Sitting of 13 July 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.— SALARIES AND EXPENSES OP PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS—CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Boards)* [248], and referred to the Examiners.
Committee—Report—(£20,000,000) Consolidated Fund*.
Third Reading—Public Loans Remission* [226]; Solicitors Examination, &c* [190], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.
  PEACE PRESERYATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1871—THE COUNTY OF LOUTH.

    QUESTION.
    MR. KIRKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the peaceable and satisfactory state of the county of Louth, both from the constabulary reports and from the address of the going judge of assize to the grand jurors, this summer; and considering the very satisfactory condition of the county for a number of years, whether it is his intention to remove it totally from the operation of the Coercion Acts?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the hon. Member for Louth, I think, must be unaware that the proclamation of the whole of the county Louth, except the borough of Dundalk, was revoked so far back as the 11th February last. I must say that the restrictions imposed by this Act cannot have been severely felt by the hon. Member and his constituents, seeing that the county has been free from its operation for five months, and they have not experienced any difference.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1871 — EXTRA POLICE IN IRISH COUNTIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. KIRKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the charges furnished by the Inspector General of Constabulary for the maintenance of extra police in counties where no such extra police exist, and is he aware that the judges of assize have no option in such eases but to direct the grand jury in opposition to their wishes to fiat such presentiments; if so, does he contemplate any change in the law?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir. I am not aware that any county is charged for extra police where no extra police are sent into the county. Owing to the number of vacancies existing in the Constabulary throughout Ireland, it may, no doubt, happen that the number of men actually serving in some counties charged with extra force may be considerably less than the total nominal force

  1269
  of the county, including the nominal extra force. I think it possible that the law on the matter might be advantageously modified, and I had hopes that the Constabulary Bill which has just passed might have been utilized for dealing with it; but in the pressure of Business that was found impossible.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CONVICT PRISONS—DISCIPLINE AND MANAGEMENT — ADDEESS FOE A EOTAL COMMISSION.
  MR. PARNELL,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, facilities for the independent inspection of convict establishments should he provided; and that it is expedient that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty; praying that a Royal Commission he appointed to inquire into the discipline and management of these prisons,"
  said, that in the course of the discussion on the Prisons Bill the subject had received a good deal of attention, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Home Secretary, intimated his opinion that further legislation was desirable in reference to convict establishments. The Prison Act of 1865 provided facilities for the independent inspection of county and borough prisons by visiting justices, and these facilities were retained by the aid of the Bill which had just received the Royal Assent; but no such provision existed in regard to convict establishments, either for independent inspection, or for placing any check upon the Home Secretary in framing rules for their management and discipline. After careful examination of the various Acts relating to those establishments, he had failed to find any provision for independent inspection, and it had happened from time to time that the complaints constantly made of cruelties inflicted upon convicts had been substantiated. He brought this question, therefore, under the notice of the House in the hope that the Home Secretary would take it into his consideration during the Recess, and introduce a Bill next Ses-
  1270
  sion to correct the defects of the present system. He had known instances in which memorials setting forth the complaints made by prisoners of their treatment had been suppressed, and had never reached the Home Secretary. He knew that the inspection of prisons by the borough justices had not in the past been always very perfect; but, at the same time, he looked upon the provisions of the Prisons Act of this year, requiring the justices to form themselves into prison committees for the purpose of inspection, as very valuable, and trusted that some similar protection would be afforded to prisons in convict establishments. Some impartial inquiry into the management and discipline of convict establishments was absolutely necessary, and a satisfactory result could only be arrived at after hearing witnesses. It was also very desirable that the inquiry should include the medical attendance and diet of the convicts. The medical officers of several convict establishments, while varying very much, some being far more indulgent than others, had reported the diet as too low for the labour required, and the question of the effects of labour on public works upon persons of different classes of prisoners had never been satisfactory dealt with. In particular, the medical officers at Pentonville and Portland had reported unfavourably of the health of the convicts. Hard labour was much more severe upon a man of education not accustomed to physical exertion than upon a working man, and the suffering caused by solitary confinement was much greater in the case of the former than that of the latter, as far as he could make out. But the Home Secretary had power to limit the extent of solitary confinement inflicted upon any prisoner; but he thought that some general rules, both on that subject and in regard to the number of lashes that might be inflicted, should be laid down by Act of Parliament. Prisoners employed upon public works should not be over-fed; but while their diet should be plain and coarse, they ought to have a sufficiency of bread; and it was not creditable to a Government that their prisoners should be kept upon such low diet as to be rendered liable to pulmonary disorders. Being generally men of low vitality, they felt very keenly the effects of an inferior diet. The points he wished to

  1271
  impress upon the House were, first, the necessity for an independent inspection of convict prisons by persons not under the influence or control of the Government, or in their pay. And, secondly, that an inquiry should be instituted by a Royal Commission into the discipline and management of those prisons. Very many complaints had been made of late years by prisoners of ill-treatment. In many cases the complaints had been substantiated, and in some instances the Home Secretary had been induced to interfere; but it was desirable that a Commission should inquire into the whole question, with a view to legislation next Session. He could not give credit to all the tales they heard about cruelties perpetrated in convict establishments, but they knew that in borough prisons cruelties of a very extraordinary character had occasionally been inflicted; and if, in the face of the independent inspection of visiting justices, such cruelties were possible, it followed that cruelties of the same nature were much more possible in convict prisons, which were entirely free from independent inspection of any kind, and in regard to which the Home Secretary was kept very much in the dark. In reference to the subject, he would refer the House to a letter which appeared in The Daily Chronicle under the head of "Experiences of a Turnkey," in which a case of exquisite torture was stated to have been witnessed by the writer in a provincial prison. A prisoner who had refused to sit for his photograph, on the ground that he had not been convicted, had his arms and legs bound tightly to the uprights of a ladder, and in that position was hoisted up by the warders against the walls of the prison, and left so until he fainted. On his recovery he was again hoisted up, and the same thing was repeated several times until he at last gave in. For 10 days afterwards the man was not able to comb his hair or to bend his arm. He (Mr. Parnell) could not say whether this statement was entirely true; but if even a portion of it was true, the Home Secretary ought to direct his attention to the system of inspection both of borough and convict prisons. In convict prisons a prisoner had no means of making his complaint known outside his prison walls. They were forbidden by the prison rules to complain to their friends,
  1272
  and if they made their complaint in a memorial to the Home Office, that document was not allowed to reach the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. On a former occasion the Home Secretary brought forward statistics in which a comparison was made between the death rate in convict prisons and that of the London population, with a view to show the healthiness of the prisons; but it was well known that a very large amount of the London mortality was among infants, and there were less deaths among the adult population. It was, therefore, not correct to draw such a comparison between a population containing a number of children and a number of adult persons. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving an Address for a Royal Commission.
  MR. WHALLEY,in seconding the Amendment, said, that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) deserved much credit for the great attention which he had devoted to this subject, and the earnestness and ability with which he advocated independent inspection in convict prisons. He (Mr. Whalley) was aware from his own personal knowledge that great dissatisfaction existed with respect to the treatment of prisoners in some gaols. Take, for instance, the case of a convict to whom he had often referred, and who was now confined in Dartmoor. He had received communications from many persons discharged from that prison, but being unauthenticated he had not troubled the House with them, or even communicated with the Home Office. Those statements were most startling, and if true showed the existence of corruption and complicity among the prison officers, and presented an array of difficulties which rendered it almost impossible for any one wronged to obtain redress. The prisoner to whom he alluded was not allowed to make his treatment known to the public. His friends, when they visited him, were only allowed to see him in an iron cage and in the presence of a warder. If a man on whose behalf at least half a million of people had petitioned the House could be ill-treated by prison officials, what must be the condition of other unfortunate convicts who had no means of making their grievances known? His letters were tampered with, and he was not allowed to utter a word of complaint to his

  1273
  visitors. His treatment latterly had been more harsh than formerly, and it was therefore either too lax at one time or was too severe now. The Town Hall of Birmingham had been filled by persons who went there to listen to him (Mr. Whalley), and yet such an expression of public opinion was ignored by the Press. One would have supposed the Home Secretary would have desired to alleviate the painful anxiety of so many persons, and to compassionate their weakness by allowing access to the convict on the part of one of the jury, who lived in a condition of anguish because he believed there had been a miscarriage of justice.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order, reminding him that he was frequently wandering from the Amendment he rose to second.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, if he was not in Order, the warmth of his feelings on the subject must be his excuse. The hon. Member went on to complain that the Home Secretary had not paid any attention to the complaints of the person to whom he referred, and was proceeding to read a letter addressed by the convict in question to Mr. Guildford Onslow, when—
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSrose to Order, and pointed out that his conduct was not the subject of the Amendment before the Chair.
  MR. WHALLEYsubmitted that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as it illustrated the question before the House — namely, whether there ought to be an independent inspection of convict prisons—was a subject to which he was justified in referring. He contended that ample grounds had been shown why the House should adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, facilities for the independent inspection of convict establishments should be provided; and that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire into the discipline and management of these prisons,"—(Mr. Parnell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he would refer to an instance that had come under his notice, which ought to have influence with the House and the right hon. Gentleman. An application was made to him by Mr. O'Donovan Rossa to visit Chatham Convict Prison from the then Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce). An order was obtained, but with certain restrictions, and this order he refused, unless he was permitted to put questions to the prisoner as to his treatment. This was granted. With the late hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) he visited the convict in prison, several of the prison officials being present. A question was put to O'Donovan Rossa as to whether he had been manacled for 35 days with his hands behind his back, and being compelled to take his food in that condition, one hand being loosened. It was denied by the deputy governor and the turnkeys that he had ever been manacled for such a time and in such a manner; but the chaplain was forced to admit that he had seen the prisoner with his hands tied behind his back. A book that should have thrown some light on the circumstance was not produced, and finally, after a second visit, an inquiry was instituted by the Home Secretary, and the statement of O'Donovan Rossa was found to be quite true. He could but support the Motion, and all suspicion of ill-treatment would be removed if there was an opportunity allowed for prisoners to make their complaints known in convict prisons, as they would be in borough and county prisons by the Prisons Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that all this was but a repetition of the discussion on the Prisons Bill, which had now happily become law. He regretted that cases were so often brought forward in that House which had not been sifted, and which could not therefore be denied. Let him take the case brought forward on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), who read a letter giving a description of cruel treatment in a prison close to London. It was not possible for the Secretary of State to give any answer to that charge at the moment. A full inquiry was, however, made. The whole matter was fully sifted, and a letter from the director of the prison was shown to the hon. Member for Leicester,

  1275
  who expressed himself fully satisfied with the explanation given. The truth was, that the writer was suffering under mental delusion, and that this was the origin of the charge. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had brought forward some anonymous charge published in a newspaper in the North which he (Mr. Cross) was unable to answer. It contained a long description of what was supposed to have occurred in the prison, and the hon. Member had founded arguments upon it.
  MR. PAENELL: I should not have mentioned this matter but that, I believe, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was directed to it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that was so; but he thought it unfortunate that a description in an anonymous letter of what was supposed to have taken place in a prison should be read to the House before the matter was sifted. He had not been able to ascertain the name of the writer, but he hoped that information on the subject would be forwarded to him. At present he knew nothing of the matter, and therefore could not argue upon it, but he had no doubt an explanation would be forthcoming. With regard to inspection, there was already, under ordinary circumstances, an inspection of county prisons, and there could be no reason why there should not be an inspection of convict prisons. They were going to establish prison boards for borough and county prisons, which would work with the visiting justices, and rules would be drawn up for their guidance. It would then be seen how they worked together, and he should have no fear for the result; nor should he have any objection at the proper time to the appointment of persons who should have the power to visit convict prisons. His opinion was that nothing was gained by the concealment of anything done under authority. If there was anything wrong, by all means let it be put right. He would not, however, accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath. He was willing at the same time to say that this question should be carefully considered in the course of the Recess. He could not throw this duty upon the visiting justices. They had already a good deal to do in the inspection of county prisons, and he could not ask the visiting justices of a particular county
  1276
  to undertake this task in addition to their present duties. He trusted, however, that some machinery might be found under which persons might visit the convict prisons with something like the authority of the visiting justices of county prisons. He hoped that with that assurance the hon. Member for Meath would leave the matter in his hands, at all events, until the next Session of Parliament. He could not entertain the second part of the Motion, because it amounted to a direct censure upon Colonel Du Cane, the Director of Convict Prisons, in whom both himself and his Predecessors felt the greatest confidence. He stated in the debate on the Prisons Bill that it would be the duty of the Home Office to institute an examination into the treatment of all the prisoners in county and borough gaols. That inquiry, which must be instituted by a Commission, must extend to the convict prisons as well. When the information obtained by that Commission was before the House, there would be ample opportunity of judging whether any and what alterations should be made in prison treatment and discipline. There was, therefore, no reason why an independent Commission should be appointed, to inquire into the same thing. When the House met next Session he hoped to convince hon. Members that they had ample information before them to enable them to come to an accurate judgment. With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), he must remind him that it would be extremely invidious for the Secretary of State to say that one prisoner should be treated differently from another on account of his social station. All prisoners, whether rich or poor, must be treated alike. He could assure the House that it was not likely he would forget the prisoner at Dartmoor, because he was so often reminded of him. He had made special inquiries as to his health and the way in which it was affected by his treatment, and he had received assurances from those in whom he felt the fullest confidence that there was nothing in his treatment to justify the slightest complaint. In consequence of the debates on the Prisons Bill, he thought it wise to visit many of these prisons, and he had been in four or five of them. He had made it a practice to see the

  1277
  prisoners alone in their cells, and in one prison he saw all the prisoners. He did all he could to get complaints out of the prisoners, in regard either to their food or treatment, and the answers he got were entirely satisfactory. The only complaints in one gaol were two in number. A prisoner complained that, although his food was good, he could not get enough of it; and the second complaint was that a prisoner said he had a book on geography, and they would not allow him to have the maps. These were the only complaints he could screw out of the prisoners. [Mr. PARNELL: Were these convict prisons?] They were. One was Millbank and the other Pentonville. He also visited some of the Public Works prisons. The result of his inquiries was that the general management of convict prisons was satisfactory, and this would be the opinion of the House if they had examined the subject in detail.
  COLONEL BERESFORD,who had been 18 years on the Surrey bench, said, the visiting magistrates of that county made it a rule to see each prisoner alone, and to ask whether he had any complaint to make.
  MR. HIBBERTsuggested, for the consideration of the Government, that greater uniformity of management might be secured if convict, as well as borough and county prisons, were placed under the control of one Board of Commissioners.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the subject had been repeatedly discussed in the debates on the Prisons Bill, and that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had expressed it to be his opinion that it would be better to try the new system, before any steps were taken to proceed with such a consolidation as that proposed on the lines of the old.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was glad that the Home Secretary had made a concession; but he pointed out that the inspection by these Commissioners, as suggested, would not be an independent inspection, and these Commissioners would be looked upon with more or less suspicion, as prisoners would think they might play into the hands of other officers. The present system had a tendency to encourage the bribing of turnkeys.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman had consented to
  1278
  the principle of an independent inspection of convict prisons, and had expressed his intention of extending an inquiry to convict prisons, he would withdraw his Motion; at the same time he hoped that the Board of Inquiry would be composed of men independent of Government.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not see how they could be perfectly independent, as their appointment must be from the Crown; and he wished to explain that what he had said was, that he did not see why, if there was to be an inspection of borough and county prisons when they became Government prisons, there should not also be the same for convict prisons. It was, however, difficult to manage, and he must have time to consider. There must be a Commission, and, indeed, the names of the Commissioners had been submitted for approval to consider the whole discipline of borough and county prisons; and this inquiry would extend to convict prisons.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

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

  Class II.—SALAEIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (1.) £4,476, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office, Ireland.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £21,995, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
  CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEseverely criticized the constitution and duties of the Board, commenting upon such works as the drainage of the Shannon and the Ulster Canal. The former had been in contemplation, but had made no progress, for the last 43 years. The salaries of the officials were extravagant, and the work of the Board was most

  1279
  inefficiently carried out. He would move to reduce the amount of the Vote by £9,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £ 12,995, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."— (Captain O'Beirne.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHrepeated the offer he had made on a former occasion to bring any reasonable proposals respecting the Ulster Canal under the notice of the Treasury. It was a mistake to suppose that the management of the Irish Board of Works was inefficient or the salaries extravagant. As to the drainage of the Shannon, the subject had been repeatedly discussed in that House, and the Government had done their best to promote the work by passing an Act under the operation of which the Treasury had power to contribute half the cost, or a sum of £150,000 for the purpose. It was owing, he might add, to the action of the proprietors, who refused to contribute their share, that the Act had become inoperative.
  THE O'CONOR DON,without referring to special works, such as the Shannon drainage, the Ulster or Ballinamore Canal, could vouch for the general dissatisfaction existing as to the state of the Board of Works. Within the last few days, before the Committee upon the subject, there had been evidence showing the extraordinary way in which business was carried on by this so-called Board.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not in Order to refer to proceedings before Committees still sitting.
  THE O'CONOR DON: But the Committee had reported, and, therefore, he was justified in his reference. Before the Committee was evidence showing that there was no such thing as a Board of Works in Dublin. It was admitted that they never met except to receive deputations. There were no Minutes kept, and things were carried on in a most hap-hazard way. The real Board consisted of the Secretary, and even the Commissioners did not know how the business was conducted. Another thing in connection with this Board was the amount of
  1280
  charge made whenever they were applied to to inspect any proposal for carrying out public works in any part of the country. An engineer sent down to any place was the occasion of three guineas a-day for his services, and, in addition, the public paid for his salary and superannuation. It would be most advantageous if the Chief Secretary would look into the constitution of the Board, and see how it could be improved.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought the answer of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary was rather unfortunate. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say that he was perfectly satisfied with the constitution of the Board. [Sir Michael HICKS-BEACH: No!] He was glad to hear that admission, because, in his opinion, no one could justify its constitution. The Act of Parliament required that there should be three Commissioners of Works; but, at the present time, to carry out the Act, it was necessary to have some aid in consequence of the age of one of the Commissioners. This gentleman was nearly 90 years old, and he lived in England. The Government, nevertheless, retained him upon the Board, and assistance was provided in the shape of an Assistant Commissioner, who ought in reality to be one of the three Commissioners, the aged Commissioner drawing no salary on account of the Board of Works, but instead thereof he received £1,500 as Commissioner of Valuation. The Assistant Commissioner only received—until the present year, when it was raised to £1,000—a miserable salary of £800 a-year, and he was one of the most distinguished drainage engineers in Ireland. But instead of being put to his proper work he was placed at the head of the Architectural Department, and occupied in designs for schools, barracks, and teachers' residences. The whole constitution of the Board was unjustifiable, and the Commissioner should not be retained merely to gratify his personal feelings. True, it might be said he drew no salary, but a Commissioner should be appointed who could do his work, and was worthy of his salary.
  MR. GOLDSMIDremarked that hon. Members who represented Ireland were not very often eager to reduce the amount of money to be spent in that country, and he hoped that in this in-

  1281
  stance the Government would take them at their word, when they proposed what appeared to him to be so reasonable an economy.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that if Irish Members desired economy, it was because the money which it was often proposed to spend did more harm than good. There was no objection to expenditure sensibly directed; but the expenditure by the Board of Works was extravagant and useless. But if the Government were anxious to spend the £9,000, they might very well lay it out in improving the drainage of the Shannon Valley, where much money had been wasted, and many engineering mistakes made. He would call attention to the failure of the Shannon Improvement Act which the Government passed three Sessions since, contemptuously rejecting sensible practical Amendments proposed by local Irish Members fully competent to form an opinion as to the best course that ought to be pursued in carrying out such works, and would suggest the question should be left to an Irish Committee selected from Members who would represent the interests of those who required the river kept up for navigation, as well as those who required the water of the country carried off.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, he was not at all clear that Irish Members would come to any unanimous opinion respecting the Shannon Valley, though, no doubt, they would all agree in thinking that money might be spent there very usefully. He would call the attention of the Committee to the enormous amount charged by the Office of Works for travelling expenses. There were £2,200 charged this year, and last year it was £2,000. That matter required the serious attention of the Government.
  MR. W. H. SMITH,as the Representative of the Treasury, could say that the Government would gladly accept any Motion for the reduction of expenses, if only they thought it practicable and conducive to efficiency; but that was not the case with the Motion before the Committee. Some few of the remarks directed against the Office of Works were, perhaps, a little unfair, as the charges complained of with regard to drainage were determined by Act of Parliament, so that objection should be taken to the Act rather than to the authorities. He might mention that the Commis-
  1282
  sioner referred to by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) received no salary, though he was entitled to a full retiring pension. He would admit there was something calling for inquiry, and having conferred with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he was prepared to undertake that an inquiry should be made into the constitution of the Office. He must observe, however, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway went in the direction, not of a reduction, but of an increase of the cost. With reference to the item of travelling expenses, it should be remembered that the Office of Works had to examine, maintain, and keep in repair all the public buildings in Ireland, 1,237 in number, to receive all applications for arterial drainage, to maintain harbours, to look to the construction of fishery piers, and do a variety of other business. Through it large amounts of public money were advanced, requiring beforehand the most careful inquiry. Though he could not himself account for every farthing of this expenditure, he was prepared to say that it had been most carefully audited. But that was one of the points which would be inquired into by the Committee appointed to examine the constitution of the Board. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) had revived the old story of the drainage of the Shannon. He (Mr. Smith) must observe that the Bill on the subject had been pressed on the House by local opinion, and no sooner was it passed than a number of proprietors not only refused to contribute, but advanced claims for compensation if the floods were stopped. Again, some persons maintained that the navigation of the river should be carefully preserved; while others contended that the navigation was of no consequence whatever, and that it was the drainage which ought to be attended to. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had complained that the Board did not meet. There were very few Boards in the Public Service that did meet, and amongst them was the Board of Admiralty. In other Boards, under the direction of the Chairman, the business was most carefully assigned, and the several Commissioners consulted together, but formal and regular meet-

  1283
  ings of Boards so called were not held. Indeed, the expression "meeting of the Board" was not a good one. In the case under discussion the Chairman was, he believed, a most efficient public servant, and the duties were performed in a way conducive to the public interest. But that also would be a fit subject of inquiry by the Committee.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYcould not support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote, and he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain O'Beirne) would withdraw it. The Committee had a distinct promise from the Government that the constitution of the Board of Works would be inquired into, and he knew whatever his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury undertook, he would diligently perform.
  THE O'CONOR DONalso asked his hon. and gallant Friend not to press the reduction of the Vote.
  CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEsaid, that as the Government had given a full and frank promise of inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Works in Ireland he should withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. RAMSAYsuggested that the Committee of Inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Works should inquire into the efficiency and necessity for maintaining the various other public Departments in Ireland, so that the House might obtain trustworthy information on the subject. He also wished to suggest that the Committee should not be composed exclusively of Irish Members, so that the inquiry might be impartial. He believed, if a thorough inquiry were made, it would do away with constant complaints as to the way in which the affairs of Ireland were conducted.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, one of their grievances was that there was not sufficient Irishmen on these Commissions. He therefore hoped they would be adequately represented on the Commission or Committee which the Government would appoint.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the greatest obstructives in Ireland were the officials of the Board of Works. They always endeavoured to see how not to do it. If any inquiry were to be instituted, he trusted the Commission would not include either Mr. Lingen, or "that nuisance in Ireland," Mr. Herbert Murray.
  MR. MELDONexpressed a hope that the inquiry would not be limited to the
  1284
  Board of Works, but that it would be applied to the Local Government Board, and similar offices as well. A few months ago he saw a body of Scotch soldiers in the Four Courts, and next day a corps of Welsh soldiers, headed not by a non-commissioned officer, but by Mr. Herbert Murray; and on making inquiries he learnt that these soldiers had been told off to examine some coal that was supposed not to have been supplied according to contract. The Scotch soldiers declared that the bad coals were not Scotch coal, and the Welsh soldiers gave their opinion that they were not Welsh coal, which they ought to have been. The coal was left there, as that point could not be determined, and that was the way in which Mr. Herbert Murray managed his Department.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Board of Works never had any Minutes of their proceedings, and he thought that the system should be revised. Several of the officials had sinecures, and it was well that they should be abolished. Then the Board of Public Works was thoroughly inefficient, and they certainly made a mess of their business altogether. All the expense of draining the Shannon had resulted in nothing, simply owing to the inefficiency of these officials, and then again the Ballinamore Canal was another monument to their inefficiency.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the head and front of Mr. Herbert Murray's offence was that he was a very zealous official of the Treasury. He was, therefore, perhaps one of the most unpopular men in Ireland. Mr. Murray came over from the Treasury to investigate the position of the Government officials in Dublin with a view to a reduction, and he had reported to the Government in that direction. In fact Mr. Murray was carrying out what the Irish Members were advocating in that House. Mr. Murray held a very invidious position, and he had done his work well, and certainly did not deserve any obloquy for the way in which he had done his duty. With regard to the Board of Public Works, he repeated that they had a sham Board, for it was absolutely impossible to fix responsibility on any one. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had told them that he answered according to the best of his information; and, in fact, the way the business was managed it was impossible for the right hon. Ba-

  1285
  ronet to answer otherwise than to give a general assurance that everything was being done for the best. He trusted, if they were to have an investigation, that it would be of such a character as to command the confidence of the public.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could give the assurance of the Chief Secretary and his own that the Commission would be so constituted as to thoroughly secure the confidence of the people of Ireland.
  MR. PARNELLasked, whether the Commission would consist of Gentleman in the permanent pay of the Government?
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied that it was impossible to say, within half-an-hour of giving the undertaking for the Commission, as to how it should be constituted.
  MR. RAMSAY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider whether it may not be extended to other Departments.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £12,279, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Department, &c, Ireland.
  (4.) £15,808, to complete the sum for the General Survey and Valuation, Ireland.
  CAPTAIN NOLANasked, if the Board would carry on the valuation of Ireland, and if it would adopt the scale of prices scheduled in the Bill?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHreplied that the question of the new valuation had better be discussed when the Valuation Bill was taken. If the Valuation Bill became law, the new valuation would be based on a scale framed from the market price in various parts of Ireland.
  CAPTAIN NOLAN: Will this Department carry on the valuation, and will there be an extra Vote not included in this Vote?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Yes.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £61,100, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland, agreed to.

  Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (6.) £45,987, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
  MR. MONKinquired why the costs in Divorce Court cases were not paid by the losing parties? The number of cases in which the Queen's Proctor intervened appeared to be increasing, and he wished to know why his costs were paid by the Treasury?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that until very recently the Queen's Proctor was an independent officer, but the duties were now discharged by the Solicitor of the Treasury, who was paid by salary. It was perfectly true that the costs ought to fall on the unsuccessful party, but that was not always the case. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had exercised the greatest discretion in authorizing the intervention of the Queen's Proctor. In this case there was no creation of a new office, but simply a transfer of duties from the office of Queen's Proctor to that of the Solicitor of the Treasury.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved that when the Divorce Court was established, Sir Cresswell Cresswell desired the assistance of an officer to inquire into cases to see whether there had been any collusion between the parties. Accordingly the Queen's Proctor had been appointed to discharge the requisite duties. When collusion was established he was entitled to his costs from the parties, but he frequently intervened where collusion could not be proved, but where material facts had been kept from the knowledge of the Court. When under the Act he was not entitled to his costs from the parties, they were paid by the Treasury.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £132,710, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions.
  (8.) £132,530, to complete the sum for the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.
  SIR HENRY JAMEShoped the Government would give Mr. Justice Fry the usual Staff. The expense would be but light, and much inconvenience was suffered by the public from the present arrangement.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was aware of the existence of a ge-

  1287
  neral feeling that Mr. Justice Fry ought to have the ordinary Staff of a Vice Chancellor, but he did not know whether it was justified. It had not been thought necessary when he was appointed that he should have a Staff, and he (the Attorney General) had not convinced himself that it was necessary. The Staff attached to the different Judges was already exceedingly numerous, amounting to more than 100 persons. The evil was that under the present system the Staff of one Vice Chancellor could not assist the Staff of another. There were some of these gentlemen who had a great deal of work to do, and others who had little to do. Now there might be an alteration, and if the clerks who were not overwhelmed with work might be called upon to assist the clerks who had a great deal to do, the difficulty would be got over. At all events, the present arrangement might be allowed to work a little longer.
  SIR HENRY JAMESwished to say a few words upon the Official Referees— not as to their personal qualifications, which were discussed last year, but as to the work they had to perform and the public money squandered upom them. It was an appointment of judicial officers in a direction in which they were not of the slightest use. There had been a twelve month's trial of the Official Referees. He found that one of them had had 12 causes before him, and sat 80 hours last year, which, allowing six hours for a working day, gave him 13 days and a fraction out of the 365 days of the year. Another had nine causes, and had sat 339 hours during the 365 days. One Referee had had 12 causes before him, another 18, another 9, and another also 9. One Referee had sat 273hours, another 339, the third 247, and the fourth, as he had stated, 80 hours. For these services the country was paying £6,000—namely, £1,500 a-year to each of these gentlemen, and £200 to their clerks. All this time suitors were complaining that they could not get their causes heard, and the Government were refusing to increase the judicial strength of the Courts because of the expense, while this sum of £6,000, which would pay the salary of another Judge, was being spent with utter inutility to the public. He hoped that some means would be devised of affording these gentlemen more work, and that
  1288
  no more Official Referees would be appointed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must admit that these gentlemen had not had very much work to perform. When the Judicature Bill of 1873 was introduced by the late Government, it made a sweeping alteration in the Courts of Justice, and it was thought necessary to have official persons to decide a variety of cases that could not be decided by the High Court itself. He believed that this view was entertained, among others, by his hon. and learned Friend, and it was thought that barristers should be appointed who, without the assent of the parties, should be required to adjudicate in cases requiring a prolonged examination of documents or accounts which could not be sent before a jury. The consequence was the introduction of of a clause authorizing the appointment of Referees, and empowering the Court to send before them questions for their decision, with the consent of the parties, and also, as he had intimated, cases requiring prolonged examinations. The clause also authorized the Court to send matters before the Official Referees, or before special Referees agreed upon by the parties. The result was that, generally speaking, the parties to a suit desired that matters which could not be decided by the Court should be sent before Referees of their own choosing, rather than before the Official Referees —a wish on the part of the litigants to which the Judges were not unreasonably disposed to yield. If, therefore, the Official Referees had not much business to get through, it was owing to no fault of theirs, for it could not fairly be alleged that they had in any way whatever neglected their duties, and he must in justice say they had shown their willingness to perform any work that might be required of them. No complaint had been made of the way in which those duties were performed; they did their work so far as they had it to do satisfactorily; and if the Judges would not so frequently yield, as they not unnaturally did, to the wish of the litigants, the amount of that work would be considerably increased. But, be that as it might, the institution of Official Referees had so far, he must admit, been a failure; and if in a short time the Judges did not adopt the course which he suggested, instead of sending cases before Referees

  1289
  appointed by the parties, or special Referees, as they were termed, different arrangements must be made and the services of the Official Referees must be utilized in some other way. He should deem it to be his duty, after a little further experience, to communicate with the Lord Chancellor with that object.
  MR. MONKsaid, he was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Attorney General intended to put himself into communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject, and suggested the desirability of considering whether the number of Referees should not be reduced. He was of opinion that if barristers of long standing and experience in their Profession had been appointed to the position of special Referees, they would have given great satisfaction to the country, and their services would have been put quite as much in requisition as those of the Railway Commissioners.
  MR. GREGORYquite believed that the Referees were desirous of performing their duties; but the system was not a satisfactory or popular one, and the question was whether these gentlemen could not be put on a different footing. For his own part, he should like to see the system assimilated to that of the chief clerks of the Judges in Chancery —a system which he believed would operate satisfactorily and effect a considerable saving to the country.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, there was a feeling abroad — whether rightly or wrongly he could not say—against the Judges sending cases down for trial to the Referees. He was rather surprised at hearing the hon. and learned Attorney General say that he had done all in his power, without success, to induce the Judges to refer cases for arbitrament to the Referees.
  SIR HENRY JAMESearnestly hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would not longer try to induce the Judges to send cases to the Referees. He did not think that a suitor should be compelled to go before a Referee whom he disliked. He ought at least to have a voice in the choice of his own Referee.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERwas opposed to any extension of the system of Judges' clerks, which litigants regarded as a very great nuisance. It did not in its operation give satisfaction to the suitors.
  MR. MUNTZconsidered there were defects in the new Judicature system which ought to be remedied. He thought the popularity of the Referees would not be increased if suitors were obliged to take their cases before them in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his remarks appeared to have been somewhat misunderstood. He did not desire that the Courts should compel parties to go to a reference. That was a great evil, and he thought that when persons came before a Court of Justice their causes ought, as a rule, to be tried by the Judges themselves. Sometimes, however, causes could not be so tried, because they involved long investigations, or for other reasons; and if such causes were referred, the suitors themselves, or their solicitors, were to blame. By a section of the Act of 1873, the Court was empowered in certain cases to send causes to be tried by another tribunal. This, however, could only be done in specified cases; and what he said was, that when a Judge had determined to refer a cause, it would be better for him to send it to the Referees appointed by the Act of Parliament. At the time the Act was passed it was intended that the Referees should be the persons who were to decide these matters.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, there was one grievance which had not yet been alluded to, and which operated most unfairly on litigants. At the end of an Assize, on Circuit, it constantly happened that Judges and counsel were anxious to get away, and solicitors and clients were so pressed by a combination of the Judge and leading counsel that it was impossible to avoid referring a cause. And this also occurred sometimes during Term, when there was a press of business. If the power of reference to the Official Referees were extended, the evil, which was already great, would be thereby increased.
  MR. DODDSsaid, that many cases went into Court which were certain to be referred to the Official Referees, and it would be much more satisfactory, indeed it was preferred, to send them to arbitrators. The Referees had given satisfaction neither to the Profession nor the public, and there was a very general feeling that they had not been

  1291
  a success. He trusted that unless these Referees were found during the Recess to be fully employed the hon. and learned Attorney General would see his way next year to reducing the Vote in respect of their salaries, otherwise he (Mr. Dodds) would in that respect move the reduction of the Vote by £6,000.
  MR. LEEMANbelieved that there were only two ways, by either both, or one of which the inconvenience at present inflicted upon suitors could be removed. In the case of causes involving accounts, the Judge was often right to refer them. As regarded the business at the large Circuit towns in the North, it would be necessary either to increase the number of the Judges, or to extend the powers of the County Courts. All the evils existed still which had existed before the appointments of the Official Referees, and nothing could be worse than the way in which both the London and the country Law Courts were blocked up with cases to be tried. Both Judges and counsel naturally wished to get their work done, but want of time stood in their way, and the present arrangements were insufficient. He could perceive no remedy for this very inconvenient state of things unless at least one of the two courses were taken that he had indicated.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, that the Referees had made themselves unpopular by their habit of consulting with counsel, and by the length of time that usually elapsed between the various appointments. Perhaps there might be a month or six weeks between one appointment and another, and when Referees and counsel met again all they had known before about the case was forgotten. The consequence was that people would rather have anything than a reference, as in many instances the costs incurred far exceeded the value of the amount at stake. What he would like to see was one good tribunal like the Railway Commissioners, which would meet and settle the matter at once. When the Referee commenced a case, he should go on with it until it was finished, whether counsel could remain or not. Let them go to—wherever they liked. That view might be very unpopular in an Assembly which contained so many lawyers, but it was one which he thought was well founded.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £47,160, to complete the sum for the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice.
  MR. DILLWYNcalled attention to the salaries and expenses of the district registrars of the High Court.
  MR. GREGORYalso called attention to the evils arising from allowing registrars to have private practice. In some instances a registrar might have his own partner coming before him in cases in which he was concerned. He hoped the Government would take the matter in hand, and that they would propose a Vote which would give registrars adequate salaries and enable them to give up private practice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that where it could be done it was very desirable that the registrar should not have private practice; but in very small places, the fees which registrars received for the business they did would be utterly inadequate. The suggestion made had been and would be adopted, wherever the fees would allow of it. The registrars of Liverpool and Manchester had both been so appointed.
  MR. DODDSsaid, the evil arising from the registrars of County Courts being themselves in private practice was very much felt in the North of England, even in places where the salary was amply sufficient, and it would be very satisfactory to have such cases inquired into.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £69,957, to complete the sum for the Probate and Divorce Registries of the High Court of Justice.
  (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,831, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Admiralty Registrar and Marshal of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Chief Registrar received a salary of £1,200 under this Vote, and £400 from other sources. As his work had been done in his absence in Canada by the assistant, he thought his services were not very much needed, and he moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,600.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £8,231, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Admiralty Registrar and Marshal of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESexpressed a hope that the Motion would not be persevered in, as the officer in question had several important duties to perform, and was a most zealous and efficient public servant.
  MR. W. H. SMITHexplained that this gentleman's duties were very laborious, and that he was very efficient.
  SIR HENEY HOLLANDobserved that during his absence his duties were performed with difficulty.
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he had no intention of pressing his Motion after those explanations.
  MR. WHITWELLcomplained that there were great arrears in these Courts, and especially in the registration of wills. Why should there be a charge of £1,300 for "making up arrears?"
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that a sufficient number of clerks would be appointed to clear up the arrears on the Vote for the Wreck Commissioners' Office.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,192, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Wreck Commissioner."
  MR. PAENELLasked what the duties of the office were?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the duties were to hold inquiries into wrecks under the Merchant Shipping Act.
  MR. DODDSasked how the item of £6,000 for nautical assessors was applied?
  MR. DODSONasked what was the explanation of the charges for justices and for shorthand writers?
  SIR ANDREW LUSKasked what were the duties of the Wreck Commissioner?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the duties of the Wreck Commissioner were enormous. Shorthand writers were employed because it was necessary to publish the proceedings.
  And it being now 10 minutes to Seven of the clock,
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL—SUICIDE OF A SCHOLAR.

    EXPLANATION.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have been asked by the authorities of Christ's Hospital to state that they are afraid that one observation which I made yesterday may be misunderstood. I said that I had received the Report of the inquiry which they had conducted into the death of the boy Gibbs, and they are afraid that I had not stated that I told the House that I had received the Report, but that it was too long to read in answering a Question. I may take this opportunity of informing the House that I have, in consultation with the authorities and with their consent, nominated a Committee not simply to inquire into the cause of this boy's death, but into the state, discipline, and management of this institution. That Committee consists of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder for the City of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and the Dean of Christ Church (Dr. Liddell), and they will commence their labours on Monday next.
    And it being now Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.
    House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Forfeiture Belief* (20), discharged; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Leith)* (137); Saint Stephen's Green (Dublin)* (134).
Committee—Universitities of Oxford and Cambridge (re-comm.) (138–136).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Order (Sewage)* (136); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Glasgow)* (135); Colonial Fortifications* (133).
Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings)* (139).

SOCIETY OF THE HOLY CROSS.
  OBSERVATION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEannounced that the Rev. E. Hermann Cross—to whose appointment by the Lord Chancellor to St. Michael's, Lewes, he had called attention a few days back—had severed his connection with the Society of the Holy Cross, and desired, on behalf of the parishioners of St. Michael's, to thank the Lord Chancellor and the Bishop of Chichester for having used their influence to this desirable end.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL—(Nos. 114, 138.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL—(Nos. 114, 138.)

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment), according to Order.
  Preliminary.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Commissioners.
  Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Duration: Proceedings.
  Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Statutes for Universities and Colleges.
  Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 15 (Provision for education, religion, &c.)
  EARL GRANVILLErose to move the addition of the words—
  "And that they (the Commissioners) shall make or continue such provision as they think necessary for the purposes of religious instruction and worship in the University or College; and after making such provision they shall, as regards all University or College emoluments or offices, have regard to the insuring, and shall make such statutes as are necessary for the insuring the same being conferred according to personal merit and fitness; and (except in so far as is requisite for the purposes of religious instruction and worship) none of the tests, conditions, or obligations referred to in the third section of the Universities Tests Act, 1871, or in the provisoes thereto, shall be imposed or continued as part of the conditions of eligibility to or of tenure of any University or College emolument or office."
  This Amendment was the same as that which he proposed last year, and which was then rejected. The numbers of the division on that occasion, however, compared with the normal majority which generally supported the Government, showed that his proposal was not viewed with great disfavour by the House; and although the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) who then had, as now, charge of the Bill, took high ground in objecting to the whole of the proposal to remove clerical restrictions, he proposed and carried at a subsequent stage of the Bill an Amendment which he claimed to be considered as a partial concession to his (Earl Granville's) views. The statistics connected with the clerical Fellowships were somewhat complicated as regarded both Universities, and he should not refer to them further than was necessary to explain his case. At Cambridge there were, in one sense of the word, only 13 Clerical Fellowships—Fellowships to which from the first clergymen alone were eligible. But there were 52 Fellowships which must be held by clergymen; the difference being that the 13 were definite Fellowships, not liberated by any number of other Fellowships being held by clergymen. But, beyond the 52, the vast majority of Fellowships were subject to clerical restrictions. He was told—but he spoke subject to the correction of the noble Duke the Chancellor of the Uni-
  1244
  versity of Cambridge—that there were 350 Fellowships at Cambridge, of which 52 were clerical, 99 open, 16 lay, and 183 neither clerical nor strictly open, but open Fellowships, the tenure of which was limited by a clerical privilege. In short, at Cambridge there were 115 Fellowships not subject to clerical restrictions, and 235 subject to them. At Oxford the case was this—There were nine Clerical Fellowships at Queens', at Lincoln they were all so but two, at Brasenose there were six; at St. John's, and some others, only one-third might be held by laymen; at Christ Church, out of 26 forming the Governing Body, only seven could be laymen. There were in Oxford 116 clerical Fellowships, with a larger number affected by clerical restrictions. There were three ways in which the Clerical Fellowships to which he had adverted worked. In the first place, there were those to which only men who were already in Holy Orders could be elected. This, of course, greatly limited competition; because, as a rule, men were elected to Fellowships at an earlier age than it was competent for them to enter into Orders. In the second place, there were Fellowships to which candidates might be elected who, although not in Orders, made a declaration of their intention to take Holy Orders. This was a premium on making such declarations, limiting competition in a considerable but less degree than the first. In the third place, men might be elected to Fellowships which were vacated if the holder did not take Orders within, say, three or some other limited number of years. This limited the competition without ensuring that the man elected should go into orders. An abuse arose out of it, popularly called "going in on the three years' system." The question to which he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships was this:— Were the Clerical Headships and Clerical Fellowships advantageous to the Fellow himself, to the College, to the Church of England, or to the community at large? He believed they were not. As regarded the young man who was a candidate for the Fellowship, it was absolutely injurious. A pecuniary temptation was offered to him to accept with indifference a test which ought to be accepted only after long and due consideration—the important step of devoting themselves to the Christian ministry—and, while it

  1245
  acted as a quasi-bribe to some, it acted as a discouragement to others who were more scrupulous. They dreaded the imputation of having been influenced by the temptation of a Fellowship easily obtained, and they mistrusted their own motives in becoming a candidate. These conditions were injurious to the Colleges, because they narrowed their power of selecting the best men for teachers. When he spoke on this point on the second reading, some Members of the Episcopal Bench deprecated the notion that Clerical Fellowships were in any degree inferior to Lay Fellows. He was not able to give any opinion as to how the case might be now; but that that should be a normal rule appeared to be impossible. Was it likely that in the long run men who beat only a limited number of competitors should be equal to those who had beaten the whole world? It was notorious that many of our most able scholars had been precluded from offering themselves as candidates by these clerical restrictions. He was told that, on an average, where four or five competed for a Clerical Fellowship, 18 or 20 competed for one which was open. As to Headships, it was often most injurious. There were not unfrequently more than one man who were pre-eminent in merit, who were passed over, when a much inferior candidate was by that rule necessarily chosen for a position which ought to have great influence both on the College and the University. As to the advantage which the Church of England derived from the system, he had only to repeat what he had already said as to the encouragement which that system gave to the indifferent prematurely to enter a holy profession, and the discouragement which it placed upon some of the most scrupulous and conscientious. It might be said that if they abolished these Clerical Fellowships, there would not be a sufficient supply of candidates for Orders. But the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Oxford gave his opinion last year that the number of candidates for Holy Orders would not be diminished at all by such a proceeding. As to the community at large, was it not desirable, while they provided for due religious instruction on the one hand, that they should endeavour, on the other, to obtain the best men possible for the government and teaching of the Univer-
  1246
  sities? And whereas it was desirable for the community at large, as well as for the Universities themselves, that these important institutions should be of a national character, did they contribute to that end, when they reserved more than one-half of the prizes for a limited class of one denomination, excluding all the laity of that great denomination and the whole of those who did not conform to the doctrines of the Church of England? What were the arguments against his proposal? The argument held last year by the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill—-but which he was not aware was held by any other Member of the Government— was that the present system was good in itself, because it was necessary to check the progress of atheism in the University. [The Marquess of Salisbury dissented.] The noble Marquess discarded the argument of its being advantageous to the Church of England; he stated it was necessary in the cause of religion itself. Now, if that argument was sound, in order to be consistent with it, instead of at a subsequent stage giving up the Headships of Colleges, as he had since done, to the tender mercies of the Commissioners, the noble Marquess ought rather to have saved the Clerical Fellows from the possibility of being tampered with by that body. But was the argument sound? Had it never been used before? When it was proposed some years ago to relieve young men of 16, 17, and 18 years of age from the necessity of pledging their faith in the most solemn manner to the complicated theological details of the Thirty-nine Articles, was it not urged that such a relief would at once introduce atheism into the University? Could anyone say that, whatever might be the freedom of religious discussion at the Universities at the present time, atheism had been in the least promoted by the admission of Nonconformists to them? He was told on the highest authority that that was not the case. On the other hand, if freethinking had increased in the University of Oxford, could it be denied that increase had been coincident with that extension and development of clerical degrees which had occurred during the last quarter of a century? If the evil existed, the remedy in new and greater doses had not proved to be efficacious. He was not one who was ready

  1247
  to admit that all sincere, moral, and religious feeling was monopolized by the Clergy, however estimable that profession might be. There was one consideration with regard to the Clerical Fellows, and the moral and religious influence which they might be supposed to exercise from being on the Governing Body of the Colleges, which ought not to be overlooked. They were not, as a rule, clergymen who had training in the practical work of their profession. They had not the experience of men and things, looking at them from a religious point of view, which clergymen holding cures in London, in our provincial towns, and some of the large rural parishes had. A portion of them laboured, often unjustly, under the imputation of having yielded to the pecuniary temptation offered by the Fellowships to enter into Holy Orders. Others were more full of questions of dogma than of practical religious and moral life. Some were apt to attach great and undue importance to the rights and obligations of the priesthood—a state of things which tended to repel rather than attract a large proportion of the Undergraduates; while it, perhaps, influenced in a manner which might not altogether be whole some a small portion of intellectual and conscientious men. Was it not conceivable that the influence of a layman of ability and of sincerely religious views at the Head of a College or belonging to its Governing Body might not have a much greater influence from the very fact of its being more readily and with less suspicion accepted by the general body of young men? But all that argument, whatever it might be worth, rather assumed that his Amendment would exclude the clerical element from the Fellowships of the University. He believed it would do no such thing. If it was contended that it would do so, it must then be admitted that those who were in orders Or intended to enter them were inferior in ability and intellectual training. There were now men intended for the Church who honoris causâ competed for the open Fellowships. There were others who had obtained such open Fellowships who subsequently entered into Holy Orders, although under no obligation to do so. The number of these would necessarily increase with the abolition of Clerical Fellowships. Such men were more likely to use real
  1248
  influence than those to whom some suspicion of inferiority attached. But there was another objection to his Amendment which, if he might judge from what had happened in "another place," was likely to be urged in their Lordships' House—that, without defending the present state of things, the question of Clerical Headships and of Clerical Fellowships ought to be left to the unrestricted judgment of the Commissioners. Now, he had nothing to say against the present composition of the Commission. In some he had the highest confidence—and he had heard objections made to one of the two names which had been added which on good authority he believed to be not well founded. There was one thing which he regretted, but to which he did not wish to attach undue importance. It was that there was no Commissioner who had not been a member of the University. A little fresh blood might have been of use. But he had confidence that the present Commission would discharge their duties with prudence and liberality; and he had therefore not raised any objection to the wide discretion that had been given them to deal with all the details of finance and of University teaching and discipline. But the point raised by his Amendment was not one of practical details requiring special knowledge. It was one of principle—one with which Parliament was competent to deal, one on which it was bound to give some indication of its views to the Commissioners, and one the responsibility of which it was not entitled to shift from its own shoulders to those of the Commission. In asking the House to do that he was not without authority; and he could not be accused of wantonly proposing an injury to the Church or to the University. The most rev. Primate, although he preferred leaving the matter to the Commissioners, stated last year that he apprehended no danger from such a change. Another Member of the Episcopal Bench said the same thing. A Petition was presented to "another place" in favour of such an Amendment which was signed at Oxford by four heads of Colleges, one acting Head, nine Professors, 96 Fellows, 11 class Fellows, all resident; 45 College tutors, and 44 lecturers. Among the above were to be found 32 clergymen. The great majority of those who signed a

  1249
  counter memorial were clergymen. He trusted he had said enough to show that he had some reason and some authority in favour of the course which he proposed to their Lordships; and although, if Her Majesty's Government opposed it, he had no chance of a majority, he trusted that there would be, as there had been to a remarkable degree in "another place," evidence of no inconsiderable feeling on the part of their Lordships being in favour of the proposal.
  An Amendment moved,
  To add at the end of the clause the following words ("and they shall make or continue such provision as they think necessary for the purposes of religious instruction and worship in the University or College; and after making such provision, they shall, as regards all University or College emoluments or offices, have regard to the ensuring and shall make such statutes as are necessary for the ensuring the same being conferred according to personal merit and fitness; and (except in so far as is requisite for the purposes of religious instruction and worship) none of the tests, conditions, or obligations referred to in the third section of the Universities Tests Act, 1871, or in the provisoes thereto, shall he imposed or continued as part of the conditions of eligibility to or of tenure of any University or College emolument or office.")— (The Marl Granville.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) commenced his speech by reciting the number of clerical Fellowships which existed in the two Universities, and dwelt upon that consideration with some earnestness. Again, he dwelt upon their unequal distribution, and upon other details affecting the mode in which this principle was applied in the Universities. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) was not careful to answer him upon that matter, because it really had no connection with the Motion he had made. In this Bill they placed the most absolute confidence in the Commission. They gave them the power of dealing with Clerical Fellowships as well as all other Fellowships—that was to say, of determining whether there were too many in particular Colleges for the purposes which the statutes had in view: and they gave them the power in extreme cases—he did not expect they would ever exercise it—of dispensing with Clerical Fellowships in any particular College altogether. But what the noble Earl proposed by his Amendment
  1250
  was not to reform any evil which he pointed out. What he proposed to do was to take this question out of the general category of all the questions mentioned in the Bill, and to make it an exception to the mode in which they dealt with the Commission; upon this point, and upon this point only, they were not to trust the Commission—upon this point, and upon this point only, they were themselves to enter into details from which they had otherwise abstained, and say that they would force a particular policy upon the Commission, whether the Commission thought it wise or not. Considering the great legal advice which the noble Earl and his friends probably had the advantage of employing, he was rather surprised at the words in which the noble Earl proposed to carry out the object he had in view. He told them that he proposed to enact, in the first place, that no office or emolument should be held at any University or College on any other terms but those of personal merit and fitness. Now, those words "personal merit and fitness" had obtained a technical meaning. They were inserted in the statute of 1854, and were the basis on which rested that system of open competition by which all Fellowships in the University of Oxford were given. But they were used with reference to the system of local preferences which then existed to a great extent; and in that sense the words "personal merit and fitness," on a competitive examination, had a very distinct meaning. They were applied to Fellowships alone. But now the noble Earl proposed to apply them to all offices or emoluments in a University or College. That would include such emoluments as, for instance, the Bampton Lectureship, and if the noble Earl's Motion were agreed to, the Bampton Lecturer would have to be elected by competitive examination. He was not sure that that was not the noble Earl's meaning, as his speech betrayed such an intense belief in competitive examination. The noble Earl repeatedly dwelt upon the evils of Clerical Fellowship, because, he said, if they were not first in competitive examination, inferior men for the purposes of College Government would necessarily be preferred to superior men. Now, the foundation of that philosophy was that the effort of memory

  1251
  required in order to obtain the first place in a competitive examination was a guarantee that a man had all the moral virtues and other qualifications enabling a man to become a governor of men. That was an idea which the noble Earl shared with few people at the present day. Having made so sweeping an enactment, the noble Earl proposed, to provide an exception which was equally sweeping and very vague. He said, "except in so far as is requisite for purposes of religious instruction and worship." Now, of course those words were as vague as possible; because a person who believed thoroughly in the advantage of having a clerical element in the education and government of youth would say that the whole of the existing system was requisite "for the purpose of religious instruction and worship." He was quite sure that the proposal of the noble Earl would cause great difficulties to the Commissioners and great heart-burnings in the Universities. The words proposed by the noble Earl would, he thought, to the ordinary reader bear the meaning that the noble Earl would not allow any emolument or office to be connected with Holy Orders unless in a particular case religious instruction and worship could not be carried on without it. Now, the first thing which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would press upon their Lordships was to consider the question with reference to the whole doctrine of endowments. Undoubtedly in the present day we had dealt much more freely with endowments than our forefathers would have done; but we had always desired to maintain, at least as far as the change in circumstances would allow, the same regard to the intention of those from whom the endowments originally came. Now, if there was one thing certain about these endowments, it was that the foremost object in the minds of all the donors was the promotion of religious instruction and worship. That was true not only in the old Roman Catholic times—we had Colleges founded since the Reformation, and a number of lectureships; and he might say that in the great majority of cases the prime object of the Founder was religious instruction. Well, now, what was proposed? Not that their Lordships should alter and modify according to the wants of the day the original provisions of
  1252
  those from whom these foundations came, but that they should take the whole of them and say that the one thing they 'would not allow was that there should be required any religious element in the government and guardianship of youth. Why, the Founders would have recoiled from any such proposal. Their Lordships could not deal with this question according to the exigency or fancy of the moment, and imagine that they had done with it. It would beget a long line of similar measures in future. With respect to endowments, in dealing with this question they must determine the principle on which they could regard the wishes of the Founders; and they would find that if they accepted the proposal of the noble Earl they would not merely modify the terms, but diametrically contradict and overrule the whole spirit with which these foundations were established from the earliest to the latest ages; and they would find that the precedent would cling to endowments in future. They were driven to accept one of two alternatives—either to accept the principle laid down by the noble Earl, by which endowments would be rendered altogether untrustworthy or impossible, or to take at the bidding of a very advanced Party their very advanced view of the value and utility of ministers of religion. He pressed upon the House this question of endowments, because it was one which, in dealing with the Universities, necessarily came before them, and to prevent precedents on this subject being made for the future. They must not, however, regard this question merely as being one of endowments. These were living institutions, each having a certain work to do, and performing it nobly and successfully. They were great national institutions, existing not for their own sake, but for that of the nation which benefited by them; and they were institutions in which the cultivated classes of this country received their highest education. If these Colleges were the educational establishments of the country, those who held the Fellowships were —if he might use the expression with bated breath, lest any such might be present — the schoolmasters of those educational establishments; and what it was proposed to the House to say was, that while every other qualification might be required by the Commissioners with regard to these schoolmasters, the one

  1253
  which should not be required of them was that they should be ministers of religion. He wanted to know how such legislation as that would be regarded by the parents of this country? The Commissioners might constitute their Governing Bodies as they pleased. They might determine that one Fellow should possess a certain amount of mathematical learning—they might—although he did not recommend that they should do so— require that a particular Fellowship should be held by a Q.C., in order that the study of the law might be properly superintended—or they might require that another should be held by a physician who should superintend the study of the science of medicine; but over one branch of study they were to have no power and no jurisdiction; they were to be forbidden to require that those who were to have the guardianship of the morality and the discipline of the Colleges should be qualified for exercising such office by having entered into Holy Orders. What would the parents of this country think of such an arrangement? Their Lordships must not merely ask themselves what their own opinion on the subject was. They must think of themselves, when dealing with the great educational establishments of the nation, as representing the great constituency of parents. What did the parents themselves do in this matter? Did they carefully avoid employing the clergy in educating their children? Did they seek lay teachers in preference to ministers of religion? Did they regard the latter as though they were something dangerous, and to be avoided? Did they desire that teachers should be selected for them by competitive examination, or did they prefer to have a clergyman whom they trusted? Whatever might have been the progress of our views, this, at least, remained unchanged — that the parents all over the country—at least, in the vast majority of cases — selected ministers of religion to superintend the education of their sons. But their Lordships were now asked to say that the Commissioners should not have power to do that which the parents forced upon the schools by the law of supply and demand, and that to entrust a clergyman with the education of children was so horrible a thing, that Parliament could not permit it to be done. It was necessary also to keep in view the interests
  1254
  of the Colleges in this matter. The Colleges had no longer a monopoly of education at the Universities. A new College had sprung up—and not only a new College, but a race of non adscripti, who were increasing so rapidly in numbers as to compete with the old Colleges. What had been the tendency in this matter? Their Lordships were aware that a College had lately been erected on a totally different system on account of this very danger of Parliamentary interference, and that in it the superintendence of education by the clergy and laymen deeply interested in religion was secured in such a manner that Parliament had no power to interfere. He did not say whether that system was right or wrong; but what he wished to point out was that the College was marvellously successful, its rooms being filled as fast as they could be constructed. Was this not a proof that the old Colleges were in danger from a competition which might reduce them from the high position which they had hitherto occupied, and that that competition would be strengthened by such legislation as their Lordships were now asked to approve? He therefore urged that for the sake of the Colleges themselves their Lordships ought not to take this power of appointing clergymen to Fellowships out of the hands of the Commissioners; but should leave it to them to determine to what extent and under what conditions and modifications the system of Clerical Fellowships should continue to exist. Before he sat down he wished to draw their Lordships' attention to another matter that would be involved by putting this exceptional provision into the Bill. If this had been a measure full of details, and if it had gone carefully into every subject, there might have been no special insult involved to any particular class, or to any particular set of opinions, by enacting that Clerical Fellowships should no longer continue to exist; but by having carefully abstained all through the Bill from entering into any sort of detail, and by having left the Commissioners entirely free except on this point, a special brand was placed upon the Clergy, and their Lordships must consider how the Clergy and the Laity of the country would look upon what was so marked an exhibition of legislative displeasure. It was a very dangerous thing, as the

  1255
  experience of this and of other countries had shown, to attempt to interfere by legislative action with religious influences, the only result being that the religious influences became more antagonistic, more narrow, and more powerful. The strength of the Clergy of the Church of England up to this time had been that they had been with the Laity subjects of a common Sovereign and fellow-countrymen with them of a common country, and that therefore they had never been marked out as a special class. But no one could doubt that in some degree at least this state of things was not so conspicuous as it was a few years ago; and it might be that the constant legislation of Parliament during the past quarter of a century had driven the Clergy to herd together and to render them less subject to the influences of the sentiments and the feelings which were common to us all. Nothing could be more dangerous to the interests of religion than that the Clergy should be segregated into a body apart from the rest of us. But if we were to avoid that, we must avoid expressions of hostility and ill-will towards them such as this exceptional legislation, and their Lordships must avoid recording in the Statute Book that the influence of the Clergy was an evil to be put down. He therefore earnestly hoped their Lordships would refuse to accept this clause, which would increase the danger he had adverted to, and would widen the chasm between the Clergy and the Laity, while it would overweight the Colleges in their competition with other sources of learning, and would render them less fit to fulfil their high duty, which up to this time they had fulfilled with such brilliant and admirable results, to the best interests of the nation at large.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had objected to the word "emolument" as covering a great many things, which he was certain his noble Friend who had moved the Amendment never intended it to cover. But the question at issue was not one of detail, but of principle; and it was not fair to the Commissioners, nor was it consistent with the dignity of Parliament, to leave to the discretion of the Commissioners a question like this—which was not only a question of principle, but of very important principle. Upon such a ques-
  1256
  tion it was of the utmost importance that the voice of Parliament on the point should be so distinct as to guide the Commissioners in the task which they had to perform. The speech of the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill seemed to have underlying it a misunderstanding of the motives which actuated the noble Earl whose Amendment was under consideration. As far as he could see there was no ground for the suggestion that the Amendment proposed would involve either an insult upon, or a segregation of the clergy. The Amendment was one of comprehension, and not of exclusion. It did not exclude the clerical Fellow; all it did abolish was the compulsory restriction of Holy Orders. The noble Marquess had proceeded to refer to the subject of endowments; but if the doctrine laid down by the noble Marquess were carried into effect in legislation generally, hardly any changes whatever would be made in the Universities. If anything affected endowments it was the Tests Act, and the corollary of that Act was the Amendment now proposed by his noble Friend. The Clerical Fellowships confused, in a most objectionable manner, the two objects sought to be attained by the Amendment—namely, the qualifications for the Fellowships and provision for religious services and religious education. But the Amendment, if passed, while it made ample provision for religious teaching in the Universities, would have the effect simply of providing that the men elected to Fellowships should, before election, have shown themselves to be possessed of merit. If, therefore, clerical members of the Universities presented themselves for examination and proved that they were competent, they would have equal chances of Fellowships with any of the other candidates who might desire similar positions. The noble Marquess, he must venture to say, had a rather low idea of those whom he had endeavoured to defend, if he thought the clergy would seldom possess sufficient personal merit and fitness for Fellowships. He could not help thinking that the adoption of the proposal as it stood in the Bill would be disadvantageous to the Universities, to the Church, and to the country at large, and he hoped their Lordships would accept his noble Friend's Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he did not doubt the capacity of the Commissioners to deal with this question; but, in his view, there were but two ways in which the forms and services of the Church and religious instruction could be secured in the Colleges—that was, either by College chaplains, or by clerical Fellows. He thought no Member of their Lordships' House would be prepared to say that it would be wise to entrust the religious instruction in the Universities to chaplains who were not Fellows. It was not to be supposed that the influence of a chaplain so appointed would equal that of a clerical Fellow who had won his Fellowship by merit. He admitted that inconvenience might arise out of the present system, and it was possible that a young man might now and then take Holy Orders from the low motive referred to—that of keeping their Fellowships. Such cases were, however, rare; it might be that sometimes men were admitted into the Governing Body of a College by reason of this restriction who were of somewhat inferior acquirements to others; but this evil, whatever it was, was not to be weighed against the evil which would result from leaving the Colleges at times without any religious instruction to be given by one who, from his position and character, and for the honours he had won, was calculated to have influence with those whom he taught. The state of the case would, he believed, be better if, instead of religious Fellowships, the Colleges were provided with the logical Fellowships. Theology was a science, and the University of Oxford had no less than six Professors to teach it. If Mathematics had its Fellowships, why should not Theology also? He trusted their Lordships would not accept the Amendment of the noble Earl. The Bill provided the Commissioners with ample powers, and surely it would be wiser, instead of laying down a hard-and-fast principle, to allow them to provide for the religious instruction and worship of the Colleges in such way as to them might seem best?
  LORD CARLINGFORDhoped that the fears entertained by the right rev. Prelate were not generally entertained by their Lordships. The right rev. Prelate would see that, under the Amendment of his noble Friend, the Commissioners would be at liberty to retain as
  1258
  many Clerical Fellowships as they pleased for the purpose, but only for the purpose mentioned in the Proviso. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), maintaining and exalting the discretion of the Commissioners, left them free to retain a certain number of those Fellowships, while he evidently desired that they should do away with an unstated number of them in cases where they considered the number to be too many. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) on the other hand, stated the reasons owing to which the Commissioners would be at liberty to retain whatever number of those Fellowships they might think fit. The noble Marquess desired a certain number of these Fellowships to be retained in order to counteract the sceptical and anti-Christian elements. That was a ground which they on that side of the House were not able to take up. Their wish was to provide for religious teaching and worship in the Colleges, and that done, that the residue of the clerical Fellowships should be thrown open. The arguments argued by the noble Marquess against the Amendment came on too late—the greater part would apply quite as much to the abolition of tests as to the retention of these Fellowships. A great many members of the Church of England entertained strong objections to the retention of these clerical Fellowships, even supposing the Universities had remained open exclusively to members of the Church of England. But now that they had ceased to be purely ecclesiastical institutions — now that the law had thrown them open to all comers—ho submitted it was too late to use the arguments they had heard from noble Lords opposite. When Parliament had done what it had for the Universities— when it had thrown them open to all Englishmen, irrespective of creed or Church—he submitted it was in the highest degree inconsistent to require that any of the holders of offices or emoluments within them should not only be members of one particular Church, but that the acceptance of Holy Orders in that Church should be made the absolute condition for the retention of a large number of the most valuable prizes and rewards in the Colleges.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the question before their Lordships had been so often discussed that most of the

  1259
  arguments used were familiar to them all. The objections raised on the present occasion had not been directed so much against the existence of clerical officers in the Universities, but it had been asserted that these clerical Fellowships were bribes to men to enter the Church who would otherwise have chosen some other profession. That might have been so when two-thirds of the Fellowships were in the hands of the Clergy; but the wide opening of the field to laymen had removed any inducement there might have been to a man to take Holy Orders in order to retain his Fellowship. There were two questions to consider — first, whether any disadvantage could be shown to exist under the present system; and, secondly, whether this was the proper time and place to discuss the expediency of a change? For his part, he was not disposed to pitch the advantages too high. He was not prepared to say that these Fellowships were absolute guarantees or securities of a Christian education. What he did say was, that the presence of a certain number of Fellows who were in Holy Orders in the Governing Body was a security—so far as in these things there could be any security —that Christianity would be a main consideration, and that they would exercise over the young men committed to their charge that influence which this House desired, which Parliament desired, and which undoubtedly every parent desired to see exercised. The noble Lord who preceded him (Lord Carlingford) spoke of the Universities as having long ago ceased to be ecclesiastical bodies. He would venture to say rather that the Universities were still bound up with the Church of England, although perfectly open to Dissenters; and he believed this was understood by the country to be the case. That being so, it was only reasonable that there should be some members of the Colleges directly connected with the Church of England. Their Lordships would remember that during the last few years the University of Oxford had established honour schools in Divinity. This was an additional reason for having a number of Fellows in Holy Orders. It was desirable, moreover, that the services of the College chapels should be performed by members of the Colleges, and not by outsiders. To go a step
  1260
  further—he could not help thinking that in the mingling together of Clergy and Laity in the Colleges of the Universities there had been up to this time a combination of the highest possible advantage to both. If the proposed Amendment were passed it would certainly cause a considerable change. It would lead, if not to the entire elimination, at all events to a great reduction of the clerical Fellowships. There could be no doubt that hitherto a very large proportion of these Fellowships had been given to cultivated men, who had exercised an influence which could hardly be over-estimated; and, for his part, he thought it would be wise to retain some security in the future, as in the past, that men of character and position were chosen as members of the Governing Bodies of the Colleges. These were reasons—indirect reasons, he granted—why their Lordships should pause before adopting the Amendment which had been proposed. But the main question involved in this discussion was, it seemed to him, whether they had confidence in the Commissioners who were to be appointed. It was admitted on both sides of the House that the Commissioners were men of eminence and well fitted to discharge the serious duties imposed on them. To them it was proposed to entrust very extensive powers with reference to discipline, study, and other matters. Now, the matter at present under consideration was a matter of detail. It could not be said to be of more importance than discipline or study. Why, then, should this one question be prejudged? Why should Parliament deny itself the opportunity of hearing the Commissioners' views upon it? Why should Parliament seem to imply in this matter a certain distrust of the judgment of the Commissioners? If, after hearing all the evidence, the Commissioners should condemn the continuance of the present system, well and good; there would be an end of the whole controversy. If, on the other hand, they should decide in favour of retaining the system, their Lordships would not be debarred from dealing with the question. The Commissioners might take a middle course, and propose to lessen the proportion of the clerical Fellowships. In that event, as in any other, Parliament would be equally at liberty to re-consider the

  1261
  whole question. Whatever might be the merits of the question in itself—and he thought the bulk of the arguments advanced had been rather in favour than against clerical Fellowships—one thing was clear, and that was that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) proposed to allow the Commissioners the full exercise of their discretion, and yet at the last moment stepped in and robbed them of that power—thereby implying, as he (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought, a certain distrust of their judgment.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, as the House was evidently ready for a division, he would only detain it for a few moments to say that the concluding remarks of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) showed a misapprehension of the purport and purpose of the Amendment. The Amendment expressly left to the Commissioners all the powers they could possibly require for the purpose of making or continuing all the regulations necessary for proper and sufficient religious instruction. This Amendment did not abolish clerical Fellowships, because clergymen might, by their personal merit, obtain them against laymen; but it did abolish the special privileges given to the clergy. The question really was—whether this ought to be done by Parliament or by the Commissioners? Now, a great general principle was involved in this, and his noble Friend proposed, by his Amendment, to embody it in the Act of Parliament, leaving to the Commissioners full power to provide for the religious wants of the different Colleges. To his mind that was precisely a question which should be settled by the action of Parliament.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he desired clearly to understand what the purpose of the Amendment was. The noble Viscount had said that the House was prepared to divide; but, unless he knew the meaning of that upon which they were going to divide, he must necessarily vote against it. He did not gather from the speech of the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment that his object was what the observations of the noble Viscount who had just spoken and of the noble Earl who had preceded him represented it to be—namely, that the Commissioners should have power to retain as many clerical Fellowships as they might deem necessary for religious instruction and worship. If that was
  1262
  the meaning of the Amendment, he was quite prepared to vote for it; but he did not read it in that sense. The difficulty which presented itself to his mind was this—that in certain Colleges, if the clerical Fellowships no longer existed, no clergyman—he was afraid he must say, no very decided Christian—would ever be elected. It was perfectly well known in the University of Oxford that there were some Colleges where a decidedly Christian man would not stand a fair chance. There were other prejudices besides clerical prejudices in the world, and certain philosophers liked to have in the Colleges to which they belonged a decided majority of men of their own opinion. Now, by keeping so many clerical Fellowships as were required for the purpose of religious instruction and worship, it was provided that a religious voice should be heard in the various Colleges—not that the Chaplain should steal in at the time of prayers, and then betake himself to his lodgings, but that there should be a clerical representative who could boldly assert himself. Some of their Lordships seemed to forget how very small bodies some of the Colleges were. They might consist of six or seven—a physiologist, a mathematician or two, and somebody else—and he did not know that those persons were in all cases proper guides for the youths who came up to them from school. The whole status of the Colleges had been altered—the College of the future was to be an Act of Parliament boarding school. The old character impressed upon the Colleges by their founders was changed, and a new kind of thing—Act of Parliament boarding houses—created, and they were bound to make some provision for the Christian and moral care and culture of the pupils. A noble Lord had said that laymen ought to be as good Christians as clergymen; but, if so, such laymen would in some Colleges have no chance. He would not detain the House further than to ask for some explanation.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, he was well satisfied with the discussion that had taken place—it did not appear to require from him many words in way of reply. He wished, however, to rectify an omission he had made in stating the case in respect of the Amendment. Under the Amendment a sufficient number of clerical Fellowships would be retained for

  1263
  religious instruction and worship; after which all Fellowships quâ Fellowships would be open. It would, however, be in the discretion of the Commissioners to provide an additional clerical Fellowship or two in any of the Colleges.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 69; Not-Contents 103: Majority 34.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Carrington, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Chesham, L.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Crewe, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Dinevor, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Hammond, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Hatherley, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Granville, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Ilchester, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Minto, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Morley, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Spencer, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Robartes, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Cardwell, V.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Eversley, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Beaumont, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Sudeley, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Carew, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Winchester, M.

  Marlborough, D.

  Amherst, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bantry, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Bathurst, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Bradford, E.

  Bath, M.

  Cadogan, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Clonmell, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  De La Warr, E.

  1264

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Colchester, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Feversham, E.

  DeL'Isleand Dudley,L.

  Harewood, E.

  Denman, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  de Ros, L. [Teller.]

  Jersey, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Digby, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Morton, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Powis, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Verulam, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Gordon of Drumearn,L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Harlech, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.']

  Harris, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Lifford, V.

  Hastings, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Leconfield L.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Manners, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  London, L. Bp.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Raglan, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford)

  Airey, L.

  Alington, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Ventry, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Zouche of Haryng

  Clonbrock, L.

  worth, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Objects of statutes for University).
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEexpressed a hope that there would be some provision of a permanent character for the promotion of the Fine Arts at the Universities.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the suggestion of the noble Viscount would be well worthy of the consideration of the Commissioners; and as those gentlemen would have the power of hearing evidence, he hoped his noble Friend would go before them and explain his views.
  On Sub-section 6 (for abolishing Professorships or Lectureships),
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that by their local examinations and lectures in large manufacturing towns the Universities were breaking entirely new ground and were penetrating to centres where there were many persons possessed of great means who were interested in promoting various branches of learning which had a practical application to manufactures and commerce, and who, provided they had a security that their foundations would be carried out, would be likely to make very munificent gifts, either for new branches of science in the Universities, or by establishing Lectureships in those great centres of industry. Those persons being shrewd and businesslike, would not be disposed to give their money freely for such a purpose unless they had some such security as he had indicated. It was not simply a question of disregarding the intentions of the pious Founder, or of discouraging testamentary benefactions; but it was a question of deterring persons of large property from making benefactions and creating new Professorships or Lectureships while alive, by gift. He was not aware that there was any redundancy of Professorships or Lectureships, and he had supposed the Bill to be intended to extend rather than to contract the teaching powers of the Universities. If it were intended to amalgamate existing Professorships, that was already effected by Sub-section 4; all that was desired could be effected, without brandishing the bugbear of abolition before them. In order to bring the question before the attention of the noble Marquess he would move the omission of that Sub-section.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his impression was that this sub-section had been introduced into the Bill in the other House to gratify some ardent Liberals who were in favour of abolition generally. He did not, however, think it would be well to expunge it now without inquiry. He could imagine a case arising in which it might be desirable to combine the Lectureships in two Colleges.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYproposed, after Clause 22 (Union of colleges and halls, or combination for education) to insert the following clause:—
  "The Commissioners in statutes made by them may also, subject to the consent of the majority of the Governing Body of a College, make provision for the appropriation of the property of any College in the University of Oxford for the purposes of the Bodleian Library, and for that purpose for the complete or partial union of that College with any authority or institute in the University."
  The Bodleian Library was a most magnificent institution, but the funds appropriated for its support were insufficient.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that he was favourable to the partial endowment of the Bodleian Library from the revenues of College referred to (All Souls) (supposing the principle of the diversion of College revenues to University purposes to be generally adopted); but that he was opposed to the complete union of the College with any University institution, as its Fellowships under the present system performed a useful function as encouragement to the study of Law and Modern History.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the object contemplated by the noble Earl was provided for in the 16th clause, which enabled the Commissioners to make such application of the revenues of the Colleges as they might think fit. He should not, however, object to the clause in a modified form, and would consider the matter before bringing up the Report.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clauses 23 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
  Representation of Colleges and Halls.
  Clauses 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
  Schools.
  Clauses 39 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.
  Universities Committee of Privy Council.
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Confirmation or Disallowance of Statutes.
  Clauses 45 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
  Effect of Statutes.
  Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
  Alteration of Statutes.
  Clauses 53 to 55, inclusive, agreed to.
  Reference of other Statutes to Universities Committee.
  Clause 56 agreed to.
  Tests Act, 1871.
  Clauses 57 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.
  Land.
  Clause 60 agreed to.
  Electoral Roll, Cambridge.
  Clause 61 agreed to.
  Schedule.
  The Report of the Amendments to he received on Tuesday next; and Bill to he printed, as amended. (No. 146.)

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY—REDUCTION OF STAFF.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked, For what reasons a reduction was made on the 31st of January, 1876, in the number of assistants employed on the Ordnance Survey?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that in the years 1874–5 and in 1875–6 there was a considerable excess of expenditure for the Ordnance Survey over the amount voted, and the Treasury, not thinking it right that the sum granted by Parliament should be exceeded, was compelled to superannuate some of the staff employed in order to keep the expenditure within the Vote.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHobserved that the alteration of scale in the Ordnance maps was a source of great inconvenience. He trusted the Survey on the large scale would be continued.
House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.