could hold out no hope of increased payment except for increased efficiency.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £132,000, Army Reserve Force.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked what steps were being taken to accelerate the formation of a First Class Army Reserve? He knew that the new system had hardly come into operation; but it would be satisfactory to know that the right hon. Gentleman had the subject under his consideration, and that he intended urging upon the commanding officers the duty of passing through the ranks men who would form a good reserve.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreminded the Committee that the system inaugurated by his Predecessor would not come fully into operation until next year. Unless the recruiting enabled commanding officers to keep up the regiments to their establishment, the Government could not call upon the commanding officers to pass on their men into the Reserve before the time at which they could claim their discharge. It was calculated that in 1879 the total addition to the Reserve from the present date would be 20,437, a considerable force. He assured the noble Lord he would do his best to expedite the formation of the Reserve.
Vote agreed to.

CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 94.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to extend to Ireland the powers of compulsory slaughter of cattle affected with pleuropneumonia and other diseases, as they were now and had been for some time exercised in England and Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he hoped the Bill would not withdraw any help they had hitherto had from the Constabulary.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYobjected that the Bill would throw a large amount of the compensation on towns in rural districts, while the districts themselves would escape without any contribution whatever. That was an anomaly which he should be glad to see removed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was very glad that the Government had now resolved to put the three countries on the same footing as regarded those diseases, and he hoped they would deal in the same way with the foot-and-mouth disease.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, it was most objectionable that the administration of the Bill should be thrown upon the guardians of the poor.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER (CLERK OF THE PEACE) BILL.
(Mr. Hardcastle, Mr. Holt, Mr. Clifton.)
COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER (CLERK OF THE PEACE) BILL.

  [BILL 53.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 1 (Appointment of deputy clerks of the peace).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 20, to insert after the word "standing," the words "and shall reside and have an office within the district for which he is appointed, and the clerk of the peace shall have no interest in the emolument of any deputy clerk."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
  MR. HARDCASTLEopposed the former part of the Amendment as un

  1779
  necessary, and the latter part as contrary to the object of the Act.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, as a county magistrate of many years standing, opposed the Amendment, but rose more particularly to say that the magistrates of Lancashire—Whig, Radical and Tory—were almost unanimous in favour of the Bill. It was not in any sense a party question.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

BURGESSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Yeaman.)
BURGESSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  [BILL 48.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. W. HOLMSmoved to report Progress. He did so with regret, as he approved of the object of the Bill, but he had received a telegram that afternoon to the effect that the Bill would seriously affect the interests of the Burgh which he represented. He therefore asked for delay, for further consideration of the measure.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be agreed to. He should be willing to agree to the insertion of any words which would protect the rights of any burgh, provided they were in accordance with the principle and object of the Bill.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYtrusted the Bill would be allowed to proceed.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the Bill might inflict a slight loss upon some burghs; but he did not think that ought to stand in the way of proceeding with the Bill.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the Bill, if passed in its present form, would involve a loss to Stirling equivalent to a rate of over 1d. in the pound. He therefore hoped it would not be pressed at present, in order that Amendments might be framed with a view to prevent harm being done. Although the Bill might be a very good one for Edinburgh, it did not follow that it would be equally good for all the other interests affected by the measure.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, there were only about 2 burghs out of 70 that were
  1780
  against the Bill, and the object of the Motion for delay was for the purpose of defeating the Bill in the interest of those burghs.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MUTINY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the bettor payment of the Army and their quarters, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. Secretary HARDY, and The JUDGE ADVOCATE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Epping Forest* (24).
Second Reading—University of Oxford * (16); Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (21).
Committee—Crossed Cheques* (12).
Committee—Report—Marriages (St. James, Buxton) * (22).
Royal Assent—Exchequer Bonds (£4,080,000) [39 Vict. c. 1]; (£4,080,000) Consolidated Fund [39 Vict. c. 2].

RECEPTION OF FUGITIVE SLAVES—THE CIECULARS—PETITION.

  PERSONAL. EXPLANATION.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before your Lordships enter on the Orders of the Day, I wish to make an explanation with reference to a statement made by me in the course of the debate on Tuesday night. On that occasion I read an extract from a letter signed with the well-known signature "Historicus," and I founded an argument on the extract I read. The same extract had been read in "another place" by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War; and when my right hon. Friend had read it, Sir William

  1661
  Harcourt, who is supposed to take an interest in the letters signed "Historicus" made this observation, as reported—
  "His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had said he had derived his ideas of International Law from a letter in The Times newspaper. It so happened that Ms (Sir William Harcourt's) attention had also been called to that letter by a very remarkable circumstance—namely, that it appeared in The Times four-and-twenty hours before the Cabinet condemned the law of their own Law Officers.
  My Lords, I said that, no doubt from inadvertence, the statement of Sir William Harcourt was not quite accurate, because the letter bad appeared after the Circular was withdrawn. My Lords, that is the fact as regards the only letter I alluded to, and the only letter read in "another place." It is now stated that there was a previous letter, and it was to this previous letter Sir William Harcourt referred. As be states this, of course, it must be the fact; but it does not affect my argument founded on another letter. I may take this opportunity of mentioning that it would appear that I am supposed to have stated that the Treaties of Tunis and Tripoli were made during the present century. Such is not the fact. What I did say was that a great number of those Treaties ranged over the last century, from the beginning to the end.

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD BILL.
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD BILL.

  (NO 16.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD COLCHESTERrose to move, an Amendment—
  "That this House regrets that any legislation should be undertaken in reference to either University, except after a more extended and comprehensive inquiry than fell within the scope of the recent Royal Commission."
  The noble Lord said, he regretted to find himself on this occasion in antagonism in that House to those with whom he usually acted in concert, and especially to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. He was aware also that in the period of a quarter of a century which had elapsed since the last great
  1662
  Reform Act was passed for the University many points had come to light in which what was at that time effected seemed to require to be corrected or supplemented. If there were nothing behind the express provisions of the Bill it might have been unnecessary to offer at this stage any opposition to its progress; but he presumed that the lines on which it was intended to act were to be sought for the speech delivered by the noble Marquess on introducing the Bill. He (Lord Colchester) had listened attentively to the statement of the noble Marquess, and, reluctant as he was to object to the principles set out in that speech he could not help dissenting from what was there laid down. The reason assigned in that speech for legislating at all seemed to be the hostile and one sided view which the public might perhaps derive from the Report of the Royal Commission issued by the late Administration. No other view could have been afforded by a document which—by no fault of the Commissioners, but by the nature of the case—was essentially mischievous and misleading. Their Lordships had before them what was done in 1854, when great changes were made. But those changes were carried out after the Report of a Commission which had taken evidence upon every point upon which legislation was proposed; and the Report formed a most interesting record of what was the state of the University of Oxford at that time. But he complained that they were now called upon to legislate on a Report which gave no sufficient information on which to found this Bill. As it seemed to him it was upon scanty, and insufficient grounds their Lordships were called upon to facilitate changes which appeared to him as sweeping and as radical as could have been suggested from any quarter of the political horizon. In 1854 the legislation was founded on an elaborate mass of evidence, containing the opinions, on all points of importance, of the ablest men of the Universities, annexed to a Report containing recommendations founded on that evidence by a Commission authorized to inquire into the studies and discipline as well as the revenues of the University: the course now taken was very dissimilar. The proposal of the noble Marquess with reference to what he had called the "idle Fellowships"

  1663
  would of itself be sufficient to mate Mm say "Not Content" to the Motion for the second reading. The noble Marquess defined an "idle Fellowship" as one which brought no work into the University. The term might be almost equally applied to fellowships of all kinds, for the Fellows who, as College tutors or private tutors, were doing work for which they were paid from other sources than their Fellowships. One man held a Fellowship, and in addition earned money in Oxford by teaching. Another held a Fellowship, and in addition earned money, if he pleased, in London or elsewhere. He (Lord Colchester) looked upon these "idle Fellowships" as necessary to promote the ends for which the University existed. What he would urge in favour of the nonresident Fellows was their usefulness to the University. It was conceded that the University was not to be the training place of one profession; the object for which the University of Oxford was established was to give a liberal education, which would lay a good foundation of knowledge for men whatever walk in life they might adopt. Let it not, then, be said to those who intended to seek their fortunes or exercise their powers in the world at large that the rewards of academic success and industry were not for them. We ought not, by refusing to all except embryo Tutors and Professors substantial academic rewards, make persons regard academic honours as a luxury hardly to be afforded by those who had a career to prepare for outside the University itself. By doing so they certainly would not be acting on the views laid down by the Royal Commission under the Act of 1854. That Commission, in dealing with the College of All Souls, determined to connect it with the School of Law and Modern History. They required that all its future Fellows should be "first-class" men, who should be selected after a further examination in those subjects, and he believed many persons had been induced to study those subjects and to attain first classes in order to qualify for All Souls. He would suggest that allotting prizes of that kind to other new studies which it was desirable to encourage would be more effective even than the University endowments which it was proposed to found by taking away College revenue. But, besides this, by abolishing non-resident
  1664
  Fellowships they would snap a link between the Collegiate system and the life of the nation. They would be declaring that there should be no longer in the public service, at the Bar, in the parsonage, men who, being still members of Colleges as Fellows, frequently revisiting them and awaking again their old academic sympathies, should carry abroad the spirit of the Universities and a knowledge of University matters into all parts of England and all the spheres of English life; and, at the same time, bring something of the ideas and experience of the outer world into College administration, and secure College government from the narrowing influence which the constant groove of daily academic occupation, like the routine of any other office or employment, might tend to impress upon those institutions. He had not touched on the further argument urged by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on a former occasion, founded on the great benefit to persons destined, perhaps, to high eminence in later life, of the assistance afforded to them from non-resident Fellowships; and he was sure their Lordships would recognize the force of that consideration, and would hesitate to declare that similar aid should never be afforded in future. If, however, their Lordships should unhappily be of that opinion, the question arose—what was the best thing to be done with the revenues to be derived from their suppression? He should deprecate such a change as that proposed by the noble Marquess without further inquiry. Unlimited power was proposed to be given to the Commissioners to deal with the whole of the College revenues. This, therefore, was the most extensive scheme of College disendowment that could possibly be submitted to Parliament; yet nothing was fixed as to the disposal of the alienated revenues. The utility of creating for the first time, or augmenting by additional endowments, a number of Professorships was another point to which careful inquiry should be directed. It would also be desirable to consider in whom the patronage of those lucrative appointments was to be vested. He should hesitate before entrusting to the Executive of the day so large a power over academic appointments. To give them to the University would be to give them to Convocation, and, bearing in

  1665
  mind the elements of which Convocation was composed, he did not think that arrangement would be satisfactory. The difficulty might be met perhaps by leaving the patronage entirely with the Colleges; but were they prepared, simply on information obtained 22 years ago, to say that this was the best method of developing the studies in connection with the Fellowships, many of which were comparatively new? On that point there had been great difference of opinion and further inquiry would throw valuable light upon it. Changes might be necessary, but they should be made in such a manner as was likely to be of lasting benefit. Would it not, therefore, be well to ascertain what had been done and thought in the University since the last inquiry before they attacked these Colleges, which were national institutions in the sense of forming an important part of the life of the nation? Again, there were questions not in this Bill which it was useless to put out of sight, because they would spring up like armed men around the path of any one who dealt with University legislation. There were plenty of persons who would raise the difficult and delicate question of clerical Fellowships. He was anxious that these Fellowships should not be extinguished, but he felt that it might be necessary to remove the apparent justification for the charge that they bribed persons otherwise indisposed to enter Holy Orders. He would be glad if they could be limited to persons either in Holy Orders or bonâ fide pledged to take Holy Orders independent of their being elected. He was not one of those who wished to do away with the functions of Convocation, but it might be worth while to consider whether a scheme could not be devised by which it could exercise them, not as a primary body, but through a representative body, chosen by all who now composed Convocation, whether grouped by Colleges or otherwise, and exercising a constant, and not merely a spasmodic influence. Now that the Colleges were no longer Church of England institutions it would be well to consider also whether there was any object in retaining the large amount of ecclesiastical patronage which they held in former days, when a College living was the natural termination of a Fellowship. There were many other points with which a full and careful investigation
  1666
  might deal with advantage. There was no need for great haste, because Oxford and its Colleges were doing well, even if they might do better. Let nothing, then, be done in haste—nothing on imperfect information—nothing in any appearance of panic; but let Parliament act with such carefulness and consideration towards them that, even if transformed and transmuted, they might retain that claim on the respect and gratitude of those who reaped the fruits of this legislation, which generations and centuries of usefulness and renown had given them—on the respect and gratitude of Englishmen at the present day.
  Amendment moved, to leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion; and to insert ("this House regrets that any legislation should be undertaken in reference to either University, except after a more extended and comprehensive inquiry than fell within the scope of the recent Royal Commission.")—(The Lord Colchester.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish to say a few words in reference to the remarks which I thought it right to make when the noble Marquess laid this Bill on the Table, and which may have been misunderstood as if I thought it wrong that this Bill should proceed to a second reading. At that time the Bill was not in our hands. We have now had an opportunity of reading it, and I am anxious to express my desire that this Bill should pass your Lordships' House. I venture to differ from the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment. I do so on two points; the first is his conclusion, and the second is his premisses. First, I think it desirable that this Bill should pass; secondly, thinking so, I do not think it desirable that it should be preceded by a new Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the University of Oxford. My Lords, the knowledge of the state of the University of Oxford possessed by the public at the present time is, I think, tolerably exhaustive. We have had two Commissions—one a Royal Commission and the other a Parliamentary Commission—inquiring into the studies and the mode in which the government of the University is conducted; we have had another Commission inquiring into the revenues of the University. So that

  1667
  I think we may be said to be now tolerably well provided with information on the subject respecting which we are called to legislate. I know the evils to which changes in great acadedemical institutions give rise. One of them is this—It being the primary object of an University to educate, and education being best carried on when you understand what you are to teach and how you are to teach it, there has now been for a great many years a good deal of unsettlement—if I may use the word—in this great University. But, despite all the difficulties arising from this unsettlement, the University has gone on and prospered. It is a remarkable fact that whereas in the year 1850 there were only 1,400 members on the books of the University of Oxford receiving instruction, there are now 2,400 and upwards. There were in 1850 no unattached students—students who were not members of a College; there were, by a late Return, at least 187 unattached students—that is, persons receiving the benefit of University education on the cheapest possible terms. And while the number of students has increased, the number of studies has also been greatly augmented, and the number of persons engaged in conducting those studies and acquiring distinction in so doing has also been considerably enlarged. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the University is now doing very well, and the noble Lord who has just addressed you seemed to use that as argument that you should let the University alone.
  LORD COLCHESTER: I said there was no necessity for haste, and that, therefore, it was desirable to have full information before proceeding to alter.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My opinion, on the contrary, is that it is desirable that we should come to the end of changes in the University as soon as possible. Though the University has done well at times, when changes have been in anticipation, I believe she will do better when we come to an end of those changes. I quite concur in much that is said in a Memorial a copy of which was placed in my hands this morning, and which I believe was presented to the noble Marquess by the Heads and Fellows of the College of which I once had the honour to be a Fellow. It begins by saying—
  1668
  "We thank your Lordship for the introduction of the University of Oxford Bill."—they think great good will result from it; but they proceed, I am bound to say, in four pages which follow this preamble, to criticize the Bill in many of its details. I am sure the noble Marquess will not object if, for a few minutes, I follow the example of the Master and Fellows of the College to which I belong. I am convinced that in some respects this Bill is approved by the University generally; and I think there is only one thing which prevents its being approved entirely—doubtfulness as to the means by which it is to be carried into effect. A Commission having reported on the revenues of the University, and the public also being of opinion that those revenues might be better applied than they are at present, Her Majesty' Ministers have done wisely in losing no time. That, I think, is the opinion of the best friends of the University, and I further think they are of opinion that the best mode of proceeding to legislation is by the appointment of a Commission which will carry the desired changes into effect. But who are to be the Commissioners? On many occasions we are called upon to prefer measures to men, but on this occasion we are called upon to prefer men to measures—because the whole Bill depends on men. We are called on to give our whole confidence to those men; but all the time we are not told who those men are. We may rely with the greatest confidence on the noble Marquess, and those who are going to name this Commission; but, taking it for granted that the Commissioners will be the best men who can be procured for this very important task, and passing over for a moment the desirableness of our being informed who those Commissioners are to be, I will venture to point out one or two matters which, I think, the noble Marquess will agree with me will be fair subject for consideration by them. Those Commissionsioners, when appointed, are to have very extensive powers indeed. They will have powers to form new statutes, both for the Colleges and the University. And they are to be subject to very little control. We are told that they are to give effect, as far as they can, to the intention of the Founders of the various Colleges; but at the end of the clause which gives that direction, there

  1669
  is a provision that the intentions of Founders are not to interfere with any statute which at present exists, and which sets the intentions of a Founder aside. We know only very little, perhaps, now of the exact intentions of those Founders. We do know that many of them were desirous to benefit their own souls by having masses celebrated in their own Colleges, and we know that the celebration of a mass in the College chapel is one of those things now, I suppose, prohibited by statute; but when that is known, we know very little more as to their intentions than that they had a general desire to promote education. Therefore this restriction as to following the intentions of the Founders can scarcely be considered as any restriction at all on the liberty given to the Commissioners. There is this further—an appeal is to be given to Her Majesty in Council in respect of any statute which may be framed. Perhaps I may be allowed to make this criticism—that the appeal is to be against the "validity" of any of those statutes. Well, my Lords, large as are the powers of the Commissioners, I do not very well see how they can maintain statutes if they are invalid, and therefore I cannot help thinking that the phrase "validity" got into the clause by some accident, and that the right of appeal is really meant to be in respect of the propriety or wisdom or suitableness of any statute that may be passed. But again, I am a little staggered because, while in the former University Bill it was provided that Her Majesty in Council might refer the statute to five Councillors, of whom two were to be Members of the Judicial Committee, in this Bill it is provided that there is to be a direct reference to the Judicial Committee, and to that Committee only; and this would seem to imply that the question to be brought before Her Majesty in Council is not as to the general wisdom or desirableness of the statute, but as to its validity in law. Again, the Commission, no doubt, will consist of the wisest persons to be found—but they are not to last for ever. But a means of revising and improving the statutes of the University which is to last for generations is also provided by the Bill, and on this point also I wish to make one or two further observations. Before doing so, I may mention that the Memorial to which I have referred states that
  1670
  it would be desirable if the Commissioners, before proceeding to their duties, were instructed to hear all parties who might have anything to say in the matters which were to engage their attention. That, I take it, is a good suggestion. The memorialists are also anxious that something should be done to shorten the duration of the Commission. They think that seven years of an existence is too long, and it would be an improvement, no doubt, if its existence were not so unduly protracted. But whether it is to be seven years, or three, or two, after the Commission comes the arrangement by which for all time the University is to have power to revise and amend its statutes. Now, if there was anything which the Founders intended, it was that the Visitor was to be the perpetual representative of the Founder himself; but this Bill displaces the Visitor by implication as effectually as if it did so by name. I find that, instead of the Visitor, the power of visitation is to be vested in what is called by the somewhat indefinite name of the University. Now, I do not think that the intention of Founders was to submit their Colleges, and especially the funds of their Colleges, to the University which may be anxious to appropriate them. The word "University" is somewhat vague, and, with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord Colchester), I cannot suppose that it is the intention of the noble Marquess to vest the powers to which I have been referring in the body called "Convocation." With all respect to the Convocation of the University, I do not think it is much more popular in the country than the other body which bears the same name. Suppose there was a statute which excited any amount of religious heat—it would be very undesirable to summon the clergy from all parts of the country to decide on such a statute by a plébiscite; neither do I think that a plébiscite of London lawyers and country gentlemen would better meet the exigencies of the case. In the Convocation of the University it is now generally understood that not only can all the members be summoned, but votes can be given by proxy. It appears to be impossible to intend that statutes under this Bill shall be framed in this manner. Again, I wish to call your Lordships' attention to some of the subjects with which

  1671
  the Commissioners in the first instance, and the University afterwards, will have to deal. The Commissioners are to alter the statutes—and it will be necessary for them to do so with great care. I find that by the clause as to the alteration of statutes, the Commissioners, in making a statute for the University or a College, shall have regard to "the interests of religion, learning, and research." A marked separation seems to have been made in that clause between learning and research. If research is meant that is not based on learning, I confess I am at a loss to understand the value of such research. Moreover, education is an important part of the work of a University, and I cannot help thinking that the omission of the word "education" is an oversight. Again, I do not find any provision in the Bill to make the University more accessible to the general community. When we remember the large revenues of the University and the number of persons who are debarred by present arrangements from availing themselves of the benefits of University education, it would be natural to make it one of the primary objects of the Commission to inquire whether the expenses of the University could not be so diminished by the help of those endowments that a greater number of persons should be able to enter the University. I am the representative, more or less, of some 20,000 clergymen who have the greatest difficulty in obtaining a University education for their sons. It is true that scholarships can be obtained by competitive examination; but all the sons of the clergy who are entitled to a University education are not qualified to obtain those prizes by competitive examination, and I think a more natural use of the College revenues could not be found than that of enabling University education to be given at a cheaper rate to all those who desire to avail themselves of it. Any of your Lordships who have read Dr. Arnold's life will remember how he expresses his respect for a pupil who, having no brilliant abilities, laboured hard to make the best use of those which God had given him. There are at present a vast number of young men throughout the country who have no chance whatever of obtaining by competitive examination the distinctions of scholarships in our various Colleges, but who still are desirous of
  1672
  the benefits of University education, and who, if they could obtain it, would be most useful servants of Her Majesty. I therefore do trust that in the arrangements these Commissioners may make, they will not overlook the possibility of applying the funds of the University to making University education cheaper for those who are not at present able to afford it. That would be very much better than the erection of any number of spacious and beautiful museums. I rather gather from the speech of the noble Marquess that he is by no means insensible to this very important point. The friends of Physical Science think they will be able greatly to improve the character of the University by pulling down one building and erecting another; and I cannot help thinking the surplus which the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland) and the other Commissioners have reported to us may very speedily disappear if, under the guidance of the master spirits of Physical Science, we are placed in the hands of some admirable architect qualified to make a complete end of the whole fund. Again, I think it is desirable to extend the range of subjects in which you give prizes; but still I desire that the Commissioners' attention should be directed especially to subjects which have been tried for a very long time, and found to be of great importance. By all means, if you will, let us have Chairs of Biology, and Sociology, and Anthropology, when it is certain that these are sciences. No doubt it is very desirable that in a great University you should not have to go across to Germany in order to obtain information on any branch of science, or on any language, or on any other matter; but still I do trust that the Commissioners will have their attention directed to this point—that their chief business ought to be first to make as perfect as possible the machinery of those great and tried sciences which the experience of ages has proved to be admirably suited for training the minds of the young. Moreover, I trust that nothing will be done to destroy the Collegiate character of the education given at Oxford and its tutorial system. I do not think I need say a word about "idle" Fellows or Fellowships. I believe the noble Marquess has out-of-doors raised a storm by what he said on the subject of "idle Fellowships." I am

  1673
  some what surprised at that, for I do not think the noble Marquess, with his own experience of Fellowships, or the other noble Lords present who have done honour to the Fellowships which they have held, could mean more on this matter than that some check should be put on the holding of Fellowships for too long a time. The noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Colchester) made an observation of great importance with reference to the connection which the Universities have with persons in the outer world who hold Fellowships. I need not go back to remind your Lordships of Lord Stowell and Lord Eldon, Fellows of University College. The Universities, no doubt, to this day derive advantage from men who, like the noble Marquess the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and several noble Lords whom I see opposite, have become distinguished in life while connected with the University by the Fellowships which they held. My Lords, I shall therefore say no more upon the subject of these Fellowships, further than to remark again that our object should be to limit the time during which they may be held, and not to put an end to them altogether. I ought to apologize to your Lordships for having trespassed at such length upon your Lordships' attention, but my excuse for having done so must be that I do feel this matter to be one of the utmost importance to the Church in which I hold office—because it would be indeed an evil if the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were to cease to be the habitual places of education for the clergy of this land. We are entering, no doubt, upon a difficult and dangerous time. No man can look at what is occurring in Europe, in America, and even in Asia, without feeling that we are entering on a time of insecurity, in which we shall have to contend, on the one hand, with a materialistic Atheism, and on the other with a sentimental Deism, and yet not seek to meet these antagonists by mere unreasoning appeals to authority. It will in the future, I trust, be the task of our Universities to combat those influences by maintaining the reasonable, wise, and loving Christianity which, thank God, is at present deeply rooted in the hearts and the affections of the people of this country; and I am sure that the nation in the times be
  1674
  fore us will be very greatly altered if it ceases to be influenced by the tone which exists in its great Universities. Your Lordships, therefore, cannot be engaged in a more noble and important task than in placing our Universities in such a position as may enable them to do their work well in the age in which we live.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he had the pleasure of concurring in nearly all the observations which had fallen from the most rev. Primate in his able and eloquent speech. He especially agreed in the remark that there should be no undue interference with the influence and independent action of the Universities; because he believed that the services which those institutions had rendered, and were capable of rendering, ought to secure to them the most respectful and careful consideration. He agreed with the most rev. Primate in earnestly hoping that the continued interference by Parliament in the affairs of the Universities and Colleges would not be necessary in the future; and he trusted that the present measure would be the final occasion on which Parliament would be called upon to interfere with them. He hoped, therefore, that both Houses of Parliament would contrive so to shape this Bill as to make further interference by Parliament with the Universities unnecessary. At the same time, he could not assent to the proposition that all the reforms which had so largely conduced to the recent marked progress of our Universities had sprung from within those Bodies, and that they had been originated, not in consequence, but in spite of the interference of Parliament. In his view those reforms had been the direct consequence of the interference of Parliament. In reference to the particular case referred to by the most rev. Primate, he did not think that any conclusion in favour of matters being left altogether to the internal action of the Universities was to be drawn from their action, as opposed to that of Parliament, with regard to the unattached students. The noble Marquess's historical statement on that point required some little correction—because it was not a question on which the University had always been right, and Parliament and the public always wrong. The first authority which proposed that successful mode of developing

  1675
  the advantages of the University system was the first University Commission. The Liberal Party did not allow the subject to rest; because some years after that Mr. Ewart brought in a Bill in which that proposal was laid before Parliament, when the subject was referred to a Committee of which he had the honour of being a Member. The Liberal: Members of that Committee, by the examination of witnesses, did their best to secure the success of that reform; while at that time the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) and his friends showed by the course they adopted that they looked upon the proposal with dislike and alarm. That, at all events, was not a case in which Parliament was in the wrong and the University in the right, as the noble Marquess had seemed to imply. He desired to disclaim any feeling of hostility to the Bill; on the contrary, he thanked the noble Marquess and the Government for having brought it forward. In doing that, he wished also to follow the example of the most rev. Primate by asking their Lordships not to forget the debt of gratitude which they owed to those who had taken the first step in that great movement of University reform of which this Bill was the result. He thought that the thanks of all were due to the noble Lord (Earl Russell), who, when known as Lord John Russell, was the first to propose the appointment of the University Commission, which had thrown so much light upon this complicated and difficult subject. Prom the Report of that Commission resulted the important and valuable legislation of 1854 which was largely due to the efforts of Mr. Gladstone. When he listened to the speech of the noble Marquess he was reminded of a speech, a maiden speech, which he had the pleasure of listening to some 22 years ago on the second reading of the University Bill, which certainly contained some things not very pleasant to the promoters of the Bill. However, the fact of his having brought in the present measure was a proof that he had learnt a good deal since that time. He (Lord Carlingford) did not complain of any want of reforming spirit in the measure which was before their Lordships. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill had displayed a considerable faculty for disestablishment and disendowment. He had
  1676
  shown himself to be possessed of that spirit of destruction which combined with constructive power was absolutely essential to any large measure of reform. The only question for discussion was whether the noble Marquess was taking the right direction in his work," first of destruction, and secondly of construction. He would refer to two points which he thought were not covered by the Bill. Among the questions omitted he was sorry to find that of the constitution and government of the University, and he was rather surprised at the way in which the noble Marquess passed those matters over. The noble Marquess pointed out the great reforms effected by the former Act, and seemed to assume that the present constitution of the University was so perfect that nothing further was required to be done concerning it in the way of alteration or reform. He (Lord Carlingford) could not agree with the noble Marquess in this view; on the contrary, a great number of persons both inside and outside the University held that the University at present was not truly and completely under academical government. The legislative power of the University was vested in the Hebdomadal Council, the Congregation, and the Convocation. The original intention of the Commissioners of 1852 and of the Bill of 1854 was that only those who were actually connected with teaching and learning at Oxford should take part in Congregation. But beyond these there were members of Congregation qualified merely by residence within a certain distance of Oxford. The result was that these non-academical members could, in cases of special excitement, or when party or theological purposes were to be served, be called in aid for the purpose of swamping the votes recorded by the resident members who were directly interested in the work of the University. The Convocation was, no doubt, a body which acted but seldom; but it could act with disastrous effect upon the University. It consisted of some 4,000 persons, spread over all England, any number of whom might, at any time, be brought up to overbear the votes of the resident and acting members. He would not go the length of saying that Congregation should be literally confined to actual academical residents; but he thought it should be limited by a franchise implying

  1677
  some real connection with the University either as teachers or students; and, further, it was a question whether the legislative powers of Convocation should not be transferred to a Congregation so formed. The other points omitted from the Bill were less important; but still they deserved consideration. The present system, under which any control that existed over the management of the estates and revenues of the College was vested in the Inclosure Commissioners and the Visitors, was felt to be extremely unsatisfactory, not to say shadowy, and he should like to hear from the Government that reform was contemplated in this direction. Further, it struck him as being a singular exception to the wide powers of the Commissioners, that they were forbidden to deal with the condition now insisted upon in the majority of the Colleges—that the headships were only to be filled by gentlemen in Holy Orders. Oxford opinion required that in the choice of headships they should be released from that condition. At Balliol and University Colleges it had been removed, and he should have liked to see the same thing done in all the Colleges. It was desired, further, that opportunity should be given to combine the smaller Colleges in order to economize power and to increase the teaching force, and he had hoped that this point also would have been dealt with in the Bill of the noble Marquess. The speech in which the Bill was introduced did not make clear the result which was likely to arise from the action of the Commissioners to be appointed: the noble Marquess was, however, clear in the expression of his wish to strengthen the Professoriat, and in this respect the majority of those who wished well to the University would agree with him. But he (Lord Carling-ford) could not go so far as the noble Marquess in the opinions expressed as to the question of what the noble Marquess described as "idle," but what he would call prize Fellowships. The subject had occupied, indeed, a disproportionate part of the noble Marquess's speech; in one part of which he seemed to go almost the whole way to the extinction of these Fellowships. The opinion of those with whom he had communicated, and with whom he agreed, was not that of the noble Marquess. They admitted that too large an amount of the funds of the Colleges was expended in this way, and
  1678
  they willingly admitted that no prize Fellowship should be held for life, or beyond a very limited term of years; but beyond this they thought that the possession of these prize Fellowships for a term of years was of the highest value to the University, and had afforded the greatest assistance to many of its most distinguished sons. In the early part of a man's professional career those prize Fellowships were most valuable, and they were not to be condemned because the studies of the holders of them were necessarily carried on outside the University. He believed that the University was rich enough at present—and it would soon be much richer—to endow the Professorships, and still leave a good supply of prize Fellowships to the Colleges. Provision for original research was one of the objects set forth in the Bill. Now, he (Lord Carlingford) was very much disposed to agree with those who thought that a well-endowed and varied Professariat was a sufficient and safe endowment of research. Such a Professariat, combined with the tutorial system of the Colleges, would always leave sufficient leisure for the prosecution of research, and the election to a Professorship had this immense advantage over the election to an office of mere study, that it was a matter of public concern—a case in which there were fixed and public duties to be performed, and where those abuses were not likely to exist which might creep in under a system of patronage for research merely. He did not forget the Rabagas simile of the noble Marquess, in his speech bringing in the Bill, which was far from encouraging to his mind. If research was to be bribed into discretion by comfortable endowments, he hoped that science would wrap herself in her own virtue, and stick to honest poverty sine dote. With respect to the Commissioners who were to carry out the provisions of the Bill, he could have wished that their names had been placed before their Lordships before they were asked to read the Bill a second time. Their powers, as defined in the Bill, were both larger and more vague than were those given to the Commissioners by the Bill of 1854. That Bill differed very considerably from the present. It swept away all sorts of obstructions, and without this having been done the Universities could never have made the progress they had; but the work then done consisted mainly in the

  1679
  removal of abuses. The proposed Com-mission was of a more constructive character; and that was a reason not only-why the names of the Commissioners should be disclosed as soon as possible, but also why there should be some statutory indication of the course of reform which Parliament desired they should take. There was another distinction between the two cases—that the Bill of 1854 and the Executive Commission under it were preceded by a most admirable and exhaustive inquiry. He should be sorry to suggest any kind of inquiry which would obstruct the Bill or lead to delay, but he could not help considering what would be the course of things in the University and Colleges if the Commissioners set to work under the powers of the Bill as they then stood. It evidently would be most unsatisfactory if one College was to frame and send to the Commissioners its scheme of reform, and its plan of contribution to University purposes, without knowing what the other Colleges were about, or whether the University concurred with the Commissioners as to what, in their opinion, the requirements of the Colleges were. That would be a futile and haphazard method of making statutes carried on by the Colleges piecemeal. He should like the noble Marquess to consider whether the Commissioners might not be required to frame a general scheme of University reform before making special statutes—whether, at all events, they might not be directed to ascertain what were the requirements of the University, and for that purpose to take such evidence as they might think necessary. That would be a very different thing from a general and vague inquiry, and the evidence would be given under a strong sense of responsibility. Such an inquiry, instead of causing delay, might, on the contrary, expedite the operation of the Bill. He (Lord Carlingford) desired to direct attention to two points, which had excited some doubt and even alarm. One was as to the mode of sanctioning or vetoing the statutes. Congregation and Convocation were large and fluctuating bodies, and he protested against the idea of committing College statutes, framed by a majority of two-thirds of those who were directly interested in the matter and who knew best what was required, to the tender mercies of bodies whose
  1680
  composition in any particular case no human being could foresee. They might be small and tranquil; but, on the other hand, they might be numerous and excited; and there was evidently a great objection to such a mode of sanctioning or vetoing the statutes. The other point to which he wished to advert related to the provisions and policy of the Universities Tests Act of 1871. He would assume that there was no intention of meddling with that policy or of taking any backward step under the provisions of this Bill; but those who had examined it believed that, as it stood, such a reversal of policy might directly or indirectly occur, and they naturally did not wish to leave a matter of such importance to the discretion of any body of Commissioners. It was believed that such reversal of policy might be effected by the combined action of the 16th and 42nd clauses of the Bill. Under the 16th, the Commissioners might attach any conditions they pleased to the taking of certain offices; and under the 42nd they might except the 3rd clause of the Tests Act of 1871 from the operation of the Bill, and thus reverse the policy of that Act. It was also feared that other provisions of the Bill indirectly affected the Act of 1871. This might be done in various ways. It was possible, for example, that the Commissioners might attach a Clerical Fellowship to some Professorship, sub-Professorship, Lectureship, or Readership, thereby maintaining its clerical character, and obviously reversing the provisions of the Tests Act. He only mentioned this last objection by way of inquiry, but it was a matter upon which no discretion ought to be left to the Commissioners. To prevent any doubt on this point it might be necessary that the policy of the Tests Act should be maintained and preserved by the express words of the present statute. He would not on the present occasion go into the question of clerical Fellowships. The whole system of clerical Fellowships was condemned and denounced by the first Commission, and was still condemned and denounced by a large body of persons both in and out of the University, who objected to its continuance as false in principle, and unfitted to a national University. Those who held this opinion maintained that their abolition was so necessary in the interests both of religion and learning that no University reform could be re

  1681
  garded as final until it dealt with this question. Those who thought the abolition of clerical Fellowships an essential part of Oxford University reform could not be expected to lay down their arms unless the subject was dealt with by the Bill, and if it were not, they would only wait for a favourable opportunity of dealing with it. He had offered these remarks in no hostile spirit, and trusted that good would result from the passing of the measure. He esteemed it an honour to belong to one of the greatest Colleges of the University, and he wished to see the University of Oxford ever more honoured and influential. It was because he wished to see the University pursue her career of honour and usefulness without further Parliamentary interference, that he desired to see this a final and complete measure.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, Her Majesty's Government had nothing to complain of in the tone of comment which had been adopted with regard to this Bill. Those comments had indeed been singularly fair and temperate, and only did justice to the Government for the intentions which had actuated them throughout in legislating for the University of Oxford. Therefore, he regretted that his noble Friend (Lord Colchester) should so much disagree from the substantial principle of the Bill, and should deem the speech with which the noble Marquess introduced it so much more objectionable than the Bill itself, as to have deemed it his duty to move this Amendment. The settlement of this question had now advanced by several distinct stages. Their Lordships were agreed that some alteration should be made and that it was desirable to legislate at once, that further delays would be prejudicial to the best interests of the University, and that a further inquiry such as had been suggested could lead to no advantageous result. Lastly, it must be taken that there was a general agreement, so far as this Bill was concerned, that there was no intention of interfering, either directly or indirectly, with the Tests Act of 1871. There was no desire whatever on the part of the Government to evade the provisions of that Act. The real question raised that evening resolved itself first of all into the character and operation of the Commission to be entrusted with carrying out the provisions of the
  1682
  Bill. No one had taken objection to the issuing of the Commission itself, and all agreed that it was the best mode of ascertaining the necessary facts and administering the questions arising out of the Bill. The doubt that did arise on the part of some was whether the powers given to the Commissioners were not somewhat too large and might not be open to abuse. The answer to that objection must be found in the character of the Commissioners; secondly, what would be the rules laid down in the Bill; and thirdly, it must be remembered that there would always be an appeal to Parliament. It had also been suggested that the term of seven years during which the Commissioners were appointed was too large. That was, however, the term during which a former Commission was appointed, and the Government had come to the conclusion that seven years was not an unreasonable period to allot for the working of the Commission. That was the period to which the former Commission was limited. With regard to non-resident Fellowships, a hope had been expressed by his noble Friend that the Government did not contemplate their absolute extinction. He did not gather that this was the intention of the Bill, he rather thought it referred to the number of these Fellowships and the term during which they were to be held. There were certain reasons why prize Fellowships were desirable; but on the other hand there were certain objects in the University system which ought to take precedence; and until the University had acquired the whole of its necessary educational machinery it was not at liberty to spend the revenues of the Colleges and the University upon such distant objects as prize Fellowships. The Colleges had the first claim to their own revenues; the University had the second claim for educational purposes; and not until the just claims of the Colleges and the University had been exhausted should the surplus be devoted to the endowment of prize Fellowships. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commissioners from acting in this spirit. His noble Friend (Lord Colchester) had spoken of this Bill as a great disendowment of the Colleges; but the fact was that the Bill provided every safeguard for securing all that was right and reasonable in the educational work of these

  1683
  Colleges. The foundations of the last 100 years were absolutely excluded from the operation of the Bill; other interests were most carefully and religiously provided for; and the greatest security was afforded to the Colleges by allowing each to have three representatives on the Commission. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him difficult to say that there was any ground for the assertion that the Colleges were exposed to confiscation. It had been said by one noble Lord that there was to be disendowment of the Colleges for the benefit of the University, and by another that sufficient was not being done for the University; and it was probable that between these two extreme views the Government had adopted a safe and moderate middle course. It must never be forgotten that originally at Oxford the University was the chief and the central figure; but changes had occurred, and, while other Universities—such as that of Paris—retained their University character, at Oxford the supremacy had passed into the hands of the Colleges. He was far from saying that the Colleges had made other than good use of that power; but, at the same time, the character of the University was pro tanto impaired; and in restoring a little of the power which originally belonged to the University, we were but reverting to an old idea, but a sound one in theory and in practice. He believed that all their Lordships had been, more or less, brought up under the Collegiate system, and he for one should grieve if anything in the Bill would seriously impair it, for he looked back upon his College course with the deepest satisfaction, and he knew that many regarded it as in some respects the happiest period of life. The influence of College life generally threw over a man a strong and a powerful spell, which he recognized for the remainder of life, and he should grieve if anything in the Bill was calculated to do away with that which he thought was a wholesome and right influence. But something was due to the University. It had large functions; it was invested with particular duties and powers which a College could not discharge; and it was only right to strengthen in these respects the hands of the University. Since 1854 there had been a very advantageous extension of the life of the University. Institutions, both literary
  1684
  and scientific, had been created, and had begun a work which it was desired to complete by this measure. He found it rather difficult to grasp the meaning of the most rev. Primate, when he expressed a hope that nothing in the Bill would preclude surplus revenues being devoted to the education of the poorer students; but, so far as his words were intended to shadow forth a cheaper system of education and the extension of facilities to the poorer students the views of the most rev. Primate had been anticipated by the speech of the noble Marquess in introducing the Bill. He agreed with the most rev. Primate that it would be undesirable that a large sum of money should be wasted on mere architectural ornamentation. But there were certain branches of scientific teaching which it was almost impossible to carry on unless suitable buildings were provided. He was one of the trustees to whom was entrusted the spending of a sum of money under the will of Lord Clarendon, and it was originally proposed to expend it upon a ragged school at Oxford; but they found it possible to apply it to the building of a laboratory for the teaching of physical science, and he believed that was a proper employment of the money, while he was satisfied that the laboratory had been of the greatest use in the work of teaching science. Therefore, while he agreed with the general principle laid down by the most rev. Primate, he was bound to say that the construction of suitable buildings was essential to scientific teaching. He would not go so far as to say that the constitution of the Convocation was perfect; but many objections urged against it were hardly fair or reasonable; and he demurred to the statement that it did not represent the teaching element. It represented more; it represented the whole University, which had been for years, and would be, he trusted, more and more a centre of intellectual life spreading to every part of the country. Allusion had been made to the Act of 1854; but since that Act, great changes had occurred, and, recollecting the debates on that measure, he hoped that by the present Bill they were taking a new point of departure—a combination of the old with new lines. The most rev. Primate took exception to the association of research with religion and learning. No doubt originally, religion was the one object of

  1685
  the University; then, after a struggle, learning was added; now a third ally had been associated, and the triple object of the University, which must be laid down in any measure of University reform, was the combination of religion, learning, and research. A majority of the House would rejoice to know that religion was kept steadily in view as an object in the University system. It had been feared that the changes of late years would destroy the religious character of the teaching of the University—he did not believe they had done so, or even greatly impaired them. The Tests Act certainly had not done so; it had simply removed certain restrictions and done away with every reasonable ground of grievance. As regarded its religious teaching, no doubt a great change had passed over the University. A dull and colourless uniformity had been succeeded by a conflict of opinion and a mental strife, in which graduates and undergraduates participated. No doubt it was an undesirable thing that young men's minds should not be exposed to such severe conflicts as were sometimes engendered; but by one of those systems of accommodation of which philosophers spoke, men's minds, even when young, were hardened and fortified by such conflicts, and though the weaker might succumb, others rose to much higher qualities. Out of the evil there arose often very great good. As regarded learning and research he would say one word. He understood learning rather to mean that whole system of old learning which had been the pursuit of the Universities for now so many generations, and had turned out so many men distinguished in Church and State, and done such credit to this country. That system of learning would not in any way be disparaged or broken down by the results of this Bill. If such a danger existed, he had faith in the Commissioners that they would bear all these conflicting principles and questions in mind, and that they would be able, with a steady and impartial hand, to hold an equal balance between the old learning, which had done so much, and the newer scientific teaching, which was still undeveloped. He sincerely hoped that this measure would lead to satisfactory results not only in the actual education of the Universities, but in the influence which they exerted upon the nation.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, every Member of the Royal Commission over which I had the honour to preside was perfectly aware that our inquiries into the revenues, and their application to the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, were intended to pave the way for legislation. I approve, therefore, for my part, of the main principles of the measure introduced by the Government. I concur in much that has fallen from the most rev. Primate. I agree that the tutorial system ought to be maintained, and that the Professorial system can only be combined in a modified form. An inquiry should, therefore, be immediately made by the Commissioners to ascertain what are the wants of the University; what Professorships are required, and what has been the results of those recently established. I entertain doubts how far the funds disposable from their presumed superfluity are adequate for eleemosynary grants for the benefit of poor students in accordance with the suggestions of the most rev. Primate. You are about to make indefinite demands on the revenues of the Colleges, and these are not so abundant that they can supply every source of expenditure. Care ought to be taken in the exercise of the borrowing powers of the Colleges. Unless these matters are brought directly under public notice, mistakes and mismanagement may occur which may occasion serious embarrassment. Although prize Fellowships must be reduced in number, I should regret extremely their abolition; but I understand from the noble Marquess that there is no such intention. The Commission of 1854 entertained the idea of reducing the number of Fellowships, but they were, I believe, deterred by the threatened opposition of Lord Macaulay, as it is understood, from making this proposal. Great changes have taken place in. Oxford since I was a member of it, now many years ago. It is impossible not to recognize the necessity of acting in accordance with the sentiments and the progress of the day. Encouragement ought to be given by pecuniary assistance to subjects, not popular, but required by the high character of Oxford. But great caution must be exercised lest large sum should be uselessly squandered. The Government must expect pressure on the subject of the exclusion from the

  1687
  consideration of the Commissioners of the Headships. The clerical headship of Christ Church is undoubtedly peculiar and is now entirely paid from ecclesiastical funds. Oriel and Worcester are so in part, but present no insuperable difficulty to lay headships. The opinion of Oxford is undoubtedly favourable to no exclusion of lay heads, if preferred by merit to clerical ones. I should be very sorry if the high character of Oxford were changed. I do not believe in finality in University reform; but when we deal with the question we should so act as to meet, as far as possible, important objections. Although the increase, as remarked by the most rev. Primate, of students unattached to any College is large, yet it falls short of the increase anticipated by the Commissioners in 1854. I have little doubt, however, that the influence of the Universities through the examinations carried on by them in every part of the country will extend widely, and attract greater numbers of students, not attached to Colleges, to participate in the advantages of their high character.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had hoped that the noble Lords opposite who had spoken that evening upon this measure would have given the House some assurance that they intended to meet in Committee the objections that had been raised to the Bill, but the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had neither replied to the objections nor given that assurance:—still he was not without hope that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) in closing the debate would give such assurance that he would take that course. Although he (the Earl of Morley) did not support the Amendment which had been moved, he felt that the Bill was open to very grave and serious objections. Without wishing to criticize the measure in a hostile spirit, he must express his strong objection to a Bill that was to confer blank powers upon a blank Commission. He had three objections to the Bill. He objected to the Bill—first, because it expressed no policy that was to guide the Commissioners in their course of action; secondly, because there were omissions of a great and important character; thirdly, because some of its clauses were retrograde. These objections would have to be met and remedied if the Bill was in any sense whatever to
  1688
  be considered a final measure. The Bill, as it at present stood, instead of being one that would aid the cause of progress and reform, would fail to satisfy those who were most desirous of advancing University education. The real principle of the Bill was to take away from the Colleges and give to the University. Of this principle up to a certain point he heartily approved. The House was asked to confer unlimited powers upon Commissioners whose names were not yet known. The Bill was also objectionable because it proposed to confer those unlimited powers upon these unknown Commissioners for a period of seven years—a term unexampled in its duration. Thus, if the Bill were passed, the University would be subjected to a process of vivisection at the hands of unknown operators for that lengthened period. There were no provisions in the measure which would have the effect of securing uniformity of action in carrying out the objects of the Bill. He further objected to the statutes for the regulation of the internal concerns of the Colleges being obliged to receive the sanction of the University before they could come into force; and the effect of allowing the Colleges to appoint certain of the Commissioners might be to stop the progress of University reform altogether, inasmuch as the Colleges which most required reforming would send representatives who were not reformers. While he did not think the inquiry suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Colchester) was necessary, he would ask whether it would not be possible for the Commission, before it commenced to legislate definitely for the University, to be furnished with a precise scheme under which its members could decide what was necessary to be done and how it could be best effected. If this was possible, he would suggest further that the scheme, before being finally decided upon, should be submitted to the University authorities. With regard to the Professoriat, he quite agreed with what had been said as to the importance of increasing the number and augmenting the pay of that body. There had been of late years a vast extension of an inter-collegiate lecture system—a system originated by many of the most important Colleges at Oxford, which had immensely improved the teaching, and had almost entirely deprived the private

  1689
  tutors, or "coaches," as they were usually called, of their occupation. He should be sorry to see this beneficial system impaired, but there could be no doubt that the Professors were too few and their salaries too low. While he was somewhat sceptical as to the expediency of endowing research as research, he would support any proposal to make special grants during limited periods for promoting the study of special subjects. Then the question of the patronage was one of the greatest difficulty. The Bill would increase the number of Professorships and other appointments; but there was no hint in the Bill of any scheme by which the appointments were to be made. He need not remind their Lordships of what the result of some of the elections of Professors by Convocation had been of late years—but it was plain that Convocation was not the proper body to elect the Professors. Further, he regretted that no Amendment was suggested in the constitution of the University. The Commission of 1852 recommended that the Congregation should consist only of the members of the University who were engaged in academical work; but this was not acted upon, and, as a result, it not unfrequently happened that, owing to the increased number of churches in Oxford, and the additional number of incumbents and curates attached, there were sufficient non-academical members of the University resident within a mile and a-half of Carfax, but entirely unconnected with the teaching of the University, to defeat the wishes of those members of the Congregation who were vitally interested in the matters which had to be decided. He hoped that before the debate closed some explanation would be afforded as to the views of the Government concerning the removal or otherwise of the disability which, except in the cases of Balliol and Merton Universities, precluded any except ecclesiastical persons from holding the headships of Colleges. The Commission of 1852 recommended that every Master of Arts should be eligible for a headship; at present every Head of a House was an ecclesiastic, and the highest rewards of learning were not open to those who were most qualified to receive. He believed that public opinion in Oxford was strongly in favour of an alteration in this matter, He
  1690
  thought the question of prize Fellowships should be dealt with very carefully, because it was necessary, now that the unattached student system had been established, and that the middle-class schools were sending up men of less pecuniary means than formerly found their way to the University, for inducements to be afforded to the best among such students, in the first place to enter, and afterwards to remain in, the University. He agreed that they should be limited as to amount and also as to time. He also considered it very important that the system of prize Fellowships should be uniform throughout the University, otherwise they would have one College bidding against another, and an unhealthy competition created. One other matter in reference to these Fellowships he desired to point out. There were over 360 Fellowships at Oxford, clerical and lay; but what guarantee had they that under the Bill the Commissioners would not deprive the Colleges of the resident Fellows, who constituted practically the lay element, and leave them entirely in the hands of the clerical element, or, at any rate, seriously diminish the proportion which the lay Fellows bore to their clerical colleagues on the governing bodies of the Colleges? That was a real danger, and he hoped that means would be taken to guard against it. On the question of tests, he understood the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to say that there was no intention to interfere with the policy of the existing Act, and that, on the contrary, the Tests Act would be kept alive in its integrity. That fact ought, he thought, to be made plain on the face of the Bill. He desired also to see a provision introduced into the measure enabling College funds to be applied to the superannuation of teachers. He assured the noble Marquess that he had criticized the Bill in no hostile spirit. He was sincerely desirous that it should pass, but in a more satisfactory form than it now presented; and he trusted that the University, reinforced by the proposed aids, would take up the proud position she so long held, and would, he hoped, long continue to hold, as the head and centre of all science and learning in all its branches.
  LORD HOUGHTONobserved, that the Bill placed the University of Cambridge in a very invidious position. For his

  1691
  part, he could not see, primâ facie, why the Bill ought not to apply equally to both Universities:—but perhaps it took its present peculiar form from the accidental circumstance that the noble Marquess who introduced it was at once a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government and Chancellor of the University of Oxford. If it were intended to deal differently hereafter with the University of Cambridge, then he thought the difference ought to have been stated. On the other hand, if the intention was that a Bill like the present should be applied to Cambridge, those who were interested in that University would labour under the disadvantage of being heard when virtually the question had been settled. That was a practical difficulty which would not exist if the Bill had been permissive only, and was not of the absolute and dictatorial character which it had assumed. A permissive Bill, under which the Colleges, in consultation with the University would be enabled to reform their statutes, would, he thought, have answered every purpose. The extensive powers which the Bill would confer could not but give rise to extensive hopes and expectations, which certainly would not be fulfilled and which, if they were, would be very distasteful to the noble Marquess and Her Majesty's Government. He considered it extremely doubtful whether the results expected from the proposed dealing with the Professoriat would be realized. He doubted whether by increasing the number of Professors to any great extent the interests of learning and science would be advanced. While the Professorial system had been growing up in one direction, the Bill proposed to extend it in another. He believed that if instead of the present Bill some arrangement were made by which the superfluous funds of the Colleges could be diverted to the general purposes of the University, it would meet with the general consent of both Universities. Trinity College, Cambridge, of which he was a member, had taken a great step in diverting from its prize Fellowships a considerable sum for the purpose of endowing lectureships in Philosophy, Archaeology, and Physiology, with salaries of £600 each. Hitherto, the tendency in that direction had come from the richer Colleges, and by the extension of this system the sum required for these purposes
  1692
  might be gained. The richest Colleges were the best and most useful, and the poorest Colleges would be left very much in their present condition. There was an old proverb about giving a dog a bad name, and it was hardly fair to stigmatize the non-resident Fellowships as "idle Fellowships." He could not agree with some of his noble Friends that the objects proposed to be attained by the Bill were left so entirely vague as had been represented. He believed, on the contrary, that the direction in which the changes were to run were perfectly indicated in the words of the Bill; nor were their Lordships justified in requiring that in such a measure as the present the Government ought to incorporate any change in the constitution of the University. He did not see how with any convenience that subject could form any part of the present measure. He should like to hear from the noble Marquess some indication of how the members of the University of Cambridge were to co-operate or take part in the discussion of this Bill, because as it was exclusively adapted to one University it placed the members of the other University in a position of considerable difficulty and embarrassment—Cambridge men who discussed the Bill could not be quite sure whether they were intruding upon their Lordships or not.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the speech of the noble Marquess in introducing the Bill might be regarded as an indication of what he would do if he were a Commissioner. It was, however, within the bounds of possibility that they might see the noble Marquess in the position which he had before taken up—namely, of asking their Lordships not to confirm some statute made by the Commissioners. They were made practically supreme over the Colleges, and might deal as they saw fit with the funds, subject to an appeal to Parliament. The Colleges would be placed under this Commission in quite a different position from that they were in under that of 1852. Under the Act of 1854 power was reserved to the Colleges of which they were now deprived. He quite granted that it was necessary to give large powers to the Commissioners, not less than that a Commission should be appointed, for he could not but remember that all Colleges were not alike. Still, many of the most valuable reforms

  1693
  that had been made of late years had proceeded from the Colleges themselves, not from the University; and it was equally desirable to defend and protect the interests of those Colleges which had exerted themselves in the interests of learning and education, as that the Commissioners should have power to deal with those Colleges which had not shown equal zeal. With regard to what were called "idle Fellowships," he was at Oxford when close Fellowships were in the course of being thrown open, and he could bear testimony to the great incentive thereby offered to those studying at the University, and how many had expressed their wish that they had come to the University some years later, as they would then have participated in the advantages of being able to compete for Fellowships. With due limitations as to the term during which they might be held, and abolishing the absurd condition of celibacy, it was essential that a certain number of open non-residential Fellowships should be retained. He was glad to hear the assurance of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) that the Government did not design any retrograde steps—and he was sure that declaration would be received with great satisfaction at Oxford. He heard with pleasure the categorical statement that there was no intention to re-impose religious tests—because there were two or three clauses under which the Commissioners might have attached clerical conditions to any office they created or changed. He should like to hear in what condition the Colleges would be placed between now and 1883, with reference to the making of statutes which referred to matters other than financial. He wished also to ask whether, as soon as the Commissioners had ceased to exist in their capacity of Commissioners, the Colleges would revert to their original power with respect to the alteration and amendment of statutes—except with reference to those statutes made by the Commissioners.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If he rightly understood that answer, it was just the answer he wished to receive. The Bill was essentially one for Committee, and he hoped plenty of time would be given for the consideration of it. It pro
  1694
  posed to confer very large powers upon unknown Commissioners, who would have to deal with funds drawn from all the Colleges, and it was desirable there should be some preliminary inquiry before those revenues were placed unconditionally in their hands. He could not concur in the unqualified eulogium which had been passed upon the Governing Body of the University, which had conferred less on the University than the Colleges, one of which had unattached students a year before Convocation recognized them. The Bill could only be regarded as a partial reform, for since 1871 more than one College had expressed opinions adverse to clerical headships and had declared that the University ought to be free and open to all.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he listened with attention to the most rev. Primate when he stated he had received a Memorial from his College in favour of the Bill; but when he saw the four pages of objections contained in the Memorial, he could not help thinking that if the Bill was altered in accordance with those objections very little of the original measure would be left. He did not think there was any precedent for investing Commissioners with such large and undefined powers. The Bill of 1854, although it was destructive while this was constructive, was more precise and definite in its instructions, and the Preamble of the Endowed Schools Act stated the objects which the Commissioners were to set before themselves. The Bill empowered the Commissioners not only to deal with the surplus funds of the Colleges, but also to make radical changes in their constitution and to take large endowments from them and vest them in the University. He (the Earl of Airlie) admitted that Fellowships of £200 or £250 a-year were rewards too large for merely passing an examination, and that the numbers of students at some of the Colleges did not correspond with their funds; but the Bill must be read in the light of the speech with which the noble Marquess introduced it. He proposed to take £55,000 a-year from the Colleges and devote it to the University. For building purposes he required £200,000; and, as £12,000 or £14,000 a-year would give him that capital sum, he proposed to expend the surplus in augmenting the salaries of Professors and founding new Professor

  1695
  ships and endowments for research. He had the advantage within the last few days of conversing with some very eminent men connected with the University of Oxford as to the proposal for the abolition of the "idle Fellowships," and he was informed by the highest authorities on the subject that the opinion of the University was opposed to anything of the sort. The students who had gained their Fellowships as the reward of their industry were a most valuable element in the Governing Body of the University, and, if these Fellowships were suppressed, scholarship and learning would in all probability decay. Besides, if these Fellowships were swept away, and if the Fellowships of Cambridge were not dealt with, schoolmasters would advise all clever young men to go to Cambridge, and the source from which we derived our best tutors would be dried up. He quite concurred in what had been said by the most rev. Primate as to the caution which should be exercised in expending so large a sum of money in founding new Professorships. He thought it would be better to leave the matter to the internal action of the University itself, and to appoint assistant Professors when needed rather than create new Professorships which it would be difficult to fill with competent men. They could have special grants for a limited time for particular purposes. They must be careful, while abolishing sinecure Fellowships, not to substitute for them sinecure Professorships. He wanted to know whether there was any provision in the Bill to change the present mode of appointing Professors? He did not think anyone would defend their appointment by Convocation. The Bill did not touch the constitution of the University; but the 16th clause empowered the Commissioners to deal as they pleased with Fellowships, and the Fellows were the governing body of the Colleges; therefore, they had the power to make what changes they liked in the constitution of the Colleges. The Bill gave them power to make statutes for the Colleges, and those statutes could not be altered without the consent of the University. The noble Marquess the other night took credit to the University for the reforms it had initiated. The University, he said, had initiated the new system of unattached students; but that was altogether erroneous, and did not do justice
  1696
  to the Colleges themselves. The initiative with respect to unattached students was taken by Balliol and other Colleges—in fact, when the proposal was made the University refused to sanction it. It was said by those conversant with the matter that the Colleges were more willing to make necessary changes than the University, as might be expected from the constitution of the two. As to the Convocation, either the Colleges ought to retain the right to manage their own affairs, or if the University were allowed to interfere in the affairs of the Colleges, there ought to be a substantial reform in the constitution of the University. With respect to the headships of Colleges, why should they be excepted from any changes? Under the Act of 1854 the Commissioners were allowed to deal with the headships; and if it was expedient to do so then, it was the more necessary that they should now, when the Colleges were being deprived of a large part of their funds, so as to throw open all the prizes to the best men. If lay Fellowships were suppressed, the proportion between lay and clerical in the Governing Body would be disturbed. Taking the provisions of the Bill separately, he thought that if the emoluments of the Professorships were increased. Convocation should not be allowed to appoint; secondly, that it was not expedient to sweep away all idle Fellowships, though it might be desirable to limit their duration to seven, years, and probably to reduce their amount; thirdly, that the University should not be allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of Colleges unless the constitution of the University itself was reformed; and, fourthly, that the Commissioners should have power, as under the Act of 1854, to deal with headships. He understood that the University had appointed a Committee to consider this Bill, and it would be a great assistance to their Lordships, before they went into Committee on the Bill, to know what were the recommendations of that Committee; and therefore he thought that some time should be allowed before they went into Committee, so that their Lordships might have time to ascertain the views of the parties interested, and to send down to the other House a carefully considered measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who ex

  1697
  pressed himself as much interested in the University of Cambridge said, he regretted that the Bill dealt only with the University of Oxford, and that the Bill with regard to the University of Cambridge might come on rather late in the Session. I think that if the second reading of the Bill with reference to Cambridge University should come on in August there will then be as many Members in the House as there are present this evening. Under these circumstances I hope that I shall be pardoned if I am brief in dealing with the subject that has been brought before the House, and do not attempt to keep in bonds the "fugitive slaves" here. There is a great desire to get away, and therefore I will not dwell much on the subject. I have no occasion to do so, because I am sure I could have no reason to complain of the most rev. Primate, who spoke with high authority and his peculiar experience; and I think that every noble Lord who has spoken on the Bill—those included who are most opposed to us in polities—dealt with it in a candid and friendly spirit. I do not deny that many of the suggestions that have been made are worthy of consideration; but most of them are most suited to be dealt with in Committee, and it is hardly necessary to discuss them now. I entirely agree with the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Cleveland) that it would be very undesirable that the Commissioners should lend their authority to any extensive scheme of borrowing by the University or Colleges for the purposes of the Bill. There was one remark of the most rev. Primate which I do not quite understand, or with which I do not concur—the illustration he gave of the difficulties thrown in the way of poorer students of obtaining an University Education. But that remark is certainly not correct, as far as concerns this Bill; for to those who are not strictly poor the Bill as it stands contains ample means of giving them the benefits of the University. I think the most rev. Primate will see that the 17th and 18th clauses empower the Commissioners to extend scholarships to either attached or unattached students as they may think good. Passing from mere detail, I think the general complaints in this debate have been in reference to the vagueness of the Commission and the power of the Commissioners to be appointed. Of that difficulty I am
  1698
  well aware; but I think it will be found that it is no special reproach to this Bill, but is equally a reproach to all Bills setting up a machinery of this kind which Parliament has recently passed. The Act of 1854 gave the Commissioners almost unlimited power. The Endowed Schools Commission is another case in point. Parliament in granting Commissions of this kind has found it necessary in these days to give them large jurisdiction. In this case there was more reason for doing so than in any other, because the Bill gives the Commissioners, I believe, no greater powers than are already possessed by the Colleges themselves. The only difference between the machinery of this Bill and the existing state of things is this—that some kind of security is given by the Bill that those powers should be exercised on a common plan; but as matters stand now they are exercised by different bodies without any concert between them. It is therefore not correct to talk of the extraordinary powers of the Body to be appointed. No doubt, those powers will be very great, and it may be well to introduce some provisions in that respect; but any such words must be carefully guarded. I think we shall find that what the Bill does is large enough to effect the object we have in view, and it is no use to attempt to cover a larger field than the legislation is intended to deal with. I do not entertain the illusory hope that the Bill will be a final effort in the direction of University reform, because we know well enough that as long as there is money to be applied, machinery to be used, and privileges to be obtained, there will always be people to agitate for a share in those advantages. The idea, therefore, of any Bill which would settle the question is a delusion. We have now simply brought in a Bill to enable the Commissioners to deal with the University and Colleges within a distinctly defined area—within that area they will have abundant power, but the area itself will be small. There is only one other subject to which I think it is necessary that I should allude before I sit down, and that is one which has aroused much interest both here and outside. I mean the religious question. It has been insinuated several times, both out-of-doors and here, that we are desirous of taking advantage of the change of Government to retrace the

  1699
  steps which Parliament has deliberately taken on the subject of religious tests in recent years. I wish to remove all grounds for fear of that kind. However much we may at the time have contested the wisdom of the policy which Parliament thought fit to pursue, we do not think, and we never have thought, that it would be consistent with the continuity of Government that we should take advantage of a change of political fortune to reverse decisions which Parliament deliberately arrived at in former years. That is the principle which we have adhered to in other matters, and it is one which we intend to adhere to in reference to ecclesiastical and University subjects. Our desire, in bringing forward this Bill, is that as regards ecclesiastical matters the precise status quo should be preserved. We do not intend to carry forward any further the process of separating the Universities from the Church; but we do not desire to retrace any step that has already been taken. We desire that matters in that respect shall, after this Bill has passed, remain precisely as they were before; and therefore, if there is in this Bill any clause which can legitimately and reasonably give rise to apprehensions that the policy of the University Tests Act is to be reversed we shall be glad to review it in Committee. The particular clause which has been referred to was put in for this reason—a fear was entertained, rightly or wrongly, that if the clerical Fellow-ships or endowments were touched by the Commissioners it would make them new clerical Fellowships, and then they would be swept away by the Tests Act. We should be very sorry if the proportion of clerical Fellowships should be diminished; but we do not uphold them any more than the other Fellowships free from the conditions that the others are to be subject to. Without attempting to use any language that will fetter the Commissioners in their action, or attempting to express the precise form or result of their action, I entertain a hope that the clerical Fellowships will be maintained and that the policy of the Tests Act, not only as expressed by its 1st, 2nd, and 3rd clauses, but as expressed in its 5th clause—which enacts that education in the tenets of the Church shall be given to all members of that Church in the University—will be followed strictly. In all these matters I
  1700
  trust we may escape what may be called the clericophobia which affects the most amiable and most capable minds, and which distorts all their judgment. Congregation has been objected to simply because it contains a number of curates who reside in the University of Oxford; and there is a desire also to dissociate headships from clerical matters. On the other hand, when men are defending "idle Fellowships" they declare the importance of the connection between the outside world and the Governing Body of the University; and when they are dealing with Congregation they dilate upon the absurdity of allowing the outside world to have anything to do with it. I am afraid that the only solution of this contradiction is, that in the one instance the connection is clerical and in the other it is not; or, if you prefer it, that the connection in the one case is Conservative and in the other is Liberal. For my own part, there seems to me to be an obvious reason why the connection between the government of the University and of the outside world is more reasonable and does less injury than these "idle Fellowships," and that is, that the outside vote in Congregation is only a small fraction of the whole vote, whereas in the government of Colleges it is much larger. But we do not wish to alter the government of the Colleges or of the University. We certainly do not propose to increase any restrictions or to impose any which do not now exist; but we earnestly hope to carry out the policy so eloquently sketched by the most rev. Primate, and to continue that connection between the University and the Church which has given so much piety to the University and so much learning to the Church.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he failed to comprehend why if the two Universities were to be dealt with in the same manner, they had not been dealt with in the same Bill; and if they were to be dealt with differently, he thought the full scheme should be laid before the House before it was called upon to determine how either of the Universities was to be treated. The debate had been a very remarkable one, and had been most creditable to the University, inasmuch as the burden of the discussion had been borne by those who had been its first-class men; but, nevertheless, very little information on the subject had been

  1701
  given to the House. He did not complain of the reticence of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), for it would have been impossible for him to have accepted en bloc all the suggestions which had been made—though he gathered that they were to receive the fair consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Several suggestions had been made, but the wind had been so completely taken out of his sails by the noble Lords who had preceded him that he should not refer to them at any length. There were one or two points, however, which he wished to bring to the attention of the noble Marquess before the Bill was read the second time. In the first place, he did not think that the delegates of the Colleges were the best persons to carry out reforms of particular Colleges. Delegates from three of the Colleges in the University might take different views of the matters brought before them; and he was by no means clear, from the proposals contained in the Bill, how the delegates were to be appointed. If the delegates were to vote as they pleased, he doubted, in the first place, whether many men would care for the appointments; and, in the second place, whether the Colleges themselves would care to delegate such plenary powers. He had been pleased to hear the noble Marquess say, with regard to the manner in which Her Majesty's Government proposed to deal with the religious aspect of the question, that it was not intended in any way to go back, nor to take any steps which could have the effect of further separating the University from the Church. After making this statement the noble Marquess used some remarks about the anti-clerical feeling which existed on the Opposition side of the House. He did not think there was any ground for imputing such a feeling to them—and, indeed, the imputation was neither made in good taste nor warranted by facts. The noble Marquess alluded to certain prejudices which would wear out in time; but if he (Earl Granville) was not mistaken, the only prejudices to which objection could be taken existed in the minds of a party in the State other than that to which he (Earl Granville) belonged. The noble Marquess had chosen to treat the objections raised against the constitution of the Congregation of the University as having been directed against
  1702
  certain resident curates in the City of Oxford who, having left the University, acted as members of Congregation, in opposition to the views of those members of the University who were actually engaged in the work of teaching. This interpretation he denied. The objection which had been raised to the present constitution of the Congregation of the University was not directed against any body of curates, whether resident in Oxford or elsewhere, but was aimed at the constitution of a Governing Body which admitted of persons neither resident nor engaged in the work of the University holding in their hands the power to thwart the views or those most interested in the matter. He understood it to be the intention of the Government to maintain the clerical restrictions in reference to the Heads of Colleges. He believed this decision to be a most unwise one. He had heard it stated that the parents of England would not like to trust their sons to the care of Heads of Colleges who were not clerics; but he attached no weight to the statement. He believed that a great many parents would prefer to entrust their sons to a College of which the noble Marquess opposite was the Head, rather than one under the headship of a clergyman who, however amiable and excellent, did not possess the qualities fitted for the headship. Take the case of a College where there was a layman eminently fitted to become its Head, while among the clerical members there was no one equally well fitted for the position—would it be said that they were advancing the cause of the Church or of education by preventing the superior man being chosen? He said this with the more confidence because he believed a little dash of despotism was an advantage rather than otherwise in the Head of a College. What he wanted was that the best men, whether clerical or lay, should be selected; and he agreed that this was the more likely to be done, even with the clerical restriction, by means of a system which would preclude the almost absolute certainty of the Head of a College being chosen from among the Fellows of his College, without any special reference to his fitness for the position. It had been said that there was a great objection to dragging the Universities so constantly into Parliamentary discussions, and it was because he believed this that he hoped the noble

  1703
  Marquess, as Chancellor of the University, would consider the various suggestions that had been made, in order, if possible, to settle the question at once, and, as finality was out of the question, for the present at any rate, in such a manner as that it would not be necessary to bring the matter within the limits of Parliamentary and, perhaps, acrimonious discussion for many years. The criticisms from that side of the House had not been made in a hostile spirit, and the noble Marquess might count on the co-operation of his various critics in any attempt to make the Bill as perfect as was possible under the circumstances.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 30th instant.
  House adjourned at half past Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.