Sitting of 18 July 1879

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Ennis, v. William Stacpoole, esquire, deceased.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Great Northern Railway (Ireland).
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation (Commencement) [Expenses]*.
Ordered—First Reading—Poor Law (Scotland) (No. 2)* [252].
Second Reading—Public Health (Ireland) Act (1878) Amendment* [128]; Petroleum Act (1871) Amendment* [214].
Select Committee—Knightsbridge and other Crown Lands* [231], nominated.
Considered as amended—Railways and Telegraphs in India* [234].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Army Discipline and Regulation [245], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords.] (By Order).

    CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. VERNER, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 17, line 12, to

    745
    leave out the words, "if any," said, that his object in putting it on the Paper was to ask the House to accept it in the interests of a number of the employés of the Newry and Armagh Railway Company, whose position was destroyed by the passing of this measure. An agreement for amalgamation had been entered into by the Great Northern of Ireland and the Newry and Armagh Railway Companies, and the object of the Bill was to give a Parliamentary sanction to the agreement for the fusion of the two undertakings. Unfortunately, however, that fusion would lead to the dismissal of the employés and servants of the smaller Company; and, therefore, he proposed to amend Clause 14, which, with the words "if any," limited the compensation which was due to the officials of the Newry and Armagh Company, by providing that compensation, not exceeding on the whole the sum of £3,000 be substituted, which would be at the rate of two years' salary or remuneration to each of those officers, computed according to the amount paid for the year ending 31st December last. As a matter of fair play they were entitled to some compensation, and no one doubted the justice of their claims; but, unfortunately, the Rules and Standing Orders of the House threw some difficulty in the way, and they were thus prevented from having their just claims placed before the Committee to which the consideration of the Bill had been referred. That Committee had given the Bill great consideration; but, still, as these men could not come before them to establish their claims, it might be said it had not received all the consideration it deserved. It was clear that, bad it not been for the energy displayed by the servants of the Newry and Armagh Company, the line would have been extinct many years ago. They had succeeded in bringing it to such a condition that the directors and shareholders were able to make a very profitable, or, at all events, a very fair bargain with the Great Northern Company; but he was given to understand that the directors of the Newry and Armagh Company, in apportioning the purchase-money, did not propose to give any of it in compensation to those who had been for some time past their honest servants, save in one instance—that of Mr. Fearnley, the secretary of the Newry and Armagh Railway,
    746
    who was to get the small sum of one year's salary. The employés of the Newry and Armagh Company had not received any advances from the Great Northern Company to take them into their employment, nor had they had any consideration from their own directors. They would, therefore, be cast on the world without the means of earning their bread; and everybody knew that in these depressed times, especially in Ireland, it would be very difficult for these men to obtain employment similar to that in which they had hitherto been engaged. He believed that nearly every Railway Company in Ireland was well supplied with servants; and, therefore, did not require the men who were to be discharged from the Newry and Armagh Line. He thought it was a great hardship to them that they should, at what he might call a moment's notice, be thus thrown adrift upon the labour market, which, in Ireland, was overcrowded, so that it was hard for them to obtain fresh work. It was possible the Great Northern Company might give them something to do further on; but, in the meantime, they had sent in a petition to their own directors, but be regretted to say that the petition had not been favourably entertained. In all previous amalgamations the interests of the officers and servants of the disestablished Company had been considered; but, in this instance, the directors had virtually refused to give any compensation to their employés, and hence it was he moved the Amendment, in order to allow of the directors doing justly by their servants, and to obtain an expression of opinion on the part of the House, to the effect that justice had hardly been done to the claims of the employés. It did not follow that, because all of the employés might not have been a long time in the service, there were not a large number deserving of compensation for the loss of their position, and he could not see why they should be shut out from obtaining it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 12, to leave out the words "if any."—(Mr. Verner.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'if any' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDimagined that, as Chairman of the Committee

    747
    which sat on the Bill upstairs, it became his duty to say that it would be wrong for the House to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Verner). He understood, when the Bill for the amalgamation of the two undertakings was considered by the Referees, the servants of the smaller Company—the Newry and Armagh—which was, practically speaking, nearly bankrupt, petitioned to be allowed to appear before the Committee in order to endeavour to obtain compulsory compensation upon their discharge from the various offices they had held. Their locus standi was disallowed. Subsequently, application was made to him, as Chairman of the Committee, to insert in the Bill some such clause as the hon. Member had upon the Paper. It appeared to him, however, that, first of all, he would be going far beyond his province as Chairman in proposing, and, in the second place, that the Committee would go far beyond the practice of Committees in inserting, such a clause. Besides that, it also seemed to him that, upon general principles, such a proposal was objectionable, and that to have accepted it would have been to establish an injurious precedent. The hon. Member now proposed that every officer of the Newry and Armagh Company, whatever be the length of time he had been engaged in their service, should have compensation at the rate of two years' salary, besides six months' notice to quit. To lay down such a general principle upon a bare statement of facts like that just made by the hon. Gentleman would be to establish a very injurious precedent. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had made some inquiry on the subject, and he could not find any precedent for such action. The words in the clause of the Bill, as it now stood, were the correct ones—namely, that the Company should take over the business of the other Company, and—
    "Shall be liable for any retiring allowances and for any compensation, if any, which may be due to their officers and servants."
    He did not think they ought to say that the large compensation should be due which the hon. Member desired to establish. He was told that several servants had only been a few months in the employ of the Company, and these would come under the operation of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He
    748
    did not think the House of Commons would say that any such proceedings could possibly be allowed; and, therefore, he considered it his duty to ask the House to resist the Amendment.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNElikewise regarded it his duty to object to the Amendment. There was no justice whatever in giving compensation to officers, when two railways were being amalgamated by their own consent. It was clearly to the advantage of the shareholders of the Newry and Armagh Company that they should be amalgamated; and, therefore, their servants had no claim upon the Great Northern Company.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he would not have risen to make any observations on the subject, had it not been for certain remarks made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid), who was Chairman of the Committee. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the Newry and Armagh Company as bankrupt. That was hardly borne out by the facts, seeing that the Great Northern was about to pay the shareholders £2 10 s. per share, and pay off, at the rate of 20 s. in the pound, all their debts and equitable liabilities. The hon. Baronet, who, no doubt, referred to the earlier difficulties of the Company, would not, he presumed, question this explanation, for if the Company was really insolvent the shareholders should not receive back any of their capital.
    MR. RAIKESremarked, that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Verner) was good enough to call his (Mr. Raikes') attention to the matter yesterday. There could be no doubt that the House was always anxious that no servant should suffer in consequence of an amalgamation; yet, at the same time, the House well knew, from what had been said, that they would be departing from precedent if they were to accept the present Amendment. In the case of any public undertaking, which was purchased by, or amalgamated with, a large public corporation, provision was frequently made for compensation to the officers of the disestablished Company. But the present Bill contained a provision which was sufficiently strong in that respect, inasmuch as it was recited that any compensation or retiring allowances which were due should be paid by the Company which took over the smaller Company.

    749
    His hon. Friend, however, proposed that the House should specify the precise amount of that compensation. To adopt such a course would be very dangerous. Several of the officers might only, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had said, have been in the service of the Newry and Armagh Company for a very short time, and, therefore, were certainly not entitled to anything like the compensation proposed. That being so, he thought it would be desirable to leave the Company to do justice to the servants; and he was disposed to think that the Great Northern Company would act liberally, because he was given to understand that they had adopted a more liberal scale of compensation than was generally adopted. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. DE LA POER BERESFORDthought that the servants of the Newry and Armagh Company had strong claims upon the directors of the Great Northern Company, and the directors themselves acknowledged this claim, because, in a clause in the Bill, they agree to pay all retiring allowances and compensation to their officers and servants. Speaking from his own experience, he could say that these men were most efficient; and, at the present time, it would be a very great and severe trial upon them to be turned out of their employment, which many of them had enjoyed for a considerable time. He had pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that both in the interest of the Railway Company and the borough of Armagh, it was well that the Newry and Armagh Line should be amalgamated with the Great Northern. He would not advise the House to depart from precedent by adopting a proposal such as the present. He could hardly help thinking that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. De La Poer Beresford) had the interest of his political supporters in that city at heart, in supporting the Amendment in the way he had.
    MR. DE LA POER BERESFORDreplied, that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) was completely in error. Every one of those men voted against him at the last Election.
    MR. BIGGARopposed the Amendment. The Great Northern Company
    750
    had given the full value for the railway, as awarded by the arbitrators, and why they should be asked, in addition, to pay compensation allowances to the servants, he could not conceive. He trusted the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Verner) would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. These men were sure to obtain employment if their services were of any value.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  DESPATCH No. 4 (LEGISLATIVE) INDIA —OPINIONS UPON AND CORRESPONDENCE.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON (for Sir DAVID WEDDERBURN)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of Despatch, No. 4 (Legislative), dated the 26th December 1878, together with the opinions of the local Governments and of the local officers, European and Native, to whom that Despatch was referred?
  MR. E. STANHOPE, in reply, said, that as soon as the Correspondence was complete there would be no objection whatever to lay it on the Table; and he would endeavour to make such a selection of Papers as would give full information upon the subject.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—TOWN INSPECTOR OF BELFAST.

    QUESTION.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will give an assurance that upon the occurrence of a vacancy, well known to be imminent, in the Inspectorship of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast, the principle of promotion of deserving officers within the force, recommended, with reference to its highest posts, by the Irish Constabulary Commission of 1866, will be adhered to, and the post given in accordance with the general usages of the force, to one of its officers?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, with regard to this supposed vacancy taking place, I stated the other day, in reply to a Ques-

    751
    tion put to me by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that I had received a communication from the officer referred to, in which he stated that he was quite restored to health, and he was happy to say he never felt better in his life; and I went on to express a hope that he would be spared for many years to the public service. I have no doubt proper steps will be taken to fill up a vacancy when it occurs; but I have no particular information with regard to it.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ASIATIC PROVINCES OF TURKEY.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, having regard to the decided language of the Marquess of Salisbury's Despatch, dated 8th August 1878, respecting the "measures of reform required specially for the Armenians," and the frequent complaints that have since been made of "abuses in government" and "miscarriage of justice" from that part of Asia Minor in which they constitute by far the largest portion of the population, any recent correspondence has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Ottoman Porte with a view of giving effect to the provisions of the Treaty and Convention in this respect; and, whether it has been proposed to place the Armenians under some such administration as has worked so satisfactorily in the Lebanon?
  MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir, Correspondence has taken place, and is taking place, between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte, with the view referred to. In regard to the second part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that although two Commissions have been sent by the Porte to Asia Minor, one to Erzeroum and the other to the Vilayet of the Lebanon, with the view of inaugurating the new laws in that country, and also with the view of seeing whether the Organic Statute, which has been passed for Eastern Roumelia, could be brought into operation in that territory, yet it has not been proposed that the system of administration which has existed in the Lebanon for some years past—I think since 1862—should be introduced into the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, Whether any Papers on the subject of
  752
  reforms in Turkey would be distributed within the next two or three days?
  MR. BOURKE: Some Papers will be laid upon the Table this evening. They are very short; and I am not quite certain whether they can be said to apply to reforms in Turkey. They only, I believe, deal with one point.

  METROPOLIS—EDUCATIONAL CHARITIES OF LONDON.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it would be possible to obtain the Report and Return of the Committee appointed by the London School Board on London Educational Charities, and to present it to the House and print it for the information of Parliament?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, that he was not aware that there was any Report of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman, or that there was any Committee of the London School Board specially appointed to report on the Educational Charities of London; but there was a Standing Committee, which reported on the schemes of the Endowed Schools' Commissioners, and its Report s were accessible to every ratepayer of the Metropolis, so that there was no necessity to lay them on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. RATHBONEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can say when the Government propose to bring the Contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for conveyance of the Eastern Mails before the House?
    MR. ISAACasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Contracts provisionally entered into for the conveyance of Mails to India and China will be submitted to the House for confirmation?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, he wished he could give a more definite assurance as to the day on which he hoped to be able to do what hon. Members required in their Questions; but in the present state of Business it was almost impossible to fix anything with certainty. He would put

    753
    the matter down for Tuesday week, in the hope that he might be able to bring it on on that day.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "WARRIOR."

    QUESTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, previous to the forthcoming discussion of the Navy Estimates, he has any objection to the iron model (18 inches by 10 inches) being exhibited, showing the actual construction of the "Warrior," together with the particulars thereunto appended, so that Members may have an opportunity of inspecting the same?
    MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, he was not aware whether there was such a model, with the particulars mentioned; but there were several models in the Museum at Greenwich Hospital, which was open to the inspection of Members, to whom every facility would be afforded for seeing them. It would not be convenient to remove the models from a place where they were a constant object of study.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—EXAMINATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War, Under what conditions successful candidates at the coming examination in August will enter the Army Medical Department; whether under the Warrant now in force, limiting their service to ten years, or under a new Warrant, which has been promised, but is not yet published?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, the usual Notice had been given. He hoped that by that time the new Warrant now under the consideration of the Treasury, and which in substance carried out a good many of the recommendations of the Medical Committee of last year, would have been issued; but if it were not, the examinations would be held under the old one.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE AUSTRALIAN MAILS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Postmaster General, Whether (inasmuch as forty-one to forty-two days are usually occupied in the transmission of letters to Melbourne by the means of conveyance adopted by the Post Office, while
  754
  private Steam vessels have been known to perform the voyage in thirty-seven days) he can inform the House whether any and what steps are being taken to accelerate that mail service, in accordance with the prayer of various Memorials which have been addressed to the Department?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, when the new Contract between the Imperial Government and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company and the new Contract concluded between the Government of Victoria and the same Company take effect, on the 1st of February next, there will be an acceleration of the mail service from England to Melbourne to the extent of fully five days. The time to be occupied between London and Point de Galle will be a little over 20 days, and the time to be occupied between Point de Galle and Melbourne will be 19 days, or in all 39 days.

  FRENCH AND ENGLISH MARRIAGE LAWS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARDCASTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that marriages contracted in this country between French men and English women in accordance with English law, are, in the absence of certain elaborate formalities required by French law, the necessity for which is generally unknown in this Country, absolutely void in France; whether numerous instances have been recently brought under his notice in which English women so married, after living for years without doubt as to the legality of their marriage, have been abandoned by their husbands in France on the ground that their marriage was informal; and, whether, pending any diplomatic negotiation which may be undertaken for the amendment of the French law in this respect, he will issue instructions to persons qualified to perform marriages in this Country, in order that when notice is given of such intended marriages between French men and English women, both parties may be informed what are the requirements of the French law?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have no doubt that the first paragraph of the Question substantially states what the existing French law is; but my

  755
  noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury) has promised to obtain absolutely correct information upon that point. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, I am sorry to say there can be no doubt whatever that many most heart-rending cases have taken place precisely as therein described; and I should be very glad indeed to do anything in my power to prevent a recurrence of such cases. I shall consult with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor as to what means can be taken for making the existing French law known. More than that, I do not think my hon. Friend can expect me at the present moment to say.

  NAVY—NAVIGATING OFFICERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, inasmuch as additional pay is offered (by the Circular of 27th May, 1879) to executive officers who qualify for and perform, navigating duties, it is intended to grant similar emoluments to the old navigating officers who have performed those duties for years past, so as to place the latter on an equality with executive officers in pay and position; and, if not, whether the Admiralty will offer some increased facilities to the old navigating officers to retire from a position which many of them felt to be humiliating?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, so far as pay is concerned, navigating lieutenants have an advantage over lieutenants on the executive list who undertake navigating duties. I entertain, a high sense of the value of the services of the navigating officers of the Fleet, and I should be exceedingly sorry to hear that any of them supposed their position to be a humiliating one. I am not aware of any grounds for this feeling. As a matter of fact, the pay and position of these officers have been improved in recent years; but I do not see my way to offer additional inducements for retirement, as the existing scale is, in my judgment, a liberal one.

  ARMY—THE 60TH RIFLES—CASE OF COLOUR SERGEANT DICKATY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Judge Advocate General, with reference to the
    756
    trial of Colour Sergeant Dickaty, of the 60th Rifles, under the 52nd Article of War, for shamefully abandoning his post, Whether the sentence of reduction to the ranks and five years' penal servitude which was passed upon him has been merely remitted, or whether the proceedings of the court martial have been quashed or set aside; whether the offence under which the prisoner was arraigned, and the sentence passed upon him, will be recorded against him in the regimental defaulter's book; whether it is to be understood that the prisoner is considered to be morally as well as legally innocent of the charge preferred against him; and, whether it is not really the fact that Colour Sergeant Dickaty behaved well under difficult circumstances?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Sir, with reference to the first two parts of the Question, I have already explained to the hon. Member the action I have taken in this matter. The consequence is that the proceedings of the court martial are altogether set aside, and no record of the conviction will remain in the regimental defaulters' book, and thus the prisoner is in the same position as if he had never been tried. With reference to the last two parts, I yesterday informed the hon. Member that the evidence adduced at the trial did not appear to me to warrant the conviction; and I think that, according to official and Parliamentary usages, I cannot be called upon to give him any further opinion. The proceedings of the court martial are now in my custody, and are open to the inspection of the hon. Member, or of any other hon. Member of the House.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE QUEEN v. CASTRO.—QUESTION.
  DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering that evidence has been brought to his notice since the conviction of the claimant to the Tichborne estates in February 1874, and the fact that, according to usage, the sentence passed upon him for swearing that he was not Arthur Orton would expire on the 10th of August next; considering also the grave legal doubts that the Court had power to give more than one sentence for a supposed perjury, and that the jury

  757
  have made certain statements as to the circumstances under which they found their verdict, he would advise Her Majesty to liberate the prisoner on the 10th of August next; and, if not, whether he will forthwith investigate the numerous matters to which his attention has been called in support of the identity of the claimant with. Roger Tichborne; whether the Officers of the Treasury have made any report to the Home Secretary regarding the evidence of Captain Barry, of New Zealand; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Reports from the different governors of the various prisons in which the claimant has been confined tending to show that he cannot be Arthur Orton; whether it is true that Her Majesty's Ministers, or any of them, advised the Queen to send a telegram of sympathy to Lady Radcliffe, congratulating her upon the result of the trial; and, whether, as a matter of fact, the trial of the claimant has not cost the country more than a quarter of a million of money?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I am afraid that my answer will not give more satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman than some of my previous ones; but I will answer the Question to the best of my ability. I see that he refers to grave legal doubts; but what they are is not quite clear from the terms of the Question. The legality of the sentence, I apprehend, is not a matter for the Secretary of State to try. The prisoner is in custody under a sentence of a Court of Justice, and unless that sentence is set aside by a competent authority, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to see that it is carried out, unless there are reasons to the contrary on other grounds. I can see no reason at the present moment, having carefully considered all the matters laid before me relating to the case in question, to alter the decision I originally came to. I have stated in the House, more than once, that it is not my intention to interfere with the execution and carrying out of that sentence. The Solicitor to the Treasury has had all the Papers relating to Captain Barry, and I am advised by him that there is no reason why any action should be taken by me with respect to these Papers. I am not aware whether any Reports have been received from the governors of prisons tending to show that the prisoner is not
  758
  Arthur Orton. There are a great mass of Papers which I directed to be searched to-day; but nothing of the kind has been discovered in them, and that is the only information that I have received. I am not aware that any of Her Majesty's Ministers advised the Queen to send a telegram of sympathy to Lady Radcliffe, or to anyone else connected with this case. With regard to the last part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the Secretary to the Treasury, who has been asked about the expense on several occasions. It does not come within my Department.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE LATEST TELEGRAM.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish, Sir, to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information in regard to the peace negotiations in South Africa, beyond that which he gave very late last night; and, also, whether he has had his attention drawn to the statement in The Daily Telegraph of this morning, that Sir Garnet Wolseley had interfered with, or, it may be said, overruled, the action of Lord Chelmsford in regard to these negotiations?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Yes, Sir, I am now in a position to give the House fuller information than I could give this morning, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). It appears, from the telegrams I will read, that Sir Garnet Wolseley has taken a somewhat different course with regard to communications from Cetywayo to that taken by Lord Chelmsford. [For Telegrams, see ante pp. 731–732.]

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT-SPECIAL POLICE TAXES.

    QUESTIONS.
    MAJOR NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If certain properties have been exempted from the police tax imposed on districts in Connemara, and, if so, have these exemptions tended to raise the tax levied on other proprietors and tenants?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The object which it is sought to attain by the imposition of a special police tax is to reach through their pockets those persons who are the

    759
    aiders and abettors of, or sympathizers with, the outrages which have made it necessary to employ an additional force. In instances, however, in which it is manifest that no complicity or sympathy exists, such, for instance, as in the case of persons who have been themselves the object of attack or threats, it is usual to grant exemptions. In reference to the particular case of Connemara, some slight exemptions have been made in the direction I have indicated. Such exemptions made since the imposition of the tax will not increase its incidence in the case of the other parties who are liable, though it would be otherwise if the levy had not been already made. Two extra drafts of police have been charged for; two others will not be charged for, unless further outrage occurs.
    MR. PARNELLwished to know by what means the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that certain occupiers were wholly guiltless, and that certain others were not guilty for the purposes of the tax?
    MR. BIGGARalso wished to inquire in what way the right hon. Gentleman discovered who were sympathizers and who were not?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The question of the hon. Gentlemen has inverted the order of things. I would observe that the exemptions were the exception and the imposition of the tax the rule. In certain cases, where it is manifest that parties are not in any way responsible—as, for instance, the objects of attack, and others in the same category—they are exempted from contributing to the tax. The exemptions, I will add, are made on the report of the authorities employed in the locality.
    MR. CALLANasked, under what Act the Government was authorized to make exemptions, and also whether Grand Juries had any power in the matter?
    MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, that the exemptions were made under the Peace Preservation Act; but he was not prepared to give the section.

  PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—STATEMENT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to make an appeal to those hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the Paper for the Evening
  760
  Sitting. The Business of the afternoon was the consideration of the Report of Amendment on the Army Discipline Bill. In the event of that not being concluded by 7 o'clock, he should be glad if hon. Gentlemen would postpone the Motions of which they had given Notice, so as to allow the present stage of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill to be completed in the evening. If hon. Members would accede to this appeal, it might not be necessary to ask the House to sit on Saturday; otherwise, they might be under the necessity of making that request.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was the only Member present who had a Notice on the Paper. He was bound to say that, with every desire to assist the progress of Public Business, he would not feel it to be his duty to yield to the present request, unless the Government placed him in an equally favourable position for bringing the subject forward on some future occasion. The subject which stood in his name with reference to the release of Theodoridi was an important one, and one in regard to which he had three times unsuccessfully balloted for a place.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 245.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 245.]

    FURTHER PROCEEDING ON CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED [17th July.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to the Bill [17th July] (on Consideration, as amended); and which Amendment was, in page 2, line 19, to insert, after the word "enemy," the words "in such manner as to show cowardice."—(Colonel Stanley.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. E. JENKINSstrongly objected to any addition to the offences liable to the death penalty. Those who objected to flogging would resist to the utmost any attempt to increase or to

    761
    widen any of the offences now liable to that punishment. He would like to know what motive the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had in proposing this vague Amendment?
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that in military parlance misbehaving meant showing cowardice before the enemy; but, lest it should be taken in a more extensive sense, he proposed to limit it by inserting the explanatory words of the Amendment. Instead of extending the punishment of death, as the hon. Member supposed, it would go in the direction of further limiting its infliction.
    MR. O'DONNELLobjected to the Amendment, and to the punishment of death being inflicted for an offence so vaguely described as "cowardice." He thought the Amendment should be amended, so as to show that cowardice would only be punished where it was demonstrated in some unmistakable manner. Imputations of individual cowardice were easy to be made when a scapegoat was wanted, and a mere act of inadvertence might be mistaken for cowardice. By the German Military Code, before a soldier could be convicted of the crime in question, he must have "shown cowardice bywords or signs to induce his comrades to take flight."
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he would remind the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that a soldier could not be convicted of cowardice until after full inquiry by a court martial, and it might fairly be left to that tribunal to determine whether the particular offence of cowardice was deserving of punishment by death or otherwise. The cowardice contemplated by the Amendment was evidently such as would be committed in the face of the enemy, and no one could doubt that it was the worst possible offence a soldier could commit.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLrose to move the omission of sub-section 7 from the clause, making this offence punishable with death.
    MR. SPEAKERthereupon pointed out to the hon. Member that he could not do so. They had already dealt with the portion of the section to which the hon. Member referred, so far as to authorize the insertion of the words, "in
    762
    such manner as to show cowardice." The sub-section must, therefore, stand, and could not be left out.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would have moved to omit several of the sub-sections; but after the adoption of the Resolution last night, he could only now, by the Rules of the House, attempt to modify them. He objected to making soldiers brave by the lash; and, for his own part, he believed that if a soldier preferred flogging to death, it would be that he might have the opportunity of shooting the officer who ordered it. He would move an Amendment to the clause to limit still further its operation, by the addition of the words, "by words or signs inducing his comrades to take flight," to the sub-section. He considered it was very desirable that some such words should be inserted, for he protested against the folly of shooting a young soldier who happened to show nervousness in his first battle, and who would soon get over it. He recollected that when he first addressed the House he felt very considerable nervousness. People's nerves were not always the same; but they were the most uncontrollable portions of physiology, and punishment ought not to be inflicted for what, after all, might be a matter of physical and nervous infirmity, as to which it was not in the power of a man to control his action. In submitting the Amendment, he was only following the analogy of the German Military Code. The hon. Member concluded his remarks without moving the Amendment to which he had referred, whereupon,
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no Question now before the House. The hon. Member for Meath had said that he intended to conclude with an Amendment, but had sat down without doing so. By taking that course, he (Mr. Speaker) considered the hon. Member had shown great disrespect to the House.
    MR. PARNELL (coming up to the Chair with his Amendment): I beg to say, Sir, that when I rose I read out my Amendment, "bywords or signs inducing his comrades to take flight." I supposed that, in doing so, I had done all that was necessary in moving it; but, of course, if I am wrong—for I am not much experienced in the proceedings of this House on Report of Committees—I shall, in future, comply with the

    763
    Form, and endeavour not to make a similar mistake again. I can only say that I had no intention of showing any disrespect whatever.
    [The hon. Member then handed his Amendment to Mr. Speaker, saying that, if in Order, he now formally moved it.]
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "by words or signs inducing his comrades to take flight."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEY, in opposing the Amendment, said, that all matters connected with the offence contemplated by the sub-section would have to be proved upon evidence before a court martial, and it might safely be left to the discretion of that tribunal to deal with them properly.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 20, to insert, after the word "death," the following words:—
    "Provided, That in the case of persons charged under sections two, six, and seven, serious loss to Her Majesty's forces has been proved to have been the consequence of this act."
    His object was to limit the number of offences involving the penalty of death, which, under the clause, appeared to him to be of too general application. In moving the Amendment, he was only asking the House to follow the provisions of the German Military Code. In his opinion, leaving out of view altogether the powers it gave for flogging, the Military Code of England was the most bloody and barbarous in Europe; and he was, therefore, obliged to be very determined in his opposition to it, especially as some persons had attributed inhumanity to him and those with whom lie had the honour to act. For himself, however, he must say that he denied in toto the imputation that he was less humane than any other hon. Member. He would conclude by moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 20, after the word "death," to insert the words "Provided, That in the case of persons charged under sections two, six, and
    764
    seven, serious loss to Her Majesty's forces has been proved to have been the consequence of this act."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he could not accept the Amendment, which laid down the principle that the heinous-ness of the offence should be measured by its consequences—a principle which was entirely foreign to the discipline of the English Army.
    CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEalso opposed the Amendment, and remarked that the idea of proposing it could only have originated in a general ignorance on the part of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) of military matters and the exigencies of discipline. He (Captain Milne-Home) considered the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War conclusive upon the point.
    SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIR, in supporting the Amendment, said, that within the last day or two he had had an opportunity of speaking to a distinguished German officer, the Military Attaché at the German Embassy, who was in charge of a corps d'armée of 36,000 men during the whole of the Franco-German War, and who informed him that not a single German soldier in that corps had been shot for any offence whatever. He also stated that other Generals who held similar positions had had the same experience; so that in several corps d'armée, numbering between 100,000 and 200,000 men, it had not been found necessary to inflict death in a single instance. The same circumstance existed in connection with the French Armies; and he should, therefore, like to know why the same motives which guided and restrained Frenchmen, Germans, and Americans, should not control Englishmen in the Army? To say they would not was an aspersion upon our nation and Army. Why not, he asked, inflict flogging upon officers as well as men?
    MR. SPEAKERdesired the hon. Baronet to confine himself directly to the Amendment. The question of flogging was not before the House.
    SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, he had conceived that flogging was so mixed up with the death penalty that it might refer to it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose to Order, and said, that if the hon. Baronet was going to dispute Mr. Speaker's ruling, he apprehended Mr. Speaker would desire to submit the matter to the House.
    MR. PARNELLdenied that the hon. Baronet had contested Mr. Speaker's ruling.
    MR. SPEAKER: I invited the hon. Member to apply himself to the Amendment before the House, and if he will do so there will be no interposition on my part.
    SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRwillingly bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and though he had intended to address several observations to the House on the subject of flogging he would refrain from doing so. He supported the Amendment.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasserted that though soldiers in Germany and France were not ordered by courts martial to suffer corporal punishment, they were often thoroughly well flogged and licked on active service.
    MR. RYLANDSthought that if they were ever to get through the Session they must refrain from re-opening the discussion upon flogging. Indeed, after the decision last evening, no other course was open to them. He could not support the Amendment, because it limited to a great extent the action of Commanders in time of war.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, when in Committee, he withdrew his Amendments limiting the cases in which flogging could be inflicted, on the distinct assurance that he would be able to discuss them when the Report was under consideration to-day. If the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was satisfied with the victory of the Liberal Party last night, all he (Mr. Parnell) could say was, he sympathized with him.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONcould not regard the Amendment in any other light than as being opposed to equity and justice.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Offences in relation to the enemy not punishable with death).
    MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, to omit sub-section 5, under which, he said, it would be possible for a court
    766
    martial to sentence a newspaper correspondent to penal servitude for anything he wrote home to his newspaper. He could not imagine how any newspaper correspondent could, while this subsection was maintained, perform his duty properly. He would be entirely at the beck and nod of any Commander, who might summon him before a court martial for anything that he wrote, and he might be sent to penal servitude.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out sub-section 5 of Clause 5.—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section 5 stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL STANLEYmade no reply.
    MR. BIGGARasked why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was silent as to the views of the Government upon the question? For himself, he could see no reason for not accepting the Amendment.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsuggested that the word "wilfully" should be introduced after the word "writing," in order that a man might not be punished for writing in innocence and without any wilful intent.
    MR. SULLIVANthought some words should be inserted, in order that protection should be afforded to newspaper correspondents against the irascibility of commanders whose conduct they might have criticized. Under the clause, the correspondent of The Daily News in South Africa might be brought under the action of a court martial. Newspaper correspondence was beneficial to the public, and he objected entirely to the action of this clause. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would state the views of the Government on the Amendment.
    MR. RYLANDShoped the clause would be modified, so as not to include newspaper correspondents. Occasionally, they could not help "spreading reports calculated to occasion alarm and despondency," and for that they might be subjected to severe punishment.
    MR. CALLAN, on the other hand, hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. He had no sympathy with sensational war correspondence. With all due respect for the great services rendered by Dr. Russell and other equally celebrated correspondents during

    767
    late wars, lie thought there were far superior considerations to the conventional respect paid to the newspaper correspondents at the seat of war. Commanders should have power to deter correspondents from writing sensational reports to increase the circulation of the papers rather than give true information. He wished, further, to point out that great injury had been done to the French cause during the Franco-German War in consequence of correspondents spreading reports calculated to cause unnecessary alarm.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it would not be right to strike out the sub-section; neither did he think these words were unduly harsh in an Article of War which had existed for a long time. Nothing could have been more unfavourable than reports sent home, at various times, from persons with the Army on foreign service; and the authorities had not exhibited any desire to take action, unless the effect of the reports was to produce alarm or despondency among the troops. If a man went about among them, saying—"We have got no supplies; they are thinking nothing about us at home; why don't you desert?"—there could hardly be a question but that he should be liable to severe punishment. Why was he to be exempted from the consequences merely because he put it in writing? The law had always been read and acted upon in the light of common sense. A man would be liable to punishment only on conviction by a court martial composed of officers who were gentlemen, and were sworn to try the facts. However strong the words might be, he did not believe that any practical application of them would be found to be unduly harsh.
    MR. E. JENKINSurged that newspaper correspondents were now for the first time brought under military law, and pointed out that the old Mutiny Act had not referred to newspaper correspondents, and that the spreading of alarming reports which was made punishable under the old Act meant the spreading of these reports in the Army itself. Nothing should be done to restrain free and honest criticism of the operations of an Army and the conduct of its Generals in letters sent to journals at home. There was all the difference between the conduct described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of
    768
    State for War and the writing of such letters as Dr. Russell sent from the Crimea. Although those letters did undoubtedly create alarm and despondency at the time, yet he would remind the House that they ultimately led to great and much-needed reforms. The words, he thought, should be—" create alarm and despondency in the Army."
    SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War seemed only to be afraid of the despondency which might be created amongst the soldiers, he would propose that the words, "amongst the troops in the field," be inserted in the section.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that his proposal to omit the sub-section was, perhaps, too sweeping, and, in order to allow the Amendment just suggested to be moved, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No, no!"]
    SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRagain rose to make some remarks, when
    MR. SPEAKERruled that ho could not do so, as he had already addressed the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 42: Majority 181.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
    SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRmoved, as an Amendment, to add to the sub-section the following rider, after the word "or"—"insubordination: Provided such reports are wilfully spread among the troops in the field."
    MR. SULLIVANseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 37, to insert, after the word "or," the words "insubordination: Provided such reports are wilfully spread among troops in the field."—(Sir Tollemache Sinclair.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the words proposed were not free from objection. This section had existed for a considerable time in the old Act, and it had never been found to operate prejudicially. Its wording showed that it could not apply to newspaper correspondents.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved, that the fact that this provision had existed for some time could hardly be, because, on refer-

    769
    ring to the old Act, he found that the words "in the vicinity or rear of the Army" were in the clause, and this continued certainly as late as 1871. Correspondents did not publish their letters in the vicinity or rear of the Army.
    MR. E. JENKINSthought the Government might agree to put in these words, which formerly were in the old Act. The creation of alarm and despondency at home was never intended to be punished by the Mutiny Act. Newspaper articles from South Africa might have great effect in this country, but could have none on the Army there.
    MR. ANDERSONobserved, that this clause, as it stood, seemed intended to catch newspaper correspondents. He should like to know, if that provision had been in existence, what would have happened to the correspondent of The Standard with General Roberts in the Khost Valley? Instead of sending him to the rear, they would have tried him by court martial and given him penal servitude. All that that correspondent was doing was informing the people of
    this country of the barbarous and cruel manner in which that officer was destroying peaceful villages in the country which the British troops had invaded, and through which they were carrying fire and sword, and behaving altogether in a manner opposed to the principles of civilized warfare. This newspaper correspondent did no more than tell the people of this country of the manner in which the war was going on. But in the future the British public must expect no impartial accounts, nothing but what a commanding officer might allow.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 218: Majority 147.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
    MR. SULLIVAN, in moving the insertion, in line 37, of a Proviso limiting the operation of the sub-section to cases in which the offence consisted in spreading reports calculated to create despondency, alarm, or "desertion in the vicinity or in the rear of the Army" said, the words were taken from the Article of War upon which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War declared the sub-section to have been based. Without the addition of
    770
    the words which he desired to see inserted, the clause would enable an officer to interfere when interference was not required with a member of the Press in the legitimate exercise of his duties.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 37, to insert, after the word "or," the words "desertion: Provided, That the offence consists in spreading' such reports in the vicinity or rear of the Army."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsupported the Amendment. He hoped the Government would give way, seeing that the Amendment merely maintained the present law and practice.
    MR. O'DONNELLhoped the House would stand firm and resist to the last the ill-concealed object of the Government to terrorize over the Press.
    COLONEL STANLEYasked the House to reject the Amendment, which was exactly similar to the one which had just been negatived by the House. It should be observed that the Article of War upon which the clause was based did not require that the reports should be spread upon active service, whereas the clause before the House related only to cases occurring on such service.
    MR. E. JENKINSapproved the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, would disadvantageously affect the position of newspaper correspondents. Those gentlemen had often done good service by exposing the rottenness of the Army, and they ought not to be brought within the operations of the clause.
    MAJOR NOLANregarded the clause as directed against newspaper correspondents.
    SIR HENRY JAMESdeprecated the discussion, as going again over ground which had already been discussed in Committee. The clause would put newspaper correspondents in no worse position than they would be placed in by the Articles of War. They were formerly under the arbitrary power of the Commander of the Forces in the field. This Bill protected them by its definite provisions; and it was, therefore, necessary there should be some equivalent provision against their abusing their position, and doing harm to the Army.
    MR. RYLANDSthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had failed to show

    771
    any reasonable ground for altering the old Articles of War in regard to newspaper correspondents. Without some proviso, such as the one under notice, their position would be seriously affected.
    SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) seemed to forget that some of these newspaper correspondents were officers serving in the Army.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 231: Majority 172.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Offences punishable more severely on active service than at other times).
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 3, line 2, to leave out sub-section 1, by which the punishment of death was incurred by any soldier who, in search of plunder, left his commanding officer. In the German Army, the punishment for that offence was three years' imprisonment, and yet the German Military Code was the severest in Europe. He did not mean to say that he would divide the House, for he did not want to waste time—[Laughter]—but he was prepared to challenge, by way of protest, every case in which this Bill proposed a severer punishment than was contained in the German Code for the same offence.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, to leave out sub-section 1 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. BIGGAR, in seconding the Amendment, asked how it was to be proved that a man left his commanding officer in search of plunder? The proposition of the Government was utterly unreasonable, and, therefore, he supported the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 4, to leave out sub-section 2, by which a soldier was liable to the punishment of death if, without the orders of his superior officer, he left his guard, picket, patrol, or post. In the German Code these offences were
    772
    punished with various kinds of arrest, or, at the outside, with two years imprisonment, unless where some distinct damage to the Army was the result.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, to leave out sub-section 2 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section 2 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SULLIVANsupported the Amendment. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had said that he was indisposed to take up the time of the House in dividing upon these matters. [Laughter, and cries of "Oh!"] If that was the way in which the announcement of the hon. Member was to be received—the announcement that he would endeavour to facilitate the Business of the House, by not taking Divisions, but by recording his protest against the death sentence—he himself would challenge the proposition of the Government in a matter so perfectly reasonable, so that, at any rate, there might be a record of the names.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 17: Majority 228.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 3, line 8, the omission of sub-section 5, imposing the death or lesser penalty for impeding or refusing to assist the provost marshal or any officer in the execution of his duty. He remarked that under the sub-section a man might be shot for refusing to flog a comrade who might be his own brother.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, to leave out sub-section 5 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question put, "That sub-section 5 stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 233; Noes 16: Majority217.—(Div. List, No. 178.)
    MR. O'DONNELL,in moving, in page 3, line 12, to omit sub-section 6, making it an offence to do violence to a person bringing supplies, or injury to the property or person of a resident in the country, said he did so to show that those with whom he was acting did not prefer the bullet to the lash, as had

    773
    been asserted. When these death clauses had been disposed of, he would make no further objection to the progress of the Bill, except on Clause 44. These offences were not in the German Code; and though, undoubtedly, it contained many offences deserving death, the phraseology of the sub-section was so large and so vague that all degrees of offences might be included in it, and the effect might be that persons guilty of the minor degrees might not be actually shot, but under the terms of the section could be shot, and, of course, could be flogged. He would prove that the majority was a shooting majority as well as a flogging majority, and he would confine his protests to offences visited with the death penalty.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out sub-section 6 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnel.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section 6 stand part of the Bill.
    MR. PARNELLtaunted the Government with having a majority as favourable to the bullet as the lash.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 12: Majority 217.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved the omission, in page 3, line 16, of sub-section 6, of the words "breaks into any house or other place in search of plunder." He did so because it was very wide in its terms and would easily expose a man to be flogged, if not to be shot. He contended that the Government should more clearly define what were the offences intended to be included under the sub-section. The punishment for this offence, unaggravated by any other circumstances, was imprisonment under the German Code.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, to leave out subsection 7 of Clause 6.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question put, "That sub-section 7 stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 10: Majority 201.—(Div. List, No. 180.)
    And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned till this day.
    It being five minutes to Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.
    House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who had a Motion on the Paper for the Amendment of the Married Women's Property Acts, 1870 and 1874, and other hon. Members who had Motions on the Paper, to refrain from bringing them forward, so that progress should be made with the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, which it was of great importance should be concluded that evening, or, at the latest, on the following day.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that he was left in a position of some difficulty, for he had balloted ever since Easter without being able to bring forward until now his Motion with respect to the grievances which married women lay under with regard to their property, for under the Acts of 1870 and 1874 there had arisen so many cases that he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see the necessity for amending the law. He (Mr. Hibbert) would give way now, feeling the difficulty of the Government; but he hoped the Government would next Session give him an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 245.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 245.]

    FURTHER PROCEEDING ON CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED. [18th July.]
    Bill, as amended, further considered.
    Clause 6 (Offences punishable more severely on active service than at other times).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved an Amendment, in page 3, line 39, at end of clause, rendering an officer convicted by court martial liable to be cashiered, and a soldier to imprisonment, for committing any of the following offences:—
    "Discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatever, negligently occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, or elsewhere; or (2) makes known the parole or watchword to any person not entitled to receive it; or, without good and sufficient cause, gives a parole or watchword different from what he received."
    The right hon. and gallant Gentleman explained that he proposed the Amendment in pursuance of an undertaking given by him in Committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 39, at the end of Clause 6, to insert the words "Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences (that is to say):—

    (1.) By discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making Signals, using words, or by any means whatever, negligently occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, or elsewhere; or

    (2.) Makes known the parole or watchword to any person not entitled to receive it; or, without good or sufficient cause, gives a parole or watchword different from what he received,

    shall on conviction by court martial be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, on such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."—(Colonel Stanley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELL, believing that it was not fair to inflict imprisonment with hard labour for the offence of negligence simply, moved to amend the proposed Amendment by adding the words "without hard labour."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "imprisonment," the words without hard labour."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    COLONEL STANLEYthought they might safely trust to the discretion of the court martial, whether the punishment should or should not be accompanied with hard labour. He was sure they would not inflict the punishment unless necessity called for it,
    Question, "That the words 'without hard labour' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
    Clause 9 (Disobedience to superior officer).
    On the Motion of Colonel STANLEY, Amendment in page 4, line 42, after the word "officer," by inserting the words "in such a manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Drunkenness).
    MAJOR NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 25, to leave out the words "whether on duty or not," with the object of separating the punishment for drunkenness off duty from that for drunkenness on duty. As regarded the latter, he proposed to leave the Bill untouched; and with respect to the former, he desired to make the degree of punishment less severe than it was at present. A soldier would, under the Act, be liable to imprisonment for the first time he was found drunk off duty, though, practically, he was only admonished for the first two or three times. It was left quite uncertain when he would be punished, and that uncertainty itself was an evil which should be remedied. He regretted that several hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who had promised to support the Amendment, were not, owing to the matter coming on suddenly, in their places.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 25, to leave out the words "whether on duty or not."—(Major Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL STANLEYthought it would be unadvisable to accept the Amendment. The matter had been carefully looked at; and it had been considered necessary to put the offence of drunkenness in the form—he admitted the somewhat complicated form—in which it appeared in the present Bill; because, as the law at present stood, the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War were not at one on the point. The Commander-in-

    777
    Chief was, in all these cases, the Court of First Instance, and it was within his discretion to decide whether or not each particular offence of this character was grave enough to be sent for trial. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment; and he believed that the proposals he had placed on the Paper would, practically, meet the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The amount of difference between them was extremely small; and he trusted, after his explanation, the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    Question put,
    The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 25: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 181.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 42 (Offences punishable by ordinary law).
    MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, at the end of clause, to add the following Proviso:—
    "That, where practicable, every person subject to military law who commits any of the offences mentioned in Schedule of this Bill shall be proceeded against before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, and, oh conviction, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Statute or Statutes dealing with such offence."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of Clause 42, to insert the words "Provided, That, where practicable, every person subject to military law who commits any of the offences mentioned in Schedule of this Bill shall be proceeded against before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, and, on conviction, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the statute or statutes dealing with such offence."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYpointed out that this was already provided for in the last section of the clause—"when in Her Majesty's Dominions;" and he did not think it was advisable for them to go any further than that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLmoved to insert an Amendment, the object of which, he said, was to render sub-section b more intelligible. Sub-section b provided that a person subject to military law when in Her Majesty's Dominions might be tried by any competent civil court for any offence for which he would be triable if he were
    778
    not subject to military law. He proposed, in page 17, line 31, to strike out the word "may" in this sub-section, and to substitute for it the words "shall when practicable."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 17, line 31, to leave out the word "may," and insert the words "shall when practicable."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)opposed the Amendment, because, instead of improving the clause, it would only introduce into it fresh uncertainty and difficulty.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 45 (Scale of punishments by courts martial).
    MR. SULLIVANmoved an Amendment, with the view of abolishing distinction of punishment between officers and private soldiers.
    Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 20, to leave out the words" in the case of officers."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, as a general rule, officers and men were on the same footing with regard to civil crimes; but with regard to military offences it was different, and he should oppose the Amendment.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONmoved an Amendment in page 19, line 24, in order to except Cyprus in time of peace from the possibility of being considered as a "foreign country in our military occupation," in which the punishments of death or flogging could be inflicted for certain military offences.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 19, line 24, to insert, after the word "service," the words "except in Cyprus in time of peace."—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER), in opposing the Amendment, said, that no corporal punishment was inflicted except on active service; and that, therefore, troops serving in Cyprus in time of peace would not be liable to it. He saw no difficulty in construing the paragraph. Active service meant the presence of a soldier—
    "With a force engaged in operations in a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy"
    —a condition certainly not fulfilled in the case of service in Cyprus. There could be no necessity for the Amendment, as our occupation of Cyprus was not of a hostile character.
    SIR HENRY JAMEScould not altogether concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. In his opinion, we were in military occupation of the Island. Further than that, the Bill was to be interpreted by soldiers and not by lawyers; and it should, therefore, be most explicit in its terms.
    COLONEL STANLEYobserved, that the highest legal authorities had held that the words of the Bill were consistent with the interpretation placed on them by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; and he (Colonel Stanley) fully agreed with his hon. and learned Friend's opinion that the Amendment was unnecessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONmoved to add at the end of the clause a Proviso to the effect that no corporal punishment should be inflicted on soldiers whilst in friendly occupation of foreign countries.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 19, line 34, to insert, after the word "days," the words "Provided, That no corporal punishment shall be inflicted on soldiers while in friendly occupation of a foreign country."—(Mr. H Samuelson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because the words were not required, as corporal punishment could not be inflicted, except on active service, and soldiers in friendly occupation were not on active service.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (for Mr. E. JENKINS)moved the addition of the following Proviso—
    "That in time of peace within the United Kingdom no officer or soldier shall be kept in arrest and without trial for a longer period than eight days, without the written order of the Commander in Chief expressing the grounds on which the continuation of the arrest and delay of trial are ordered."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 21, line 16, to insert, after the word "custody," the words "Provided, That in time of peace within the United Kingdom no officer or soldier shall he kept in arrest and without trial for a longer period than eight days, without the written order of the Commander in Chief expressing the grounds on which the continuation of the arrest and delay of trial are ordered."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Amendment was wholly unnecessary, as its substance was contained in Clause 6.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLmoved the insertion, at end of Clause 45, after sub-section 8, of words providing that a Volunteer should not be liable under any circumstances to be sentenced by court martial to penal servitude, imprisonment, or corporal punishment. The hon. Member said, that by Clause 164 Volunteers were made subject to the same law on active service as the Regular Forces, and he thought they ought not to be subject to any but the civil law.
    Amendment proposed.
    In page 20, at the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "A volunteer shall not be liable to be sentenced by a court martial under any circumstances to the punishment of penal servitude, imprisonment with hard labour, or corporal punishment."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYdid not think that these words were necessary, because it would be borne in mind that words had been inserted in the Bill to the effect that a Volunteer when on active service should not come under severer punishment without having fully understood, before he incurred that liability, that he did so incur it. It was not desirable to make distinctions between different

    781
    branches of the Service as suggested by the Amendment.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsupported the Amendment, so far as regarded corporal punishment, and hoped the Government would protect a Volunteer soldier from liability to the very degrading punishment of the lash. It was really quite unnecessary, for they had not to deal with desperate, unwilling soldiers in the Volunteers; and, on the other hand, this liability might deter many from giving their aid as Volunteer soldiers.
    MR. A. H. BROWNregarded the Amendment as unnecessary.
    MR. SULLIVANmoved to amend the Amendment so that the Volunteers could only be exempted from corporal punishment.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "the punishment of penal servitude, imprisonment with, hard labour, or."—(Mr. Suilwan.)
    MR. PARNELLexpressed his willingness to alter his Amendment so as only to exempt Volunteers from being sentenced to corporal punishment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    MR. MONKsupported the Amendment with that limitation.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDalso supported the exemption of corporal punishment only.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he bad always heard the Volunteers say that if they were ever called upon to serve in the field they would like to be placed on exactly the same footing as the Regular Army. He was quite sure they would never be subjected to corporal punishment, for he believed they would never put themselves in the position to require its infliction.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONstrongly demurred to the opinion of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell). He doubted whether men of education in the Volunteer Force would be content to be placed on the same level as what had been called gaol-birds.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sure that if the Volunteers never committed the offence for which the punish-
    782
    ment could be inflicted they would never receive it; but if they did commit such an offence, then they deserved it.
    MR. SULLIVANcharacterized this as a piece of sophistry. ["Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman had denied there was any force in it, when others wished to make officers liable to the same punishments as soldiers.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsupported the Amendment, saying there had been no reason for exempting officers from the liability to corporal punishment which did not apply equally to the case of Volunteers.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTurged that the Amendment was worthy of the favourable consideration of the Government. It had been an argument used by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, in support of the lash, that it was a necessity in consequence of the bad class of men that got into the Army; but that with a better class of men it might be done away with. Now, they could not hope to get a better class of men in their Army than the Volunteers; and, therefore, if the Amendment were rejected, the Government would be declaring that, no matter how good a class of men the Army might contain, the lash should not be abolished. He also charged the Government with inconsistency in resisting the Amendment. On the previous evening, they stated there would be no necessity for flogging if the material of our Army was of the same class as that of Germany, while they now proposed to flog the Volunteers, who were soldiers of an éate class.
    MR. BIRLEYreminded the lion, and learned Member who had last spoken (Sir William Harcourt) of the inconvenience of having in the field an Army subject to two different systems. There would be some force in the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman if all our Forces were of the same class as the Volunteers; but while an Army was composed of different classes it was necessary they should be all under the same law. It was to be hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was useless to remind the Government of their inconsistency. The fact was that flogging had become the great Conservative Party cry. The Government stuck to flogging, simply because they had nailed

    783
    their colours to the mast, and were determined to abide by it.
    MR. W. E. DENISONwas a Volunteer officer of 20 years' standing, and he knew that the feeling of Volunteers was that there should be no distinction between the treatment of Volunteers on active service and ordinary soldiers.
    MR. WHITWELLwould oppose the clause, as he disapproved altogether of flogging, and more especially for Volunteers.
    COLONEL BOUSFIELDconsidered that the same punishment in the field should apply to all branches of the Service. He held that if a Volunteer, when brigaded with the Regulars, committed an offence to which military law attached flogging, he ought to be flogged, if he deserved it.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'a volunteer shall not be liable to be sentenced by a court martial under any circumstances to corporal punishment' be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 143: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 182.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved the insertion, at end of Clause 45, of the sub-section—
    "A female camp-follower shall not be liable to be sentenced by court martial to corporal punishment."
    Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly.
    MR. PARNELL, in the hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would agree to some limitation of the number of times a soldier should be liable to corporal punishment, moved the addition of the following sub-section at the end of Clause 45:—" A soldier shall not be sentenced to corporal punishment more than once in six months."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "A soldier shall not be sentenced to corporal punishment more than once in six months."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. NEWDEGATEopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it appeared to reverse the principle of the ordinary criminal law of the country.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had expressed his opinion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) only a few days ago, and should, therefore, not occupy the time of the
    784
    House with any remarks. It was impossible to insure that a man would not commit a crime twice within a period of six months, and, therefore, he could not assent to the proposed Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that there had been evidence presented to the Committee, during the discussion upon the Bill, that no uniformity existed with regard to the cats used throughout the Army and the Navy. His opinion was, therefore, that one pattern should be adopted, and that it should be without knots. It would be remembered that, although it had been stated that there were no knots in the Admiralty cats, it had turned out that most of them had knots. He trusted the Government would show their sense of the evidence which had been adduced with reference to this point, by agreeing to his Motion to add the following sub-section at the end of Clause 45:—
    "The instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be a cat-o'-nine-tails according to the sealed pattern approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, D.A.G., but without knots."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "The instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be a cat-o'-nine-tails according to the sealed pattern approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, D.A.G., but without knots."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think the Amendment appropriate to the Act; but considered that it would be satisfactory to have some assurance that the character of the punishment should not differ as between the Army and the Navy. As he understood the matter, a certain cat was used in the Navy without knots, and that in the Army, and for the Marines when they were on shore, a knotted cat was in use. He could see no reason why the punishment in the Army should be more severe than it was in the Navy. Why should a Marine when onboard ship be punished

    785
    with one instrument, and when on land with another? There was obviously no reason for this difference, and he thought it would be well that equality of punishment should be assured.
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that he had previously promised that a pattern should be sealed, in order that there might be uniformity with regard to the instruments of punishment. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) that it would not be well to insert these matters in an Act of Parliament. With respect to uniformity of punishment between the two Services, he could not, of course, speak off-hand as to what might be done by the Admiralty, but would confer with his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) on the question. There was, he thought, a good deal in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, although he could not give a positive promise at that moment in the direction indicated.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, there had been much confusion in the minds of the Members of the Government as to the "cats" used in the Navy. That was strange, seeing that they had two hon. and gallant Admirals at hand to inform them on the subject, one being the fog-horn of the Government—the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone)—and the other the amiable figure-head of the Treasury Bench—the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Portsmouth. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I am not an Admiral.] Those hon. and gallant Members could, at least, have given a clear explanation upon this point to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who would thereby have been freed from the miserable plight he was put in at the moment. The punishment should be equally gentle for both soldiers and sailors, and the most gentle "cat" he (Mr. Macdonald) knew was the Army cat. He denied, however, that the cat produced was the cat used in the Navy at the present time. He had, himself, when on the Pacific Coast, only about three years ago, been assured by an officer in Her Majesty's Fleet that the cat used on board the ships on the station had nine tails, and nine knots upon each tail, whereas the Admiralty cat produced had no knots. If there were to be knots at all, they should be used equally for the soldier and for the sailor. He trusted that the hon. Mem-
    786
    ber for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. CALLANreminded the House that an assurance had been given, in the course of the preceding discussions, that the cat in use in the Army had no knots in it; but that it had turned out that the cat in use in the Army and the Royal Marines on shore was knotted. The only sealed cat in the Service was the "Marine cat," and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) wished that cat to be used in the Army, but without knots. He trusted his hon. Friend would persist in dividing the House, until he had ascertained who were in favour of knots and who were against them.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved the omission from the proposed Amendment of the words—
    "A cat-o'-nine-tails according to the sealed pattern approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, D.A.G., but"
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out all the words after the words "shall be," in line 1, to the word "but," in line 5, inclusive.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    SIR HENRY HAYELOCKsaid, the Amendment went in the direction which he himself had indicated as desirable, not with the object of diminishing the punishment, but to prevent its being left in the hands of individuals to be made more severe in one case than in another. It was, in his opinion, perfectly sensible and perfectly practicable. He could not see, if corporal punishment was going to be maintained, why the Act should not regulate the character of the instrument by which it would be inflicted. He felt it was right to insist, as the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had insisted, that, during the short time that in his opinion this punishment would endure, it should be regulated both on sea and on land in a manner which would prevent its being varied at the caprice of individuals.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLfelt himself bound to vote for the Amendment. He thought the House was entitled to have an assurance from the Government that the instrument of punishment used in the Army would not be more severe than that used in the Navy.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, everybody had admitted that the "Marine cat" was the most severe of all the instruments exhibited to hon. Members of the House. It was not pretended that the Army required a more severe instrument than the Navy, and the instrument for the Navy had been submitted to, and approved by, the First Lord of the Admiralty. What possible reason, therefore, could there be that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should not tell the House that he was prepared to accept that instrument?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that notwithstanding the extent of the humanity claimed by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, they always seemed to hold out for the extreme amount of torture that could by any possibility be inflicted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had assured hon. Members, when the Bill was in Committee, that he would make the punishment as moderate as possible; but he (Mr. Biggar) thought it might be assumed that it was intended to make the instrument of torture quite as severe as that used heretofore in the Army. Thanks to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), the House had gained an insight into the way affairs of this kind were manipulated, and one result of the hon. Member's inquiry had been that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had been constrained to come forward and apologize for having misled the Committee as to the facts relating to the cats. If some stipulation were not now made, when the Mutiny Bill of next Session was brought forward, another debate would certainly take place upon the subject. He would suggest that the Government should adopt for use in the Army the cat without knots, with the object of making the punishment as moderate as possible.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was ready to accept the modification of the Amendment as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but, in doing so, wished to point out the mistake which had been made in postponing the consideration of these matters until the Report. The Government, now feeling that they could pass the Bill through the House by a majority, refused the slightest conces-
    788
    sion; whereas, had this Amendment been proposed in Committee, he (Mr. Parnell) felt sure that it would have been accepted. The question was this. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had stated that the Army cat had no knots. It had since appeared that the Army cat had knots. All that was asked by the Amendment was, that he should adopt the cat without knots, and make the pattern uniform throughout the Army. If this was not agreed to, it would go forth to the country that the Secretary of State for War insisted upon retaining, as the instrument of torture, a cat that had knots, and which might be of any pattern that the commanding officer might think proper.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, proposed,
    "That the instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be without knots."
    MR. SULLIVANreminded the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he had warned him not to give way to the blandishments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and yield the advantage they had in Committee. However, they could renew the struggle next spring, when the Continuance Bill came up. He had no doubt that the Government were influenced to maintain the lash by a feeling of pride; but could not help thinking that they would next year generously abandon it. It seemed to him better that the Amendment should be withdrawn entirely, and that a statutory definition of the instrument should be given in the Schedule. It was surely anomalous to deal with the subject of punishment without attempting to define the instrument by which it was to be inflicted. He suggested that the lashes should not exceed 12 inches in length, and that the handle should not exceed eight inches in length and four ounces in weight.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 137: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved as an Amendment that, at the end of Clause 45, the following sub-section be inserted—
    (Manner of infliction.)
    "Sentences of corporal punishment shall be inflicted in manner directed by rules, to be issued by a Secretary of State, and care shall be taken that the infliction of such punishment shall not be continued after the skin is broken, or blood drawn, and that no flogging in front is permitted, and that if the infliction of a sentence of corporal punishment is stopped for any cause, before completion, it shall not be afterwards completed."
    Daring the course of these debates, it had been stated by the noble and gallant Lord the Member for the County of Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) that he had never seen the skin broken in flogging, although he had seen many instances of flogging. There was also the testimony of other hon. and gallant Officers who stated that they had not only frequently seen the skin broken, but blood drawn, and particles of flesh flying about. If the Government desired to follow the noble and gallant Lord the Member for the County of Waterford, who was a Naval officer of considerable distinction, in his testimony as to how flogging was to be restricted, he would ask them to accept the Amendment which he (Mr. Parnell) now proposed, and to provide that if the infliction of a sentence of corporal punishment was stopped for any cause whatever before its completion it should not afterwards be completed. Sentences had been frequently stopped, because a man had not been able to bear the punishment, and it was not right that he should be afterwards brought out to suffer the rest of his penalty. Such a proceeding was calculated to inflict grievous torture which no man should be called upon to endure. With regard to flogging in front, he did not apprehend that it would be permitted under ordinary circumstances; but he knew that it had taken place under somewhat extraordinary circumstances. It had taken place where martial law had been proclaimed, and he would not be surprised if Zulus who happened to be caught were flogged in that way. He thought it was exceedingly desirable that they should provide in that Act of Parliament that flogging was to be used as little as possible as a torture, and, therefore, he begged to move the sub-section which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of Clause 45, to insert the words "Sentences of corporal punishment shall be inflicted in manner directed by rules to be issued by a Secretary of State, and care shall be taken
    790
    that the infliction of such punishment shall not be continued after the skin is broken or blood drawn, and that no flogging in front is permitted, and that if the infliction of a sentence of corporal punishment is stopped for any cause before completion, it shall not be afterwards completed."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYwished the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to understand that it did not at all follow that because the Government objected to the insertion of this sub-section in the Bill they would sanction the practice against which the Amendment was directed. Undoubtedly, they would not; but the objection to the insertion of the sub-section in the Bill was owing to reasons which he had already explained. He would repeat that he could not accept the Amendment, because it would be impossible to describe all the circumstances under which punishment could be inflicted; and it would be impossible to provide that no punishment should be continued after the skin had been broken or the blood drawn. He was bound to say that, so far as his experience went, he had never seen blood drawn. With regard to flogging in front, he would ask the hon. Member to state any case, within the last 50 years, in which that had been permitted; for his own part, he had never heard of the practice. He would not go as far as to say that it had not occurred; but he would only say that he had never heard of it except from the hon. Member. With regard to the part of the Amendment relating to the completion of sentences of corporal punishment which had once been stopped, he knew of no cause, nor did he think it possible that a case could occur, why a man should be taken to a hospital and then brought out to receive the remainder of his sentence. Such a thing would be contrary to the custom of the Service, and he believed it would be positively illegal.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONobserved, that it appeared to him that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War objected to that part of the Amendment which stated that blood was not to be drawn. He thought that if they were to have their flesh it would be as well to have their blood also. Perhaps the objection might be met by leaving out all the words after the word "State," thus providing that sentences of corporal punish-

    791
    ment were to be inflicted in the manner directed by rules to be issued by a Secretary of State. He begged to move that all the words be omitted after the word "State" in the Amendment.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKseconded the Amendment. He conceived that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) as amended in the manner proposed. He could not see any reason at all why, if this punishment were to be retained, it should not be regulated by all the means in their power. There did not seem to him to be any shadow of reason why it should not be provided that the punishment was only to be inflicted in accordance with rules laid down by the Secretary of State. It was a reasonable and a practical suggestion, and on those grounds he recommended it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The adoption of the proposal would not limit the punishment; it could only prevent it from being abused. He could see no reason why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not assent to so reasonable a proposition. It had been decided to retain corporal punishment for reasons with which he did not agree; but, that being so, he thought that it should be recognized that the manner of its infliction should be regulated as well as the punishment itself being authorized. There would be no difficulty at all for the Secretary of State for War to draw up rules regulating in detail the application of the punishment in the same manner as he was going to draw up rules regulating the procedure of Courts of Inquiry. They desired that while this punishment was retained as a matter of necessity, although for reasons with which many of them did not agree, that, at all events, the evil attendant on the punishment should be prevented, and they should preclude the punishment from being used capriciously.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "State," in line 2, to the end of the Question.—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTthought it would expedite Business if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War agreed to the clause of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), in the manner in which it was now proposed to be amended.
    MR. MILBANKwished to ask a question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, with reference to flogging with the left hand as well as with the right. Sentences of corporal punishment were, according to the Amendment, to be inflicted in the manner directed by rules drawn up by a Secretary of State. The practice now was that men were flogged beginning with the right hand, and when a man had received a certain number of cuts from the lash from a right-handed man, a left-handed man—usually a drummer in the Infantry, and a farrier in the Cavalry—was put on to give him the remaining quantity of lashes. The consequence of that practice was, what was known in the Army as "cross-cuts." He had observed that the noble and gallant Lord the Member for the County of Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford), in the Division which had just taken place had voted with the minority. He would like to know from him whether he was speaking correctly in what he said? His opinion was that when a man had received some 20 lashes from a cat with knots the skin was broken. It was another question whether blood flowed, for that would probably happen after three or four cuts; but he maintained that after the skin was broken a man ought to be cut down from the triangles, and let off the remainder of the punishment. If the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford was in his place, perhaps he would inform the House whether he was in favour of corporal punishment being inflicted under rules directed by the Secretary of State. For his part, he (Mr. Milbank) could assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he had seen the skin broken many times, and he knew many officers now serving in the Army who had also seen it.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that his right hon. and gallant Friend would have no objection to adopting the Amendment, if all the words after "Secretary of State" were struck out.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he would be very happy to agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson). He merely wished to suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that these rules should be laid before the House.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was perfectly right in saying that flogging in front had been abandoned. He believed it had been abandoned for something like 40 years; but it did exist for a long time. He thought that the mode of flogging required regulation, for there were several practices—there was flogging half-length and flogging three-quarter-length, the latter of which was of a very much more severe character than the former. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was about to issue instructions upon the subject of flogging, he hoped he would insert, amongst the directions, that the officer who was present at every act of punishment should direct that flogging should only be half-length. In that case, the injury would not be so severe, and the danger to the sufferer was not so great as that incurred by three-quarter-length; and, above all, he should instruct that there should be right-handed and left-handed flogging.
    MR. BIGGARwas sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had agreed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson), for it was his conviction that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were disposed to inflict very cruel punishments. For his part, he expected that the rules that would be framed by the three right hon. Gentlemen who had charge of the different Departments of the Prisons, the Army, and the Navy, with reference to flogging, would permit all the cruelties that could be inflicted. He fully expected that the joint labours of those three right hon. Gentlemen would end in the infliction of every cruelty that was possible.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDthought there had been some misunderstanding with regard to this matter. He had been asked why he voted against the Government just now? He did so, because he understood that the question
    794
    was whether the cat to be used for flogging was to have knots. He really thought there must be some mistake with regard to this matter, for he did not believe that any hon. Gentlemen on those Benches would vote for a cat with knots. If there was any doubt upon the matter, it would be far better to put in a clause to the effect that there should be no knots in the cat.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, to add, at end. of Clause 45,the following sub-section:—
    (Annual returns of sentences of flogging.)
    "Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all sentences of flogging which have been inflicted in whole or in part, specifying the number of lashes and the nature of the offence."
    Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in Clause 46, page 20, line 20, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the line to the end of line 27.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 47 (Power of commanding officer).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 21, line 36, after sub-section (c), to insert, as a further paragraph—
    "Where the charge is against a soldier for drunkenness not on duty, the commanding officer shall deal with the case summarily, unless the soldier was guilty of drunkenness after being warned for duty, or unless he has been guilty of drunkenness on not less than four occasions in the preceding twelve months."
    Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 21, line 38, before the words "is in temporary command," to insert—
    "Is in command of a detachment of troops consisting of, or equivalent in strength to, not less than four troops, or companies, or"
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 22, line 2, after "twenty-one days," to insert as a new paragraph—

    795
    "Provided, That where imprisonment is awarded for absence without leave, the commanding officer shall have regard to the number of days during which the offender has been absent, and in no case shall the terra of imprisonment awarded exceed the term of absence by more than four clear days."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that it had now been provided that a commanding officer was only to inflict such a term of imprisonment for absence without leave as should correspond with the period during which the man had been absent. The commanding officer was thus only a registry clerk, and there was no case in which necessity for this paragraph would arise. He apprehended that this Amendment was not required.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he was disposed to agree with the view taken of the Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and he did not think there would be any good in retaining the words.
    Amendment agreed to; paragraph, inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Major NOLAN, Amendment made, in page 22, line 2, after "days," by inserting—
    "Provided that the number of days' imprisonment does not exceed the number of days' absence."
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter) was absent; but he (Mr. C. S. Parker) would move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, to insert the word "district" before the word "court martial" in page 22,line 16.
    Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause 49 (General and district courts martial).
    MAJOR NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, in page 23, line 33, to leave out the word "seven," and insert the words "not less than five." His object was to insure that a court martial should always consist of five officers. In the cases where they provided that three officers should be sufficient, they were the very cases in which, courts martial
    796
    ought to be most stringently looked after. They ought, in his opinion, never to have less than five.
    Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 32, to leave out the word "seven," and insert the words "not less than five."—(Major Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that this question was much discussed in Committee, and, while he agreed with the views of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) to some extent, experience had shown that, in certain circumstances of the Service, and especially in certain Colonies, it was practically impossible to obtain more than three officers. Considerable inconvenience would result from the limitation to five. On the West Coast of Africa, for instance, and other Colonies where there were not many officers serving, five would be very rarely obtainable, and the result would be to keep the prisoner detained for an unnecessary time. The balance of many years' experience had shown that the numbers proposed in the clause were the best; and he, therefore, thought it was better to adhere to what had been proved by practice.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKhoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would retain the number mentioned in line 32, because he proposed to alter the clause himself, lower down, so as to give three alternative courses, and to have seven at home, five where they were obtainable, and where five were not obtainable, then three. He believed that would meet the exigencies of the Service and the wishes of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) at the same time. He therefore proposed, in line 35, to move the insertion of certain words.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should be put first.
    MAJOR NOLANwithdrew his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 23, line 32, to leave out all the words from "consist of," in order to insert these words—

    797
    "Not less than seven officers: Provided, That if in any place not in the United Kingdom, India, Malta, or Gibralter, in the opinion of the officer who convenes the court (such opinion to be expressed in the order convening the court, and to be conclusive), seven officers are not, having due regard to the public service, available, the court shall consist of five officers, unless, in the opinion of the said officer (such opinion to be expressed in the order convening the court, and to be conclusive) five officers are not, having due regard to the public service, available, in which case the court martial may consist of three officers."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked, whether the acceptance of the Amendment excluded the one he had stated it was his intention to propose?
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause 52 (Challenges by prisoner).
    Amendments made.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 26, line 18, to leave out "two-thirds are required to concur," and insert "one third are expressed to be sufficient."
    MAJOR NOLANasked, what was the meaning of the phrase that one-third should be expressed to be sufficient?
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that these Amendments had to do with objections raised by a prisoner. They all hung together.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKcomplained that it was impossible to understand Amendments moved in this way without explanation. He was sure neither he, nor his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had the least idea what the effect of the clause would be when these Amendments were inserted.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the alteration made was quite intelligible, and fell in quite easily with the previous changes. He thought, however, there must be some mistake in inserting the word "one-third."
    MR. C. S. PARKERalso was of opinion that it was not business-like to insert Amendments which they did not understand. There must be some mistake, as his hon. Friend had pointed out. In many places in the Bill, a
    798
    majority of two-thirds was received; but there was no place where the vote of one-third carried the decision.
    Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause 55 (Confirmation, revision, and approval of sentences).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 30, line 2, after "authority," to insert—
    "And where a court martial is held in a Colony, and there is no such superior officer in that Colony, the Governor of that Colony shall have authority to confirm the finding and sentence of such court martial in like manner in all respects as if he were such superior officer as above mentioned."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had never heard of the principle contained in the Amendment, of allowing the Governor of a Colony to confirm the finding of courts martial. It would be extremely dangerous as a precedent when martial law was proclaimed; and it was, in his opinion, unfair to bring up such a clause on Report, the principle of which was totally unprecedented.
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that the Amendment was intended to apply to very rare cases, which might happen, for instance, in such places as the West Coast of Africa, where, the decision of the court martial having to be sent home for confirmation, a man might be kept, in consequence, a considerable time in prison. The object of the Amendment was, therefore, to save the detention of the prisoner.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 63 (Execution of sentences of imprisonment).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "civil," in page 34, line 38.
    Amendment agreed to; word struck out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 72 (Clause B. Provost marshal).
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOT, in moving as an Amendment, in page 40, line 35, after "authority," to insert—
    "On any soldier, but in the case of persons who are employed by or are in the service of any of Her Majesty's troops when employed on active service beyond the seas, it shall be lawful for such provost marshal to award and inflict punishment for minor offences, for dealing with which he may not consider it convenient to convene a court martial, subject always to regulations issued for his guidance by the general or other officer commanding;"
    said, the Bill as it then stood contained a great anomaly, which the Amendment he was about to move was intended to remedy—namely, that all camp-followers, and those who were described in the Amendment as persons in the employ and Service of Her Majesty's troops when employed on active service beyond the seas, must be tried by court martial for any sort of offence which they might commit. He was aware that provision was made in the Indian Military Code to meet this case. But this would certainly not meet the case of, for instance, the persons employed in South Africa as carriers by Sir Garnet Wolseley, all of whom would have to be tried by court martial for any offence they might commit. It was necessary that some organization should be provided by which, minor offences might be checked; and he, therefore, moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 40, line 35, after the word "authority," to insert the words, "On any soldier, but in the case of persons who are employed by or are in the service of any of Her Majesty's troops when employed on active service beyond the seas, it shall be lawful for such provost marshal to award and inflict punishment for minor offences for dealing with which it may not be considered expedient to convene a court martial, subject always to regulations issued for his guidance by the general or other officer commanding."—(Colonel Arbuthnot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKopposed the Amendment, on the ground that the practical difficulty could be got over by convening a small standing court martial to deal with camp-followers.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 75 (Change of conditions of service).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, the addition of the following words at the end of the clause—
    "Or for any period of time not exceeding twelve years in the whole from the day on which he enlisted."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 77 (Mode of enlistment and attestation).
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, it would be useful to insert a provision against the enlistment of men when under the influence of liquor, and he proposed to add words which would decide a doubtful magistrate to stop the enlistment of recruits in that condition. It had been objected that an Amendment which was proposed in Committee with this object would be looked upon as an insult to the magistrates; but the words that he desired to introduce could be acted upon by the magistrates without any loss of dignity; and he therefore moved, in page 42, line 34, to insert the words—
    "And shall not proceed with the enlistment, if he considers the recruit under the influence of liquor."
    MR. O'SULLIVANhoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONpointed out that many recruits at the time of their enlistment were, although not very drunk, just able to understand what was said to them when they were prompted.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 78 (Power of recruit to purchase discharge).
    CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEsaid, he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) was not in his place to bring the weight of his experience to bear upon the points which he (Captain Milne-Home) wished to urge in connection with the Amendments to the clause standing in the names of the hon. and gallant Mem-

    801
    ber and himself. It was not his intention to take the extreme course of moving the rejection of the clause, which had been already discussed and disposed of in Committee; but he could not help feeling that its retention, at all events, in the form in which it then stood, would be detrimental to the Service, and a source of unfairness to many soldiers serving in the Army. He objected to the clause altogether, because it treated of a matter which he considered to be one of Departmental detail that ought to be dealt with by the military authorities. Without wishing to detain the House, he would only place the Amendments before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in the hope that he would turn round in his place to say that he agreed to them. He was, however, obliged to remind the House that the clause presented an entirely new principle, and he thought the House should be informed by whom that principle had been recommended; because, if he mistook not, no such recommendation was made by the Committee upstairs. The 21st Article of War provided that a soldier should not be dismissed from the Service without a discharge granted according to General Order, and the Warrant then in force stated that no soldier could demand his discharge as a matter of right. The present clause, however, allowed a soldier of under three months' service to claim his discharge upon the payment of £10. His (Captain Milne-Home's) first Amendment was to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "one," in line 32, page 43, of the Bill. He objected to the period of three months named in the clause upon the score of the expense to the country which it entailed. This was particularly apparent in the case of Cavalry regiments, in which the training of a recruit during a period of three months cost from £20 to £30. If, therefore, the soldier was discharged at the end of three months, the country would thereby be at a loss of £10 to £20; because, on his discharge, he had only to pay the sum of £10 for the use of Her Majesty. The man would leave the Service a much better article, so to speak—well conducted, set up, drilled, and, in short, a very much more marketable commodity in the labour market than he was before he joined it. It must also be recollected
    802
    that if a man, after three months' service, was discharged, another man would have to be brought in to fill his place who had no service at all. With regard to his second Amendment, he thought that if the clause was to stand in its present form, the commanding officer ought to have something to say with reference to a recruit's leaving at the end of three months, because great inconvenience might result from this, especially if a large number of men claimed their discharge at one time. Under those circumstances, more work would be thrown on their comrades who remained in the regiment; and he, therefore, thought that the men ought not to be allowed to claim their discharge except with the approval of the commanding officer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the first of the Amendments of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 32, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "one."—(Captain Mine-Home.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped the House would not accept the Amendment. The subject had been discussed at considerable length in Committee, and the present regulations had met with the general approval of the House. His own convictions in the matter were strengthened by the recommendations of a Departmental Committee consisting of very experienced officers.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 83 (Prolongation of service in certain cases).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 6, to leave out the word "active."
    Amendment agreed to; word struck out accordingly.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 12, at the end, to insert, as a separate paragraph—
    "If a soldier required under this section to be discharged or sent to the United Kingdom desires, while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign power, to continue in

    803
    Her Majesty's service, and the competent military authority approve, he may agree to continue as a soldier of the regular forces in the same manner in all respects as if his term of service were still unexpired, except that he may claim his discharge at the end of such state of war, or, if it is so provided by such agreement, at the expiration of any period of three months after he has given notice to his commanding officer of his wish to be discharged."
    Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 84 (In imminent national danger, Her Majesty may continue soldiers in, or require soldiers to re-enter, army service).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 18, after "all," to insert "or any."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 47, line 26, after the word "enlistment," to insert—
    "And the period during which his service may be prolonged under the foregoing provisions of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 86 (Discharge or transfer to reserve).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 48, line 4, after "Act," to insert "or the Acts relating to the reserved forces." The hon. Gentleman said, in explanation, that that and the following Amendment were for the purpose of enabling a soldier to be continued in the Reserve after having served his time in the Army. Under other Acts, a soldier could be kept in the Reserves when his period of Army service had expired, and the object of the Amendment was to make it clear that he could do so with his consent.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 48, line 6, to add at the end "or, with his assent, transferred to the reserve forces,"
    Amendment proposed,
    "In page 48, line 6, after the word "discharged," to insert the words" or with his assent transferred to the reserve forces."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYthought that those words were useless. Under the Reserved Forces Act, anyone who pleased and was eligible might go into the Reserves. There was no power to transfer a man without his consent.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 90 (Justices of the peace for the purposes of enlistment).
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, that as the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Colonel Naghten) was not in his place, he (Mr. Samuelson) would move the Amendment which stood in his name. Militia officers were always subject to military law, and it would be quite impossible for them to act as justices of the peace as the clause stood. To remedy that he would move in page 50, line 42, after the word "Act," to insert "except officers of Militia while the regiments to which they belong are disembodied."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 91 (Enlistment of foreigners and negroes).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 51, line 7, to leave out the words "so enlisted." The object of the Amendment was to make it quite clear how far aliens were eligible for the position of commissioned officers in Her Majesty's Service. The clause under notice provided for the enlistment of aliens as soldiers in Her Majesty's Army, and proceeded to enact that aliens so enlisted should not be competent to hold higher rank than that of warrant officer or non-commissioned officer. It seemed hard that after having served a certain period as soldiers, aliens should be incapable of being made officers, unless it were also clear that they were incapable of being made officers if they had not entered the ranks at all. He proposed

    805
    to omit the words "so enlisted," in order to make it quite clear that no alien should be capable of holding higher rank in Her Majesty's Service than that of warrant or non-commissioned officer. It would, of course, be open to an alien to be naturalized and then to hold a commission, whether he had served in the ranks or not.
    Amendment proposed, in page 51, line 7, to leave out the words "so enlisted."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'so enlisted' stand part of the Bill."
    MAJOR NOLANdeprecated so strict a line as that proposed being drawn. The suggestion came at an important time; because, if the late Prince Imperial had had a more defined position, he would probably not have been allowed to have entered on the expedition which resulted in his death.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Another Amendment made.
    Clause 101 (Liability to provide billets).
    MR. O'SULLIVANmoved, as an Amendment, in page 54, line 35, after the word "alehouses," to insert "bakers, butchers, and refreshment house keepers." He hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have no objection to the insertion of this Amendment. Under the present system of limiting billeting to alehouses and inns, there was often a great want of accommodation. He did not see why the butchers and bakers, and refreshment house keepers, should not be under the same liability to accommodate the troops as the inn-keepers. Many times he had seen great inconvenience result from the accommodation being limited, as it now was, to public-houses. He trusted it would be extended according to the terms of his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 54, line 35, to insert, after the word "alehouses," the words "bakers, butchers, and refreshment housekeepers."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CALLANhoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secre-
    806
    tary of State for War would not yield to the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). The butchers and bakers only kept houses for their own accommodation; whereas, by the Acts under which public-houses were licensed in Ireland, they were compelled to provide accommodation for the public. He trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not inflict private soldiers upon the butchers and bakers, but would limit the accommodation, as at present, to licensed houses.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the question of billeting was of some importance. The Bill placed the Irish law of billeting upon the same footing as the English. Formerly, billeting in private houses took place in Ireland. It was not necessary for him to say more than that he could not accept the Amendment. He should be prepared, however, to make arrangements to prevent inconvenience to the troops, if it were brought to the notice of the authorities.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEconsidered that the convenience of troops on the march was a matter of great importance. At present, much inconvenience was suffered from the troops having to be billeted exclusively in taverns. If the butchers and bakers had the best houses in a town, then he thought that the troops ought to be billeted in them. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
    MR. ONSLOWpointed out that, by the provisions of the Bill, all persons selling wine, brandy, spirits, strong waters, cider, or metheglin by retail were compellable to give accommodation to the troops. He thought it would be going too far to make the butchers and bakers also take the troops in.
    MAJOR NOLANunderstood that a new Schedule was to be framed fixing the prices for billeting. It would be absurd to make the butchers and bakers liable to have troops billeted upon them, for their houses were as much private houses as the linen drapers.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
    Clause 103 (Accommodation and payment on billet).
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 56, line 13, after the word "billets," to insert "and the officer or non-commissioned officer autho-

    807
    rised to demand such billets." The effect of the Amendment was to give an officer or non-commissioned officer a right to reject a billet he did not consider suitable. There were opportunities at present for some innkeepers to escape receiving troops by agreement with the constable, the excuse being given that all the beds in their hotels were engaged. In consequence of that, troops had frequently to be billeted two or three miles away from their place of parade. That had happened at Leicester, Reigate, and other places; and he had known it done, although the innkeepers had plenty of accommodation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 56, line 13, after the word "billets," to insert the words "and the officer or noncommissioned officer authorized to demand such billets."—(Major O'Beirne.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYdid not think it would be wise to insert these words in the Bill, as they would introduce an entirely new principle. Hitherto, billets had had to be demanded from the civil authorities entitled to issue them, and the matter was entirely in their hands. Moreover, he should not like to leave so large a discretionary power in the hands of the non-commissioned officers. It would be far better to leave the discretion in the hands of the civil officials.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause 126 (Arrangements with Indian and colonial governments as to prisons).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had to move an Amendment in page 69, to add, at the end thereof—
    "And in all cases where the court has so otherwise ordered, returns shall be annually laid before Parliament specifying such sentences, and stating the special reasons for such order in each case."
    This Amendment was one which he thought the Government would agree to. It referred to the limitation placed upon sentences of over twelve months' imprisonment inflicted abroad. It had been provided that unless the court otherwise directed the punishment should take place in England. He only wished for
    808
    Returns to be laid before Parliament giving the special reasons why courts martial had decided that the imprisonment should take place abroad.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 69, to insert, at the end of Clause, the words "and in all cases where the court has so otherwise ordered, Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament specifying such sentences, and stating the special reasons for such order in each case."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no objection to the proposal in principle. He did not think, however, that it would be desirable to have Returns of all the cases laid before Parliament. If any particular case were required, then a Return in respect of it could be moved for. It would cause a great deal of useless labour and expense to have Returns made in all cases.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 127 (Duty of governor of prison to receive prisoners, deserters, and absentees without leave).
    MR. PARNELLmoved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of clause—
    "And Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all proceedings and evidence taken at inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 69, to insert, at the end of Clause, the words "and Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all proceedings and evidence taken at inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the evidence and proceedings at inquests on prisoners would be too bulky to be conveniently laid before the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not see why the evidence in these cases should be laid before Parliament more than in other cases. No Returns were required in ordinary cases, and he could see no reason for their being required here. If the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) wished that Parliament should have cognizance of these matters, of course, everyone knew that they

    809
    could take cognizance of them. Any particular case which might arise could be called attention to; but it would only lead to unnecessary labour and expense to have such Returns as the hon. Member wished.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that if he were allowed to do so he would amend his Amendment, by striking from it the words, "proceedings and evidence taken at," and it would then read as follows:—
    "And Returns shall be annually laid before Parliament of all inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners."
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Amendment could not be made, unless the House would first allow the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and he could then move the proposed amended Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 69, to insert, at the end of Clause, the words "and Returns shall lie annually laid before Parliament of all inquests or other inquiries into the deaths of prisoners."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 116: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 184.),
    Clause 128 (Establishment and regulation of military prisons).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the next clause—128—was a most important one, which involved a question not settled till the Report, for two reasons; first of all, they awaited the decision of the House as regarded the question of corporal punishment; and, secondly, they were waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission which was charged to inquire into the question of prison discipline.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has no Amendment to move, I shall call upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to move his Amendments.
    MR. PARNELLreplied, that he proposed to conclude with a Motion in order to put himself in Order. The Report of the Royal Commission had been placed on their Table. He himself objected to flogging in prisons more than
    810
    to flogging in the Army, because flogging in prisons must be an entirely unnecessary punishment. A man was under complete control. It could not be said that they were then in the presence of the enemy, and that flogging was, therefore, necessary for the preservation of discipline. A man might be punished in a variety of ways, and they had at hand in a prison all kinds of mechanical appliances for the purpose. They could put a man in a dark and solitary cell for seven days, or they could half-starve him on bread and water, or do a number of other things which would reduce him to subjection. The Commission, however, he was sorry to say, had reported in favour of it, though they said it was very seldom used, and so on.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member for Meath that the question raised here is Clause 128.
    MR. PARNELLreplied, that Clause 128 was the clause he was speaking upon. He was sorry that he would not be able to move an Amendment on the question, because he had to leave for Ireland by the 7 o'clock train. However, he could inform hon. Gentlemen opposite that one of his hon. Friends would take charge of his Amendment. It was really of such an important character that he must ask the House to allow them to discuss this question fairly and fully, when due and proper consideration could be given to it. This was really a question of great importance, and he exceedingly regretted that the decision of the Royal Commission had been against him. He did not believe flogging in prisons to be at all necessary, for they had done without it in Ireland, and if they could do without it there, surely it was unnecessary here. He would not, however, pursue the question then; for at that hour—2.45—it was unfair to ask the House to do so. He would, therefore, request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to concur in the adjournment of the debate, in order that the matter might be fully, calmly, and coolly discussed. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit he had not been unfair to the Government, and he had no desire to be unfair to them. He understood there must be a Saturday Sitting, and, therefore, they might surely be allowed to conclude the Bill then. He begged to move that further consideration be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of going on. He was not at all disposed to complain of the conduct which the hon. Member for Meath had pursued in the discussion of this Bill upon Report; but he thought the feeling of the House was decidedly in favour of proceeding until it was finished. Then he hoped they would be allowed to read it a third time, so as finally to conclude their labours upon it. If the House were disposed to do that, it would not be necessary to have a Saturday Sitting. The Commencement Bill would have to be taken on Monday. He thought it would not be so very great an inconvenience to give another hour or two.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not press the Motion. He must feel it was impossible that the feeling of the House could be changed upon the question of flogging now, even by an adjournment of the debate till Saturday morning.
    MR. BIGGARreminded the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that due opportunity would be given for the discussion of Amendments, and he would ask him whether there could be a proper discussion after the present hour? No Motion for adjournment had been made till after 2.30, and he did appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to give them the trouble of going to the Division Lobby at such a time.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERwould urge his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) not to proceed with his Motion. There could be no doubt that his hon. Friend had been animated by a sincere desire to improve this Bill. He must confess, however, that in the present temper of the House, and after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not expect to add to the very important victories he had already achieved. He, therefore, thought that no end could be gained by protracting this debate any longer. The hon. Member for Meath was going to Ireland to pursue his patriotic labours there, having
    812
    achieved victories of which any man in the House might be proud. Whatever might be the representations of hon. Members, or the misconceptions of his conduct, these were victories on which he could look back with pride. They had discussed this question of flogging over and over again—they had debated it under almost every conceivable circumstance. Although he was far from saying it would be unreasonable to ask the House to adjourn, and to continue the discussion on another day, he thought they would be wise to be satisfied with the substantial victory achieved, and he would, therefore, appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. DILLWYNalso appealed to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to withdraw his Motion, as the consequence was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, it was now, if the Bill were finished that night, unnecessary to have a Morning Sitting next day. He would, therefore, suggest that the Motion should not be pressed to a Division.
    MR. CALLANalso appealed to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to withdraw his Motion. If he read the intention of line 21 of the 128th clause aright, he found that the corporal punishment of 2o lashes was an addition to the general power given in military prisons; and they were told, also, that it was necessary for commanders in the field to have this power. ["Order, Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member referring to Clause 128?
    MR. CALLANreplied, that this was a Motion for continuing the debate. He knew from whom these interruptions came, and he was conscious that the spirit which animated the flogging Gentlemen below the Gangway, who were in favour—
    MR. SPEAKER: I must invite the hon. Member to address the Chair.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was addressing himself to the Chairman, in calling1 his attention to the spirit which animated a portion of the House, in interrupting him whilst he was making an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to facilitate the progress of Public Business. He would not condescend to appeal personally, directly or indirectly, to hon. Members who were in favour of flogging; but he would appeal directly to his hon.

    813
    Friend (Mr. Parnell), with reference to this Motion, and would ask him not to press it.
    MR. PARNELLfelt the force of what had been said, and did not think they could do much good in pressing this question any further. The House was really not in a position to discuss the question as it ought to be discussed; while, if they had a Morning Sitting, the House would feel rather injured at being called upon to discuss once more the question of flogging. He would have an opportunity of bringing this forward on the Army Estimates, and he thought he might fairly postpone it till then. He, therefore, should not propose to move any Amendment in Clause 128. He should, indeed, take no further part in this matter, but would renew his opposition to the prison cat on the Irish Estimates before the close of the Session, and deal with it more effectually in that way.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 164 (Persons subject to military law as soldiers).
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOT, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not object to it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman could hardly contemplate leaving the Bill in its present state, and he really thought he might consent to this Amendment without injuring his position.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 94, line 15, to insert, after the word "law," the words "and such persons shall, for purposes of military control and discipline, be subject to such regulations as may be issued from time to time by the general or other officer commanding, though not specified in this Act."—(Colonel Arbuthnot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was very sorry, but he could not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause 177 (Interpretation of terms).
    MR. H. SAMUELSONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 106, line 21, after "military," to insert "and hostile." He wished to impress upon the Government that something certainly must be done to meet the case of Cyprus. It was certainly not a hostile occupation. It was an occupation, there was no doubt, and it was a place of arms. They were also bound to give it up in case they did certain things which it was not at all likely they would do. At the same time, it was clear that Cyprus was not a Colony, nor part of the Dominions of Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore, something ought to be done to bring Cyprus under the administration of the law.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 106, line 21, to insert, after the word "military," the words "and hostile."—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsupported the Amendment, observing that Cyprus was not a colony, and was not dealt with as such. If they would look at line 38, page 106, it would be seen that a foreign country meant any place not situate in the United Kingdom, the Colonies, or India. By putting in the words "or Cyprus," the clause would be made perfect.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, by that proposition, no doubt, the case of Cyprus would be met. At present, the clause did not deal with cases where they might be in possession of a country, or part of a country, in which they were not carrying on active operations. They might, for instance, be in occupation of part of Belgium, Portugal, or Denmark, and these cases would not be dealt with at all under the present Bill. He thought the insertion of the words would meet the case very fairly.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, he had no objection to the words suggested; but it seemed to him that the phrase "military occupation" was perfectly well understood. It was an occupation by the military forces as distinct from the civil government, and where there was an occupation by the military forces they ought to have extraordinary powers.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was not a question whether it was a

    815
    hostile occupation. For instance, supposing they were in occupation of Eastern Roumelia, in time of peace, would they allow a death-penalty to be enforced under such circumstances?
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 92: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 185.)
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he had already explained that he would, not move any of his Amendments, if the Government would accept one of them; and if he knew the Government were about to accept this one, he certainly would not have put the Committee to the trouble of division.
    Other Amendments made.
    Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House," put, and agreed to.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped he might appeal to the House, for reasons of Public Business, to read the Bill a third time at once.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Colonel Stanley.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwould take that opportunity of hoping that his right hon. and gallant Friend would further consider an Amendment which they were not able to discuss fully—the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson). He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped in "another place" the difference between a military and a hostile occupation would be fully considered. He thought, if his right hon. and gallant Friend would carefully consider the matter, he would come to the same conclusion.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOThoped, if time would allow, that the matter to which he had already called attention twice would also be borne in mind on another occasion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (COMMENCEMENT) [EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Par
    816
    liament, of rates for Billeting and other Expenses of Troops on the March, in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of the present Session for bringing into force "The Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1879."
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill for the further amendment of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    Bill presented and read the first time. [Bill 252.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLs—Resolution [June 30] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Charity (Expenses and Accounts) (No. 2) * [230].
Second Reading—Poor Law Amendment (No. 2) [212], debate adjourned; Supply of Drink on Credit [224]; Cork Borough Quarter Sessions * [226]; Children's Dangerous Performances [229].
Referred to Select Committee—New Forest Act (1877) Amendment * [210].
Committee— Indian Marine (re-comm.) [211], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Inclosure Provisional Order (Whittington Common) * [207].
Considered as amended—Volunteer Corps (Ireland) * [200].
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EAST INDIA RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    MR. J. G. FIUBBARDsaid, the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, and it would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House that he should describe the objects of the measure.
    MR. SPEAKERasked if the right hon. Gentleman presented himself as one of the promoters of the Bill?
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was in charge of the Bill, and it was in that capacity that he ventured to introduce the measure to the House. Considering the great importance of the question, he felt satisfied the House would give him their attention for the short time .he should have to trouble them. The Bill was one which had for its object the conveyance from the East India Railway Company to the Government of India of the property of the East India Railway. The line consisted, in the first place, of a main line from Calcutta to Delhi, and, in the second, of a branch line from Allahabad to Jubbulpore. The Company, having complied with the requirements of Parliament, obtained a lease in 1854, which was executed between the old East India Company and the East India Railway Company. The East India Company was now represented by the India Government, and, in addressing the House upon the Bill, he should speak of the Government of India as the Government. The conditions of the two separate lines were these. Both of them were granted on a lease of 99 years; but while the original lease was dated from February, 1854, that of the branch line from Allahabad to Jubbulpore was dated from the year 1858. The two leases running for equal periods had different conclusions, otherwise the conditions of both were very much the same. The conditions of the lease under which the property was held by the East India Railway Company, were briefly these. The term was for 99 years, and at the end of those 99 years, the lease, if not previously dealt with, would absolutely lapse to the East India Company or the Government. There were, however, two alternative propositions. One was that the property itself might be surrendered by the East India Railway Company at any period short of the ultimate 99 years, receiving from the India Government the entire amount of the capital which had been expended on the property. The other alternative was the purchase by the India Government of the Railway at a period of 25 or 50 years from the origination of the lease. With this view of the contract before them, the India Government had, in the course of the last two years,
    1076
    directed their attention to the policy of acquiring absolutely the possession of this undertaking, and they determined to enter into negotiations which were to lead ultimately to the acquisition of the property. They found themselves in this difficulty—that whereas they felt it to be essential to acquire the possession not only of the main line, but of the branch line, there was this difference in the arrangement for the purchase, that, according to the contracts, the one was to be claimed four years earlier than the other. With regard to the first alternative—the absolute lapse of property at the end of 99 years—that, of course, would be out of the question. The Railway Company would never think of permitting the property to run out absolutely, because at any period short of the end of the lease they could surrender it, and receive back the whole of the capital. That being the case, they had a choice between two positions. The Government might wait until the Company surrendered the property, or they might themselves propose the purchase of it. They determined to purchase, and having decided upon purchasing, they had then to consider the terms under which, according to the contract, which was to be their guide, they could come to a settlement with the Company. It was obvious from the first that it was impossible for the Government to effect the entire purchase on the precise terms of the contract, in as much as the different periods of time assigned for the separate portions precluded such a course. They had, therefore, no alternative but to attempt an amicable arrangement of the difficulty; and, by a fair and reasonable revision of the whole matter, conclude a new and independent contract with the East India Railway Company. Looking at the affair in that light, they found that the notice which under the contract would have to be given by the Government to the Company, must be given after February 15th, 1879, and before August 15th, 1879, if they acted upon the mere legal notice. If they waited until then, they had the power of acquiring the main line under the terms of the original contract. But as they desired to effect an arrangement before February 1879, it became necessary to concert terms which might be satisfactory to both parties. The Government, therefore, put themselves into communication with the chairman

    1077
    of the Railway Company, and, after some consideration—he believed it was upon the 1st of November, 1878—a letter was addressed by Sir Louis Mallet, on behalf of the India Government, to Mr. Crawford, the chairman of the Company, stating the terms on which they were willing to negotiate. Those terms were directed to the accomplishment of the two purposes they had in view—namely, the simultaneous acquisition of the main line and the branch line to Jubbulpore, and, also, another object which the Government laid great stress upon—the continuance of the Company in such a form as to make them the administrators of the Railway. on behalf of the Government itself. Then, with regard to the terms. The terms the Government proposed to the Company were these. They took the shares of the Company, amounting to 26,200, which were nominally of £100 each, and they had, in the first place, to set a value upon them. The value set upon the shares should have been determined by the average market price of the stock for the three years immediately preceding the day upon which the notice was given; but the Government, under their arrangement, never could reach that point, because they determined to deal with the matter before the three years were completed. They had, therefore, to make an approximate value of the property, and they did so by taking the average value of the shares, not for three years, but for two years and eight months, that was up to the date of the letter addressed by Sir Louis Mallet to Mr. Crawford. Having fixed upon the period of valuation, it was found that up to the end of October the average price had amounted to £124 3s. 5d. Why, with that evidence before them, had the Government introduced into their offers a price of £125? This was their reason. The Railway itself had been advancing in prosperity. The price of the shares before the time the negotiations commenced appeared to have been constantly ascending. So much was that the case, that in July, August, and September, the average price of these shares was £130 15 s.; but the notoriety of the fact that the chairman, on behalf of the Company, had been in communication with the Government for the surrender of this property had a very depressing effect, and the shares
    1078
    fell, until they reached about £124. The consequence was that, taking the actual average of the two years and eight months, the average price of the shares was £124 3s. 5d., or 16 s. 7d. less than the £125 offered by the Government. But the Government, considering the circumstances under which this depreciation took place, were of opinion that they afforded substantial reason why, in an amicable contract, they should attempt to measure the price by a fair adjustment, rather than by the average price derived from the period of two years and eight months. They, therefore, proposed £125, which had this further convenience, that it just enabled them, in dealing with subsidiary arrangements, to add 25 per cent premium to the nominal amount of the shares. He believed that afforded a satisfactory reason why that alteration was made in the nominal value of the shares. Then came another arrangement. The Government, having made tip its mind to the purchase, had to make up its mind as to the way in which it would pay for the purchase. According to the original contract, the Government were to pay in cash, or yearly instalments, up to the termination of the lease, the whole payment being thrown into the form of terminable annuities. In order to provide for the computation of these annuities, it was necessary to fix the rate of interest at which they should be calculated, and, according to the contract, this interest was to be the interest at which the Secretary of State for India, or the East India Company in the old régime, had borrowed money during a period of two years immediately preceding. In arriving at the ascertainment of the interest, the Government found that the clause in the original contract was of a very peculiar character. So much so, that, although he did not propose to trouble the House by reading documents, it would be necessary to read this, because, in a great measure, the whole merit or demerit of the arrangement depended upon the particular terms defined. The terms upon which the Government and the Company both agreed to proceed in ascertaining the interest were these. They were to take all the bond stock and the other public obligations of the Secretary of State for India, and were to calculate upon that basis the aggregate interest, which appeared

    1079
    in the result to amount to the sum of £4 6s. per cent. A great deal of comment had been made upon this sum of £4 6s., as being an excessive rate, considering that at the time the arrangement was made the India Government, in this country, were able to borrow money at 4 per cent. However, that was the contract, and this was the interpretation put upon it by those who had the management of the arrangement. The consequence was that £4 6s. was taken as the sum to be applied to the amount of £125 per share, which was fixed upon as the value of the stock. If he had been called upon to say what he thought should be the amount of interest, he might have given a different rate; but the question was dealt with in the contract with words so technical and precise, that it was simply impossible to escape from the obligation. Perhaps the House would allow him to point out how this bore upon the results—£4 6s. being taken as the rate of interest instead of £4, or even less, the amount itself was, of course, proportionately increased. But he asked the House to remember that they were not there to criticize the exact execution of a definite contract, but rather the rate at which two public bodies were making an arrangement in regard to which an absolute contract was not to be observed. That being the case, they must also consider that the Railway Company who were parting with their property were not willing sellers. They were not seeking to divest themselves of valuable property which they possessed; but they were asked by the Government to part with it, and they had a right to inquire what they would be able to do with their money when they were paid off. The proprietors had been in the habit of receiving 6 per cent per annum, and they would be exceedingly loth to part with their property for an investment at 4 per cent, and if they took the rate of interest in connection with Indian Securities as their guide, they found that at the very same moment this negotiation was being made here by the Secretary for India in Calcutta loans bearing 4 per cent interest were being made by the Indian Government at 94 per cent, which, taking stock and premium together, produced nearly 4¾ per cent. He asked the House to compare all these things, because, unless they looked at
    1080
    every point, they would do injustice to the arrangement which had been made. There was another fact which must be considered, and it was a practical one. What was the result of this arrangement on the value of the East India Railway stock? At the present moment its value was £125 10 s. For that stock the Government had agreed to give £125—not an extravagant price when it was borne in mind how Her Majesty's Government had been compelled to pay for property they purchased even in recent times. It was not necessary to go further back than the purchase of the telegraphs. In the case of this Railway, they had only paid an amount equal to the value of the property. At any rate, that was the judgment which he himself should pass upon the transaction. He had undertaken to bring this measure before the House simply as one of the Members for the City of London. He had no other interest in it, and he was only anxious to give the House a fair representation upon which they might judge for themselves whether the arrangement between the Government and the Company was satisfactory or not. He did not propose to enter at all into the question of the policy of the Government. That was a matter beyond his power, and at the present moment he did not feel himself called upon to enter into it. But, assuming that they had good reasons for making the purchase, then he said that he could not find anything censurable as to the terms agreed upon between them and the owners of the East India Railway. He should like now to sum up what would certainly be his own view of the case, by quoting a few lines from the last Indian Budget. In the Financial Statement which came from India, a small portion was devoted to this subject, and the way in which it spoke of this particular contract was one which entirely coincided with his own view. The Indian Budget said this—
    " Although, perhaps, by the letter of the bond even better terms might have been exacted, there is good reason for the belief, the intention of the original parties to the contract has been substantially fulfilled, and it is a cause of much satisfaction to the Government of India that this important transaction has been concluded without any breach of the friendly relations between the Government and the Company."
    He would make no allusion to the

    1081
    Amendment which his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had placed on the Paper, because if his hon. Friend propounded any proposal at variance with what he (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) had stated, there would be an opportunity of replying to him. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill, as amended, be now taken into consideration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into consideration."—(Mr. J. G. Hubbard.)
    MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move,
    " That this House, adopting the recommendation contained in the Special Report of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, is of opinion that its provisions should not be regarded as a precedent for defining the terms on which the Indian Government may hereafter exercise its right of acquiring possession of the other guaranteed Railways in India."
    said, he knew that the House entertained a not unnatural objection to the prolonged discussion of a private Bill; but he thought he might claim their indulgence for a short time, when they considered the great importance of the issues that were involved in the question. The Committee to which this Bill had been referred unanimously came to the conclusion that, considering the great questions of public policy that were involved, and the financial issues that wore raised, it ought not to be regarded as a private, but a public Bill of the first importance. Treating the question especially as a financial one, he was sure that conclusion of the Committee would impress itself on the common sense of hon. Members on both sides of the House; for very seldom did anything connected with an Indian question involve graver financial issues than this, both in regard to the present and to the future. The Bill asked the House of Commons to ratify a purchase, the amount of which was no less than £32,000,000. That was an amount which represented, within very little, the entire net revenue of India for a single year, and about one-fifth of the entire Debt of India. But, important as was the Bill, simply looked upon in its immediate effect, when they regarded what might be its future effect the Bill became still more important.
    1082
    The Bill would, probably, become a precedent or a guide for the purchase of all the guaranteed railways in India, and the purchase of those guaranteed railways would involve an outlay, considering the price it was now proposed to pay, of £100,000,000. He thought these few preliminary remarks would be sufficient to convince the House of the great importance of the subject they were now considering. The question was, undoubtedly, a very complex one, and he could only say that he would do his best to explain it fairly to the House, and with as much clearness and brevity as possible. The great trunk railways of India were constructed on the principle that the Government should guarantee 5 per cent on all the capital expended. To the East India Company a lease was given, as his right hon. Friend opposite had clearly explained, of 99 years, with the power at any time, at certain stated intervals of 25 years, of the Government purchasing the lines that were constructed, either by making the payment in a lump sum, or by a deferred payment in the shape of an annuity. In the description which had been given by his right hon. Friend of these contracts, there seemed to be a most serious misapprehension in his right hon. Friend's mind, which went through the whole of his description. The right hon. Gentleman constantly spoke of this transaction as if it was a matter of option with the shareholders of the Company whether they sold the line to the Government or not. His right hon. Friend said—" Do you think they would have taken such-and-such terms? " Now, it could not be too distinctly understood by the House that the Company had no option whatever. Nothing could be more clear and precise than that the Government had, with regard to all these guaranteed railways, whether the shareholders wished it or not, a compulsory right to parchase them, on certain terms laid down in the contract. Therefore, all the remarks of his right hon. Friend, about the shareholders being willing to sell, absolutely fell to the ground. He (Mr. Fawcett) had remarked that there were two ways in which, at the end of 25 years from the granting of the original line, these railways could be acquired. They could be acquired by the payment of a lump sum down; and the price which was to

    1083
    be paid was the average price of the shares in the London market for the three years previous to the purchase; or, estimating the price of the shares at the same amount, they could be purchased, not by a lump sum, but by a deferred payment in the form of an annuity, and the interest on that annuity was to be calculated upon the interest received on the obligations of the Indian Government in England during the previous two years, which interest was to be ascertained by application to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. At the end of 99 years, if the line was not purchased, it lapsed to the Government free of cost; but, as often was the case in regard to the administration of Indian affairs, they came now to a Proviso, which was really to be looked upon as a memento of the extraordinary laxity and carelessness with which the finances of India were treated. After the Government had asserted a right to acquire the possession of these lines, free of cost, they absolutely got rid of that right by another Proviso, which gave the Company power, at any moment, even a day before the lease expired, to surrender the undertaking at par. There was no use in crying over spilt milk; but these contracts, from beginning to end, were based on the principle of " Heads, I win; tails, you lose; " and the Indian people were in the unfortunate position of " Tails, you lose." He came now to the particular transactions. He had already described the principles upon which this contract was generally based, and he had described it as it was presented before the Select Committee by those who represented the views of the Indian Government. The Indian Government would have the power, in February next, of exercising the compulsory right of purchase, which he had described; but instead of doing that, for reasons which he would presently explain, they anticipated this compulsory right of purchase, and in the month of November last entered into negotiations with the East India Railway Company. The justification they alleged for doing this was simply the following:—They said that if this line had to bed suddenly surrendered to them in February—if, for instance, on the 31st of January it had belonged to the Company, and on the 1st of February it had become the property of the
    1084
    Government, this sudden dislocation—this sudden jerk would have caused a great disturbance, which would have proved prejudicial to the interests of India. He did not wish now to express an opinion upon the truth or the justice of this plea. All that he would say was that it was not to his mind conclusively made out to the Committee. But the result was that the Government anticipated the surrender, and entered into an arrangement. They said—" On the whole, we wish to purchase the line; but we think it is very desirable that it should continue to be managed by the present Company, because, although in the early days of the Company there was great waste and mismanagement, yet, from the time when the Railway began to pay, and the Company itself became interested in its economical administration, the management has been much improved, and that this is now one of the cheapest worked lines in the world." In order to secure the management of the Company, and a continuance of a feeling of self-interest on the part of the Company, they arranged that four-fifths of the purchase money should be paid in the form of an annuity, and that the remaining one-fifth should be offered to the shareholders, partly in the shape of an annuity, and partly by giving them a claim to one-fifth of the property, the object of this being to secure that the Company should have a direct interest in the prosperity and success of the line they were going to manage. Now, after this description, he thought it would be obvious to the House that four questions immediately suggested themselves for their consideration. The first question was this —were the Government wise in purchasing the railway? Secondly, if the railway was purchased, were the Government wise in continuing the existing Company to manage it? Thirdly, if the existing Company managed it, was it prudent to allocate to them a certain share of the profits? and, fourthly, in arranging the bargain, was adequate care displayed by the Government in protecting the financial interests of India? He thought an answer to these four questions would practically exhaust the case. Now, with regard to the first three of these questions, it would be necessary for him to make very few remarks indeed, because, as far as he was concerned, he was prepared to agree with the view of the

    1085
    Government. He thought, in the first place, it was wise on the part of the Government, considering the improved position of this railway, to purchase it. Certainly, if it was purchased—although he did not wish to express so positive an opinion as to the wisdom of continuing the Company as its managers—yet in view of the possibility that the Government might acquire all the other guaranteed railways, it was wise to make an experiment, and especially as the arrangement was not a permanent arrangement, but might be terminated, if the Government wished it, at the end of 20 years. With regard to the third question—namely, if the Company were continued as managers, was it prudent to allocate to them a certain share of the profits—believing that there was no motive so efficient in securing good management as the feeling of self-interest, he quite agreed with the Government, that it was of the first importance, if a company were to manage the line, to make the shareholders aware of the fact that they had some direct interest in its prosperity. He knew no better way in which this could be done than by allocating to them a certain share of the profits. But now he came to the fourth question which he ventured to put to the House, and it was the one to which he should entirely confine his remarks—namely, whether, in arranging the bargain, any adequate steps were taken by the authorities in the India Office, or by the Secretary of State and his Council, to protect the financial interests of India? No one who had read the evidence given before the Committee, and the Report of that Committee, which was so ably drawn up by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who had only recently left the India Office—no one who had read that Report could come to any other conclusion—and it was a very important conclusion—that there had seldom been a case in which the Secretary of State in Council had' shown such laxity and carelessness in protecting the financial interests of India. This statement, he thought could be substantiated without much difficulty. He knew what the plea was that had been urged on behalf of the Secretary of State and his Council. It was the plea which had been put forward to-day by his right hon. Friend the Member for
    1086
    the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard). It was this—" Oh, you were making an arrangement with the Company. You wanted to have amicable relations with them, and, therefore, it was necessary to deal liberally with them." Yes, but even admitting that it was necessary to deal liberally with them—and he thought they ought to be careful in dealing liberally with other people's money—even admitting that it was necessary to deal liberally with them, he thought he should be able to show that the particular way that was selected to display this liberality was the most unfortunate one that could possibly be chosen. Now what would be the business-like and the common-sense view of the proceeding? They should have said to the Company this" We wish to retain your services, and we wish you to feel a direct interest in the future prosperity of this Railway. What is the proper remuneration of your services? What would be a proper share of the profits to allocate to you?" When that had been determined, the proper share of the profits ought to have been allocated—one-fifth, or one-fourth, or whatever the amount might be. When that was determined, then, of course, the business-like way to proceed was that the purchase should bed arranged strictly according to the contract. These contracts were, in their original incidence, sufficiently unfavourable to India; but he did not wish them to be departed from one hair's breadth. But let the rest of the bargain be carried out upon strict adherence to the terms of the contract; and if any difficulty had arisen upon the interpretation of the contract let it be decided by arbitration. But it was said that the Company would not have received those terms. He could only say that if they were to search the Blue Book from beginning to end they would not find a single title of evidence to show that the Company would not have received terms such as these. At any rate, if there was a probability that they refused them, the Indian Government, as guardians of the financial interests of India, ought to have made the attempt. But there was another, and, perhaps, a more cogent reason why it was important that the terms of the contract should have been strictly interpreted, and that the arrangements should have been carried out as far as possible strictly in accordance with the contract. As he had

    1087
    said before, that was only the first of a series of bargains and arrangements which might involve an outlay of £100,000,000, and if, in an easy-going fashion, they departed from the strict interpretation of those contracts, throwing a few pounds away here, and a few shillings there, and passing over sums of £200,000 without heed, what would be the result? Why, it would be to give an unlimited opportunity for pressure to be brought to bear on the India Office by influential persons in regard to future purchases. It was a most important thing for the House to consider that when those contracts had been departed from, and whenever the interpretation had been doubtful, that particular interpretation of the contract had been accepted, which was the most unfavourable to India and the most advantageous to the Company. Of course, by far the most important point to be determined was the payment which was to be made in the form of an annuity running for 73 years; by far the most important point to be determined was what was to be the rate of interest at which the annuity was to be calculated. So important was that that he had made a calculation, and he had ascertained that every shilling in the rate of interest made no less a difference than £400,000 in the amount which would have to be paid for the East Indian Railway. Consequently, considering the financial position of India at the present moment, and all that had been said about the importance of strict economy, why, of course, that was a subject on which there ought to have been the most scrupluous care, instead of which there had been the most extraordinary laxity. Now, what was the interpretation of the interest clause that was accepted, and how was the figure of £4 6s. 0d. arrived at? He scarcely thought that the House would believe that what he was going to explain had ever taken place. The words of the contract were said to be obscure. He would quote them, and then the House could judge of their obscurity or not. It was said in the contract that the rate of interest to be allowed in calculating the annuity
    " Shall be the average rate of interest during the preceding two years received in London upon public obligations of the East India Company; "
    and the rate of interest
    1088
    " Shall be ascertained by reference to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for the time being."
    In the first place, the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England were never applied to, and he wished the House to consider what were the express words of the instruction—
    " Which shall be ascertained," not which may be ascertained, " by reference to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. "
    Well, that was the first instance in which there was carelessness. Now, what would be the common-sense interpretation to be put on the words
    "The rate of interest received on the public obligations of the Indian Government in London during the previous two years."
    Why, as his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who had great commercial and financial experience, had admitted, the interpretation to be placed on those words was this—the rate of interest at which the Secretary of State in Council could have borrowed, in that period, money in the London market. That would have given a rate of interest of £3 18 s. 3d. What, however, was the rate which the Government had accepted? Why £4 68., and that extra 7s. 9d. made close upon £3,000,000 difference in the amount that was about to be paid for the railway in question. And now, how did the Indian Office arrive at the sum of £4 6s.? They took every Indian Stock at par, added them up, and then divided them by the rate of interest. If the calculation had been made two years ago, before the 10 per cent Stock had been paid off, a rate of interest would have been made of something like 8 per cent. To show the absurdity of the Government's interpretation of the contract, he would suppose that the French Government had French Renters bearing interest at the rate of 3 per cent and 5 per cent, and that the Spanish Government had also Rentes in England bearing the same rate of interest. According to the interpretation of the Indian Office, the interest received on obligations of the French Government in London, would be precisely the same as the interest received on the obligations of the Spanish Government, because they would take each of the securities at par, and would not consider the market value of the Stock. What the Indian

    1089
    Office did was this. They arrived at what was the rate of interest on which the Indian Government had raised all their existing loans; and it was only by the most strained interpretation that anyone could come to the conclusion that that was the same thing as a rate of interest received on obligations of the Indian Government during the two years preceding the purchase. Even admitting there was some doubt as to the interpretation of the clause, why did the Indian Government, if there was any doubt, before they accepted the interpretation, which, of all others, was most unfavourable to the Indian taxpayer—why did they neglect to do that which they were strictly enjoined to do—namely, consult the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England? Why did they not take some legal advice? The Committee to which the Bill was referred felt that so strongly that, although on the Committee there were, of course, supporters of the Government who would not, willingly, censure the Secretary of State in Council, as he would not himself, in their Report there would be found this censure on the proceedings of the Secretary of State in Council, and it was a very severe censure—
    " This Committee, after considering all that has been alleged in favour of the interpretation of the interest clause, by the Indian Government, cannot help expressing their regret that some independent legal authority was not consulted as to the meaning of this clause, before an interpretation was accepted, which largely increases the cost of acquiring this railway."
    But it was not only with regard to the interest clause that the contract was a bad one. His right hon. Friend (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) said that they anticipated the purchase of the Jubbulpore branch by four years. Now, the Government admitted that, according to their own interpretation of the interest clause, in consequence of certain financial transactions, the rate of interest would be so much lowered that if they had only waited for four years the Jubbulpore branch would have been acquired at a cost of something like £250,000 less than that which had been paid for it. Then, again, there was great obscurity about the sinking fund. He thought it might be fairly contended, although, on this point, he did not wish to express a positive opinion—he thought it might be
    1090
    fairly contended that, in providing a sinking fund, they ought not to have to provide for the enhanced value of stock. There was one point which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had admitted, and about which there was no doubt whatever. And, in this respect also, the Indian Government had departed from strict injunctions. Nothing could be more precise than that the price at which the shares were to be estimated was their average price in the London market, during the preceding three years. It was said by the Representative of the India Office that the price was £125. He (Mr. Fawcett) would Lave accepted it as a correct price, had his suspicions not been roused by the roundness of the sum. He was prompted to ask if that was the exact calculation. " Oh, no':" it was replied, as if it was a matter of very little importance; "the exact figure was £124 3s. 3d., but we thought we might as well pay them £125." Now the difference between that £124 3s. 3d. and £125 increased the price of the railway undertaking by no less than £200,000; and he ventured to assert, as he had always done, that, to play ducks and drakes with £200,000 of the money of the people of India, was a much more serious thing than to waste £2,000,000 of English money. But it might be said — " If you hold these strong opinions about the manner in which this transaction has been carried out, is not the Resolution which you are about to move very inadequate to meet the occasion? " [" Hear, hear "] He was not surprised at that response, and he could assure his hon. Friends who felt that his Resolution was inadequate that he had never been more perplexed in his life—and he believed that that was the feeling of every Member of the Committee—as to what was the right course to take with regard to the present Bill. There were obviously three courses open to them. They might try to reject the Bill point blank; secondly, they might try to censure the Secretary of State and his Council for the manner in which they had carried out the bargain; and, thirdly, they might try—and that was what he was endeavouring to do—to prevent, as far as possible, that unfortunate transaction being used as a precedent to regulate future purchases. Now, with regard to the first of these proposals to reject

    1091
    the Bill, there were many difficulties in the way. The Government said that if the House rejected the Bill, they would have to encounter endless difficulties; all kinds of obstacles would be thrown in their way; and, of course, when people had to carry out an arrangement, it was proper that they should not be fettered. It would he the Indian Government who would have to carry out the arrangements, and if they anticipated difficulties beforehand, those difficulties would be sure to present themselves. There was another difficulty in the way of rejecting the Bill, and that raised the consideration which showed the importance of the debate. This was a very serious matter, and he felt, considering the whole circumstances of the case, that the Bill could not be rejected without laying the Indian Government, to a certain extent, open to a breach of faith, and the reason why was simply this. Legally and technically there would be no breach of faith; but when the arrangement was entered into, no great care seemed to have been taken, either by the Government or by the Company to tell the outside shareholders and the general public that that was a mere provisional arrangement, and that it might be upset by Parliament. It was assumed in every money market that the arrangement was complete, and that the Bill would be a mere matter of form. So much so was that the impression that he knew that the promoters of the Bill told some of the officials connected with the House that the Bill was an entirely formal matter—that the whole thing was so complete that the investigation could not take more than an hour. He knew that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London the first day he sat on the Committee; but his opinion on that subject was very quickly changed; for he soon saw that there were questions involved in the Bill of the greatest possible importance. Now, if they did not reject the Bill on the present occasion—and, of course, it was for the House to consider whether or not they ought the resort to such an extreme step—they could do so upon the next stage or third reading of the Bill if they were so minded; but, at any rate, when the next Indian guaranteed railway was purchased, the public would know that any arrangement that was entered into between the Government and the Company was
    1092
    simply provisional, and depended upon its ratification by Parliament, and that Parliament reserved to itself the right to upset the arrangement if it felt so disposed. The second course which could be adopted would be to ask the House to pass a censure upon the Secretary of State and his Council. They all knew what would be the result of that. The; debate would assume a Party character, and no practical good would be done. I They would be divided in opinion, and he thought that the Secretary of State I and his Council had been sufficiently censured already in the Report of the Committee over which a Member of the Government presided. But now, what was the third course that he ventured to suggest? He said, at the outset of his remarks, that the importance of the Bill was not simply confined to the Bill itself; but that its importance arose from the fact that that was the first of a series of transactions which might involve, and would involve, an outlay of something like £100,000,000. What, therefore, the House of Commons could do, and what seemed to him to be the most practical and business-like thing to do, was to place on record, in the most authoritative way possible, that they would wipe out of recollection all traces of the present measure, and that in no single respect should any clause or any provision of the Bill be used as a precedent to define the terms on which railway undertakings of a similar character might in future be acquired by the Indian Government. Perhaps it would be said—" If you press your Resolution to a Division "—and such was his intention—" and it is carried, that being an Amendment to the Motion that the Bill he now considered, it will virtually defeat the Bill." Ho had taken great pains to ascertain what would be the effect of carrying the Resolution he was about to propose, and he found that it would not have the effect of defeating the Bill. It was simply an Amendment to the Motion " that the Bill be now considered;" and if it were carried, there would be nothing, according to the Rules of the procedure of the House, to prevent the Bill being again considered on the succeeding day; it would simply postpone the consideration of the Bill for a single day. It might also be said—" What your Resolution does has already been done by the Committee, and why introduce it?

    1093
    He would at once tell the Government and the House why he did not think the recommendation of the Committee was, in itself, sufficient. The Committee, no doubt, had, in the most positive way, recommended that the Bill should not be regarded as a precedent to regulate future transactions; but if the House took no notice of that recommendation, what might the Secretary of State say when he had next to negotiate an arrangement with some Company owning a line he desired to purchase? He might say, it was true, that it was the recommendation of the Committee, but the House of Commons took no notice of it, they did not endorse it; and, therefore, it was impossible for him to say that it was the opinion of Parliament. If, however, the recommendation of the Committee were supported and backed up by a Resolution of the House, it would be an injunction which the Secretary of State could not disregard, and, in his next transactions with a guaranteed Company, with the Company who came forward and said to him—" Oh, you must do this and that; it was done with regard to the East Indian Railway Company; " then he would be safeguarded by the Resolution of the House, and he would say—" I have been instructed by Parliament to declare that what was done with regard to the purchase of the East Indian Railway should, in future, be not looked upon in the least degree as a precedent." He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to the long statement he had felt bound to make. The subject was a complicated one, and he had endeavoured to explain it with as much clearness as possible, his only object being to discuss it in a practical and business-like spirit, and in that spirit he commended his Resolution to the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word " That " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " this House, adopting the recommendation contained in the Special Report of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, is of opinion that its provisions should not be regarded as a precedent for defining the terms on which the Indian Government may hereafter exercise its right of acquiring possession of the other guaranteed Railways in India,"—(Mr. Faweett,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) not to wish to oppose the passing of the Bill, nor to move a Vote of Censure upon the Secretary of State for India; but what he did desire was to give the Secretary of State for India, through the authority of that House, a piece of advice in reference to the conduct of future unknown transactions. He (Mr. Freshfield) did not see that there could be any great objection to the Resolution; but he confessed that he did not see anything to render it necessary. The hon. Member found fault with the contracts as originally framed, and also with the arrangement made by the Government, which was involved in the Bill. Now, with regard to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Hackney upon the original contracts. He (Mr. Freshfield) did not think anyone could form a clear conception of the merits or demerits of the contracts, without knowing something of their history and the circumstances under which they were made. He was acquainted with all those circumstances, and he would give that information to the House in a few words. He was one of the survivors of the parties who conducted the negotiations with the Court of Directors of the East India Company in 1843, now 35 years ago. The first individual who introduced the subject of the construction of Indian railways was Sir Macdonald Stephenson, who went out in 1843 to make inquiries and obtain information on the subject of the adaptability of the railway system into India. He returned in 1844, having satisfied himself that the proposition was feasible, and that railways would be of incalculable benefit to India. On his return, Sir Macdonald Stephenson put himself into communication with men of high commercial and financial standing, and, without any such qualifications on his own part, he (Mr. Freshfield) was asked to join in the negotiations. They went to the East India Company, who then constituted the Government of India. They had many interviews, and found great divergence of opinion in the Court of Directors. There was, however, unanimity on one point, and that was that if railways were to be constructed at all, they must be selected and controlled by the Government. Every element of speculation was thus eliminated from the contract, and the first basis of

    1095
    the negotiations laid down was, that the Government of India should guarantee a minimum return to the shareholders for the money raised. Negotiations proceeded slowly, a Company was formed with a capital of £4,000,000, and Sir Macdonald Stephenson was sent out with a staff of engineers. He returned in 1847. In the meantime, there had been a great commercial crisis in London, and afterwards political convulsions throughout all Europe. These events formed great drawbacks to the negotiations, and made it necessary to increase the demand for the guarantee from 4 to 5 per cent. But a further difficulty awaited them. The Court of Directors, in a letter addressed to an official of the Stock Exchange, stated that they had never professed to guarantee a fixed dividend. This last blow seemed as if it would be fatal to the cause. In this state of things, it occurred to a gentleman, acquainted with all the facts, to address a letter to the then Prime Minister, Earl Russell, containing a narrative of the negotiations. The pamphlet got into the hands of Mr. Wilson, the then Secretary of the Board of Contract, who took up the subject and mastered it; and the result was that he proposed to them that they should raise £1,000,000 towards an experimental line and pay it into the Treasury; that the Government should pay them 5 per cent per annum; and that the Company should construct the line and work it for 99 years, it being in every respect under the control of the Government. It was pointed out that a guarantee on the part of the Government would be necessary, and he proposed two additional terms. One was, that if the line so constructed and worked did not pay its working expenses the Company should have the power, at any time in the course of their lease, of surrendering it to the Government, and receiving back the money expended upon the line, as audited from time to time. The other condition was that the Government, on the other hand, should have the power of giving notice to the Company at any time after the first term of 25 years had run out, or after 50 years, that it was their intention to acquire the property in the line, and to take it into their hands; in which case, they were to pay for it the value of the shares in the London market for the three years preceding the notice. Those
    1096
    were the two terms upon which the arrangement turned. It did not constitute an actual guarantee, but something very near it. On the other hand, there was the provision that in 25 years—long before it was expected the line would be fully developed—the Government should have the power of acquiring it, in exchange either for money or for an annuity. Now, the intention of the arrangement, no doubt, was that the Government should pay the value of the shares as ascertained by their price during the three preceding years, the principle being that the amount should come to, as near as possible, the actual value of the line. It would be asked, if that were so, why it was not so stated in terms. The answer was, if they had put such a clause as that in the contract it would have been too indefinite, and would have led to litigation. But he had no doubt at all that the intention was that the Company should receive the fair value of their line. The Company raised the first £1,000,000. The contract worked admirably, and they were soon called upon to execute the line to Delhi, and four years afterwards to make the branch to Jubbulpore, which finished the undertaking. Of course, in the first instance, it did not yield any profit, and it was not until 1867 that the line began to pay more than its 5 per cent guarantee. When that event took place, by the terms of the contract, one half the profits over 5 per cent went to the Company and one half to the Government. The line went on progressively increasing in receipts until 1877, when they had attained 9 per cent. In that year it became necessary for the Gevernment—the Secretary of State then constituting the Government—to determine what course they should pursue. They came to three conclusions. The first was, that they should acquire the property; and they could hardly come to any other conclusion than that. The line was then paying 9 per cent, and it was a grand acquisition for any Government to make. The next conclusion was equally inevitable—that they would acquire it through an annuity. Then they came to a third conclusion, and he thought they were right in it. They could not themselves manage the line half as well as the Company managed it, for a commercial working was always superior to an official, and they decided to commit the continuance

    1097
    of the working of the line to the Company, if they possibly could. But then the difficulty intervened that the line must be taken as a whole; while the lease of the Jubbulpore line had four years longer to run than that of the main line. There was another difficulty in the fact that the time for giving notice to acquire the main line would not arise until the 17th February, 1879, and this was only the middle of 1878. In that state of things the course pursued by the Secretary of State was to open negotiations with the Company. He knew Mr. Crawford, the Chairman, a gentleman well known in this House as Member for the City of London, and who had been Chairman of the Company for 25 years. Accordingly, the Chairman of the Company, Mr. Crawford, was sent for, and put in communication with Sir Louis Mallet, the permanent official Secretary of the Government, and they discussed the matter. Mr. Crawford could make no objection to the power to take over the main line; that was matter of contract, and was not a question of election at all. There was no doubt on that point, nor that the Government were entitled to pay for the line by the way of an annuity. But the continued working of the line by the Company was an entirely new proposition. Mr. Crawford had no objection to the principle, and he said so. Then came the question, what was to be paid—how could they ascertain it? The powers of the contract could not be acted on, because the contract could have no force as to the Jubbulpore line until April, 1883. That being so, what they decided upon was—and in this he thought they were right—to go as near the contract as they could; and a calculation was made for the preceding two years and a-half of the value of the shares in the market. Mr. Crawford, in preparation for this arrangement, had had a daily account taken of the price of the shares from the 17th February, 1876. It began very low — at 115, he (Mr. Freshfield) thought — and it rose up to 133; and it was about 133 in June or September. He did not remember the dates precisely; but the price ranged up to 133, and it gave for a period of 2½ years very nearly £;125 as the mean value. Mr. Crawford said in his evidence before the Committee that if the time had been allowed to run on, and if there had been nothing to interfere with the
    1098
    mean price of the shares, it would have risen, undoubtedly, to more than 125. He said—
    " As regards that price of 125, it is not at all an inquiry at the present moment whether that is right or wrong; but, as a matter of fact, on that day on which the average began to be collected—which was the 15th February, 1876—I ordered the account to be taken and kept up daily, and it was so taken and kept up for a space of three years, showing the actual price. When we came to negotiation with the Government, the actual average of the daily quotations in the market was close on 125. Pad it not been for the negotiations that took place, which had the effect of disturbing the market, I have no doubt the average would have been above 125. I, acting for the Company, was quite content to take 125, as representing what appeared to me to be a fair average return of the market for three years."
    That was the account which Mr. Crawford gave the Committee of the circumstances, and he did not think anyone had offered to question it. Sir Louis Mallet and Mr. Crawford were negotiating on reasonable, fair, and commercial principles. Sir Louis Mallet thought 125 was a fair price to offer, and Mr. Crawford thought it was a fair price to accept. Now, if the view were correct, that the intention of the contract was that the shareholders should get the fair value of the property, he (Mr. Freshfield) thought no one could find fault with the arrangement, seeing its effect was that the Government had obtained a line now paying about 9 per cent. [" No, no !"] The hon. Member for Hackney seemed to object to that statement. The fact was, that the line produced more than 9 per cent in 1877, and only 7·15 per cent in 1878; but the receipts this year were likely to bed greater than in 1878, and this was not the culminating point of the railway. Quite the contrary; it had been in work less than 20 years, and the branch only 16 years, and there was not the least doubt it would go on developing. Therefore, the Government obtained a valuable property on easy terms. As to the rate of interest regulating the annuity, by the terms of the contract, it was to be calculated on the rate of interest received on the public obligations of the Indian Government during the two years preceding the notice to take over the line, to be ascertained by reference to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England; but, of course, that calculation could not be made six

    1099
    months beforehand, the fact being that all the arrangements were made in anticipation of the time when the powers of the Government to take over the line would come into operation. The period had not arrived when they could refer to the Governor of the Bank; and, therefore, the Secretary of State and Sir Louis Mallet, knowing perfectly well what they were about, made their arrangements with the Company, and, he conceived, made them much in favour of the Government. Then, the Proviso that the working of the line should be committed to the Company was one which the Secretary of State had very much at heart, and rightly so. The Secretary of State thought the Company would manage it more economically than the Government, and it was proposed with that view. As to the one-fifth of the capital of the Company, the Secretary of State wished that the shareholders should be still interested in the line; but, in that case, they must submit for 20 years to a diminution of their guarantee to 4 per cent, and they were to take the chances of the line for giving them anything beyond that amount, as an equivalent for their annuity of £5 12 s. 6d. Besides that, the line was made subject to sundry charges and payments. Well, he had considered the proposition as affecting the shareholders, and he did not see that it was one of very certain advantage; and he was not sure whether the shareholders would exercise their opportunity to the extent of one-fifth of the capital. But he was quite sure of this — that the arrangement, upon the whole, was one which was beneficial to the Government. He had not entered, at length, into the arrangement, under which £4 6s. 0d. was taken, instead of £4, as suggested. The terms of the contract were not absolutely clear on that point; but as to the price of 125, he was quite sure that was a very fair and reasonable arrangement. His hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) complained of the original contract. He did not think any arrangement could have been made at the time more advantageous on the whole; and if they were trying to make a better contract at present, he did not know how they could do so. They had to raise £30,000,000 for this Company, and he thought £100,000,000 was required for all the railways; and he did not see how it would have been possible to get
    1100
    the money without a guarantee. Now, the contract had merged into a taking over of the line, and it seemed to him no Government or individual had ever made a fairer arrangement. The telegraphs had been referred to. Perhaps, the less that was said about the telegraphs the better; but here great judgment had been displayed. The line had been acquired at a cost not more than half its value; and when it was said the terms were voluntary, he would reply, so much the better, because they showed the disposition on both sides to make a fair arrangement. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) proposed to pass something like a censure upon the Government. That reminded him (Mr. Freshfield) of the story of the Welsh jury who found the prisoner not guilty, but told him not to do it again. He (Mr. Freshfield) would rather find the Minister guilty on this occasion, and beg that he would do it again as often as he could. It was a grand thing to find a Minister who possessed the courage of his own convictions. The Secretary of State came to the conclusion that the arrangement would be good for the Government. He (Mr. Freshfield) thought that conclusion was right, and he must say he thought India was to be congratulated on the arrangement which had been made.
    MR. RATHBONEwas sorry to say he was not in the same position as the right hon. Member for the City of London who opened the debate (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), because he had a considerable interest in the line, which would prevent him, as a matter of form, from marking, by his vote, the strong opinion which he held that the shareholders would receive under the contract far more advantageous treatment on the part of the Government than they were in strict law entitled to receive. He thought that in all arrangements that were made on behalf of so poor a people as the people of India with the rich capitalists of this country the bargain should be strictly enforced. He wished to say nothing against the Chairman or management off this Company. The Chairman had shown in these and other matters great ability, and had done no more than he was bound to do as acting for the Company. Nor could he agree with the hon.
    Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), in the strong terms with which the hon.

    1101
    Member had characterized the transaction; there had been many transactions which were far more lax and disadvantageous to the public. He quite admitted there were difficulties connected with this transaction; but what he contended was that those who had conducted it on the part of the Government had not shown their accustomed ability. He had nothing to say against the new contract with the Company. In such a partnership, where so much depended on the exertions of the Company, any man of business would make a favourable arrangement with those on whose exertions the mutual profit of the undertaking depended. But there was no reason whatever for going so far as the Government had gone with regard to the original contract, although, of course, Mr. Crawford could not be expected to refuse it. On behalf of the Government, it was said that the intention of the old contract had been substantially fulfilled. He maintained that it was not so, and he would take up the important point of the average rate of interest as an instance. The clear intention was that the Government should pay cash, or the equivalent of cash in securities. That did not mean taking 5 per cent annuities which were at a high premium as a basis. It was intended that the Company should receive Indian securities to pay the average rate received by those who had held them for three years previous. Surely, before the Government made an arrangement which gave everything to the shareholders, and put everything against the inhabitants of India, they should have taken every means to make sure they were right, either by taking the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of England, or the highest legal advice. He also objected to any allowance being made for the alleged depreciation in the value of the shares, consequent upon the knowledge that the Government were about to exercise their powers. Of course, it was a disappointment to the shareholders, who thought they were going to receive 9 per cent or more, that all their prospective profits were to be given up; but it was the right of the people of India to receive the full advantage, not only of the actual contract, but of the effect which the knowledge that that contract was going to be enforced, had upon the stock, whatever it was. They had a right to take advantage of any
    1102
    circumstances which were favourable to them, just as the shareholders would have a right to take advantage of circumstances in their favour. He only wished to dwell on these two points, and, as a man of business, looking at the contract and all the circumstances, he did not think the Government of India had secured for the people of India those advantages that people had a right to expect. The shareholders had the best of the bargain, and there was no reason why they should have received more than, under the strict letter of the contract, they were entitled to.
    SIR HENRY PEEK, as one who had very carefully followed the evidence given before the Select Committee, of which he had been a Member, agreed that it was a wise policy to make the purchase, and in continuing the present management; but he altogether disagreed from the assertion that the interests of India had not had clue consideration. He wont into the Committee Room as a man of business in the habit of well considering both sides of a question, and quite agreed with the Report presented to the House. Indeed, if he wanted to alter that Report at all, he would almost be inclined to adopt the final words of the Resolution which the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) brought forward as an Amendment. The Company ought to be dealt with in a liberal way, and this price allowed—£125 — he regarded as a just rather than a liberal arrangement. The bargain was to be made under a contract of 25 years ago, and under a totally different state of the money market. That contract of 25 years ago, for which nobody alive was now responsible, was as awkwardly worded as could be. According to that contract, the then Government, if they were not in a position to pay the £30,500,000 in hard sovereigns, made a bargain equally fair to the Indian and the British public, and the time had now come to carry it out in the same spirit. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hackney say he had no wish to upset the Bill. He said he only wished to postpone it; but what would be the effect of postponing the Bill on the 1st of July? Every day, every hour, remaining of the Session was of the utmost importance, and to postpone the Bill now would bring about that which the hon. Member said he had no wish to see. An exception

    1103
    had been taken—why did not the Government wait in the exercise of their power? but if they had waited, they would have been unable to exercise their power for another 25 years. But for sanitary, as well as strategical reasons, they wanted to acquire the railway; and, therefore, it was a fair matter of bargain between the Government and the Company. He could only repeat that, as a man of business, and having gone into the Committee with a mind perfectly blank on this question, he now gave to the House his firm opinion, based upon the evidence given, that a very fair and straightforward bargain had been made.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLobserved, that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield), who was a man of great experience, capable of giving the Government good advice, in discussing this subject at length, had left one point without scarcely touching it at all, and that was the calculation of the rate of interest at £4 6s. per cent. In his prudence, he passed lightly over that point; but it really was the gist of the whole matter. He (Sir George Campbell) would come to that presently, and, in the meantime, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he would say he had listened to his speech with the greatest admiration and agreement, only disagreeing with the conclusion, for it seemed to him that the hon. Member, having led up to an inevitable conclusion, started and recoiled, seeing a " lion in the path," from the conclusion to which his speech must lead. The preliminary objections to the rejection of the Bill were really not so serious as seemed to be supposed. The reason which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) seemed to think a conclusive one why the bargain should now be made on terms favourable to the East India Company was, that although the Government could take over the main line of the Company, they could not take over the branch line for another four years. But that was not a conclusive objection. It was quite competent for the Government to take over the main line and say to the Company—" If you like to keep the Jubbulpore branch for another four years, you can do so," and no great evil would result from that. More than that, it was not at all likely that the
    1104
    East India Company would accept that. All the loss they had was on the Jubbulpore branch, and not on the main line; and so they would simply be accepting the unpaying line for four years longer, and at the end of that term they would get a worse price than they could get now, because the 5 per cent loan, on which they based their favourable view of the contract, would be expired. Then, it had also been said, as a reason for doing this, that if a voluntary arrangement was not come to with the Company, the latter might throw the railway into the hands of the Government, and the Government would find great difficulty in taking it over in 1880. But to this it might be said that all the servants of the Company would be glad to take service with Government; and all Government would have to do would be to send an order to the Government of India, and there would be no difficulty in doing that. The hon. Member for Hackney said he was not prepared to propose the rejection of the Bill; but he wished to place on record a Resolution that, so far as the pecuniary arrangements were concerned, thins Bill should not be regarded as a precedent. To that he (Sir George Campbell) would say, with the greatest confidence, there was no other case in which this Bill could be followed as a precedent; so that it was shutting the door after the steed was stolen. The 5 per cent loan, which was a loss to the people of India of several millions sterling, expired in 1880. It could not affect any other railway; and, therefore, so far, the Resolution would be of no avail whatever. He agreed that the other portions of the contract with the Company were, on the whole, not disadvantageous; it was only this arrangement regarding the rate of interest to be taken in the calculations that inflicted a loss on the people of India; but this resulted from the circumstances of the loan, which expired in 1880, and would not affect subsequent sales of railways to the Government. It might not, improbably, happen that, from the bad state of the finances, their borrowing powers in the money market became less favourable; it might be that this particular condition of the contract might be favourable to the people of India; on the next occasion the question must be considered as regarded this particular case; and they should not

    1105
    pass a Resolution meaning nothing at all. As regarded. the several points raised in the discussion—the price at which the average of the shares was to be calculated, and other things—he was quite ready to say it was fair enough, to a certain extent, that the benefit of the doubt in these small matters should be given to the Company; therefore, he would not quarrel with the decision that gave £125 instead of £124 and a fraction; and also with regard to the sinking fund, and other matters, it was graceful, and not unfair, to give them the benefit of the doubt. But when he came to the rate of interest at which the annuities should be calculated, then there was a matter involving a sum of nearly £3,000,000 sterling. Before that was decided, let it be considered what an enormous sum that was in connection with the people of India, and how often much smaller sums had been the subject of serious debate. The finances of India were in an involved state; and they had heard how, by cutting, clipping, and pruning, Her Majesty's Government hoped to save £250,000 annually. But the gift to the Fast Indian Railway would absorb the whole of these savings for a long period of 12 years. The Government had undertaken to limit the public works by which the trade of India was developed; but this sum would amount to the sum thus saved in three or four years. So it was a matter of enormous importance; and the House should not pass the Bill, unless they felt satisfied they were not inflicting a grave injustice upon the people of India. He was somewhat in the position of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone); he was a shareholder in the Fast Indian Railway Company, and if he had not been in that position, he might have had a doubt what course to pursue. But, being in the position with which personal pecuniary interest was connected, and, on the other hand, holding a strong opinion that the interests of the people of India were being sacrificed to an unfortunate degree, he felt he could not justify himself and his own character, in forming the strong opinion he held, if he did not state that, whatever the result of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney, when the Question was put, " That the Bill do pass," he should feel bound to say " No." For, as he had already stated, there were no real
    1106
    difficulties in rejecting or postponing the Bill. An objection had been made that the shareholders had been led to suppose that this transfer would not require the sanction of Parliament. That was not so. It would be a grave implication upon the Company if they had allowed this false impression to get abroad. The bankers who had to do with this matter stated distinctly in their circular that this arrangement was entirely contingent upon the sanction of Parliament. Now, suppose the Government acceded what, he thought, was the outcome, the necessary outcome, of the Report of the Select Committee? Suppose the House acceded that Report, being of opinion that there was considerable injustice in the matter to the people of India, and that it involved a gift to the Fast Indian Railway Company of £3,000,000, to which, under the strict terms of the contract, they were not entitled, then there would be no particular difficulty in throwing out the Bill, and falling back upon the contract. Now, with regard to the terms of the contract under which interest was to be paid on the money. He observed there was an important word in the Report of the Committee omitted by inadvertence; that was the word "received." It would be found, on referring to the contract as recited in the Bill, that the words ran—
    " Such annuities to be determined by the average rate of interest received on the public obligations of the East India Company. "
    But the word " received " had been omitted; and without it the meaning might be construed Avery differently. It might be construed to mean that the price should be determined by the nominal, and not the actual rate of interest; but with the word " received " it was difficult to attach any other meaning to the clause than that the amount of interest should be that received by those who had invested money in these obligations. It was the natural common-sense view to take that as the intention of the clause. Let the House think on this question of interest as involving no less than £3,000,000 sterling, and say if it was not better not to pass the Bill as it stood. Possession might be secured under the contract; the Secretary of State was entitled to give notice of the intention to take over the railway compulsorily within six months of February,

    1107
    1880. This was clearly set forth—that Government could, at the expiration of the first 25 years of the term of 99 years, give the notice and take possession under the terms of the original contract. Therefore, if the House thought fit to reject the Bill, the Secretary of State could then proceed to give notice to the Fast India Railway Company that he intended to take advantage of the terms of the contract. The Secretary of State would then have the opportunity of taking legal advice, which the Committee regretted he had not taken; he could repair that error; and if that legal advice induced him, he could make more favourable terms for the people of India. Seeing there would be no difficulty in this course, and that it would save £3,000,000, a sum of enormous importance in the present financial embarrassments of India, he, shareholder though he was, would vote against the Bill.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, this measure which had been proposed by the Secretary of State for India in Council, for the purchase of the East Indian Railway, had been characterized by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), as giving evidence of gross carelessness and laxity on the part of the Indian Government; but, on the other hand, the House should hear in mind by whom this particular Bill was recommended. First, his noble Friend the Secretary of State was responsible for the Bill; secondly, his noble Friend was assisted by a Committee of his Council, specially appointed to investigate the matter independently, and who made a recommendation to the Council as a whole; thirdly, this Council unanimously recommended the Bill; and, last of all, the exact terms of the arrangement having been communicated to the Indian Government, the Governor General in Council expressed unanimous approval of them. But, without entering into the details of the Bill, there seemed to him to be two great questions which the House would desire to have answered. These were, why, in the first place, was the strict letter of the contract departed from; and, secondly, was it true or not, that too much had been paid for the purchase and to secure the objects of the Bill? These questions he would answer at once. First, it was not possible, and it was inadvisable for the best interest of
    1108
    India, to proceed under the contract; and, to the second question, he would say a fair sum had been paid for the purchase, a sum far less than the real value of the property. The first consideration was, was it desirable for the Secretary of State in Council to take the first opportunity of purchasing this railway? On that point the House, as well as the Government of India, appeared to be practically unanimous; everybody who had spoken acceded that as a proposition not to be disputed. On political, as well as financial grounds, that purchase could be defended; and when it was said the Government were making a speculative bargain, the answer was, there was a solid basis of experience to go upon, placing it beyond all doubt that they were acquiring a good and valuable property. In addition to that, he attached the greatest importance to the purchase of the Jubbulpore branch; the same reasons applied to this branch as to the main line, and it became an object of the Secretary of State to obtain possession of both together. It was also the opinion of the Secretary of State in Council and the Government of India that the lines purchased should continue to be worked by the Fast Indian Railway Company, and, but for the speech just delivered, he should have thought this was generally acceded by the House. He did not desire to enter at length into the question of State management as against private management; but there were many reasons why it was more desirable this railway should be worked by a private Company, rather than by the State. The hon. Member who had just spoken said, only throw out the Bill, and the effect would be that the servants of the Company would be transferred to the service of the State, and all would go on as before. That proposition he doubted from beginning to end. Of course, the servants might be transferred to the State; but, with this transfer, there must be an increase in salaries, in pensions, and in establishments, which could not be controlled in the same manner under the State. There was also a grave objection to the working of a large concern like this by the State in times of difficulty. Pressure difficult to resist would be used to induce the State to carry goods at reduced rates; but with the Company working the line, there was a convenient

    1109
    buffer between the Secretary of State and the public. Then, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), said if it was desired to achieve these objects, was it not enough to give the Company a share of the profits and proceed on the lines of the contract? But he would point out that only one-fifth of the proprietary would receive a share of the profits, the remaining four-fifths receiving no benefit whatever. And, therefore, as regards the bulk of the proprietary, there would be, in that case, no inducement to them to depart from the exact terms of the contract for the convenience of the Government. They would simply have said — " We get no more than we must eventually get by law if we refuse to anticipate the end of the contract," and they would have refused to co-operate. These being the objects which the Secretary of State in Council desired to secure, he would now consider whether those objects could have been secured under the terms of the existing contract. Let them not forget that that contract was made with the old Fast India Company. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney was very fond of comparing the management of the old Fast India Company with the management of the affairs of India since the transference of the Government of India to the Crown. When that contract was made by the old East India Company, and when the hon. Gentleman talked of that contract as being extremely favourable to the Company, he should remember that that favourable state of things was one that had only arisen within the last few years. If they were to look back beyond the last few years, they would see that it had been very doubtful indeed whether the undertaking of the Fast Indian Railway Company was likely to turn out successfully. The Fast India Railway had only of recent years become a great success; and with regard to the other guaranteed railways they were only at the present moment in the course of becoming a success. A few years ago, however, there was a very different state of things; and he did not think it was quite fair to throw on the old East India Company the imputation that they had made, years ago, under all the circumstances then known, an im-
    1110
    provident contract with the Fast Indian Railway Company. But, as far as the action of the Government was concerned, he could put the reason for the course they had taken in a very simple way; because ho might state that under the circumstances in which the Government were placed the contract was, practically, unworkable. They were, in the middle of last year—or, let him say, in the month of August last—in this position. They were desirous of having possession of the two lines belonging to the Fast Indian Railway Company, and also of intrusting the working of them in future to the existing Railway Company; and they found that if that arrangement were to be carried out at all, it was necessary that it should be entered into at that time, because, not only would the Railway Company have to consider the provisions of the Bill that was necessary to carry out such an arrangement, but it was incumbent on them to introduce the measure during the present Session of Parliament for the purpose of giving effect to it. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the arrangement between the Secretary of State in Council and the Railway Company should at the latest have been made in the month of October last. That being so, it was utterly impossible that the Government could de, what more than one hon. Member had suggested—namely, refer the question of terms to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. The period for making such a reference had not arrived—the moment at which any reference was to be made to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England was to be at the end of the term fixed by the contract; and, moreover, a different Governor and Deputy Governor were in office than would have been at the head of the Bank of England at the time the contract expired. The Government, on full consideration, arrived at the conclusion that to attempt to carry out the objects they had in view was utterly impossible, if they adhered to the exact terms of the contract; and they, therefore, determined to anticipate its expiration by an agreement, following, indeed, the lines of the contract, but making the purchase distinctly independent of it. That being so, the Government felt that they could not stand on what were their strict rights under the contract. Had they attempted to do so,

    1111
    what would have happened would have been this. Mr. Crawford, the Chairman of the East Indian Railway Company would have said—"I have obtained the opinion of counsel as to what my rights are, and if I do not get every shilling to which the Company are entitled, and something more, what am I to gain by making any fresh agreement with the Government? I am prepared to wait until the contract has run out; and then, if the Government do net agree to the terms I ask, and which my legal advisers say are justified by the clause, I will fight them—I will carry the matter up to the House of Lords and get a proper and authoritative interpretation of the terms of the contract." But, during
    during all this time, what was to become of the railway? If the Government were to achieve their object of putting the working of the railway under the existing Company, it was utterly impossible to do this without having first arrived at a reasonable and proper compromise with the Company in the month of October last at the latest, instead of waiting until the contract had naturally run out. Then, it was said—" But when you did make a compromise, it was favourable to the Company." " Why, of course it was, and. naturally enough, because the Government were asking the Company to secure to them certain advantages which the Government regarded as of importance, and if they wished to acquire those advantages, it was clear that in one way or another they would be obliged to pay for them. They had followed the lines of the contract as far as they could under the circumstances, and they had agreed to pay what they believed to be a fair value for the property. In the first place, there arose the question of the price at which this purchase should be made, and the Government had offered to take the shares at the sum of £ 125. This sum had been, in reality, but very little objected to; and, as a matter of fact, he believed that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) was perfectly correct in saying that the effect of these negotiations being carried en in anticipation of the term at which the contract would cease had been to depreciate the value of the property; and, therefore, making all reasonable and fair allowance for any such depreciation, to fix the sum at £125,
    1112
    instead of at £124 3s. 3d., was not giving anything unreasonable to the Railway Company in regard to the terms of the purchase. But the Secretary of State in Council had the alternative of paying that sum to the Company either in cash or by means of annuities, and those annuities were to be based upon a rate of interest to be calculated on certain terms set out in the contract. The first objection taken to their mode of dealing with the matter was that the Government ought to have referred to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. He had already pointed out to the House that such a reference was utterly impossible at the time it became necessary for the Government to enter into the arrangement, and, in the next place, the Government were advised—and they took upon this point the best opinion they could possibly obtain—that it was not necessary to refer the matter in any way at that time to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. The fact was, that they were not proposing to purchase under the contract at all; and even if they had proposed so to do, as far as he was able to understand the terms of the contract, the reference to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England was only to be for the purpose of ascertaining certain definite facts, and not to enable them to put a legal interpretation upon the clause. With regard to the clause which fixed the rate of interest, it could not be denied that to anyone who examined it for the first time it was a clause which raised a good deal of doubt; and he was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) say there was no doubt about the matter, because no one with whom he had spoken on the subject took that view.
    MR. RATHBONE: I said there could be no doubt as to the intention, not as to the words.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he must venture to join issue with the hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time, it was sufficient to say that anyone reading the clause for the first time would feel that it was somewhat doubtful in its wording. But it was said, this being so, why had not the Government obtained independent legal advice before they entered into any negotiations with the Company with a view of seeing what

    1113
    was the course to be taken? Well, in reply to this interrogation, he would ask what was the nature of the Council of the Secretary of State? Why, they had among the members of that body gentlemen whose opinions on legal points were second to those of no person in the Kingdom, and on all the legal points on which the Secretary of State required to be advised those gentlemen were able to give him really good and sound advice. An hon. Member opposite had suggested that the rate at which the Secretary of State had actually raised money during the two years preceding the negotiations with the Company, or £3 18 s. 5d. per cent, was the proper rate of interest to be taken; but here an interpretation had been put upon the clause which laid down the mode of ascertaining the rate of interest which it was impossible to support by argument, which no one else had seriously put forward, and which he did not think the House would be disposed to favour. That interpretation seemed to him to be obviously inconsistent with the plain meaning of the clause, and it was open to this further objection—that he might during the two years never have found it necessary to raise any money at all. Although the actual terms of the purchase were discussed backwards and forwards in the India Office during several years, such terms as had been hinted at had never been suggested, and, in the opinion of those who had closely considered the matter, they were absolutely inconsistent with the real interpretation of the clause. There wore other interpretations of the clause suggested, which were more worthy of consideration; and they were, that the Government ought to have based the terms on the average rate of interest paid on loans of the Secretary of State during the two previous years, either taking the nominal value of the stock or taking the market value. But if it were intended that the market value of the stock should be taken the clause would have said so, and the fact that the words " market value " were used in the clause relating to the price and were omitted in this clause seemed to him an unanswerable conclusion that this was not intended. And, surely, the meaning of the reference to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England was that it was intended that they should determine something
    1114
    that came specially within their cognizance, and upon which the Governor or Deputy Governor of that Bank would be deemed specially qualified to pronounce. But the interpretation of the terms of the contract was a matter entirely outside the intended reference, and there was' no more reason to refer that matter to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England than there was to refer it to any other outside party. But the true intent and meaning of the clause was perfectly plain. The House would remember that the contract was drawn up by the old Fast India Company. Well, what was their practice? They raised money, from time to time, by Exchequer Bills and Bonds, and they declared what rate of interest they would pay, endeavouring to fix such a rate as would keep their bonds pretty nearly at par, so that if the price went up they reduced the rate of interest, and so on. And he would venture to say that this was in the minds of the framers of the clause when they laid down the principle upon which the rate of interest must be calculated. It was quite impossible to apply the same principles now; but the interpretation put upon the clause by the Government was, at any rate, that which approximated most nearly to what must have been the original intention of the framers. They believed — and they had the highest authority for the belief—that their mode of calculation was the right one, and the only one which they could fairly ask the country to accept. If there was one thing that was clear about the matter it was this—the Secretary of State in Council was able to pay for the property of the Company in two ways—first of all, he might pay for it in cash, and, in the next place, he might pay for it by means of annuities. The construction the Government put upon the clause was that it must have been intended to apply to the fair value of the property and not to two modes of value, one of which gave the fair value and the other a value very much lower. It would be an act of spoliation on the part of the Government to take the property without paying its fair value, and the Government had acted on this construction. They thought that the intention was that if they did not pay the Company in cash they should give them the fair value of the property in another shape; and, in fixing the rate of interest

    1115
    as they had done, they had, as a matter of fact, given the Company what was fairly their due. It was said that they had given more than the fair value, and his answer to this was, that the price given had been fully justified by the quotations of the shares in the market. There were no shrewder judges of a bargain than some of the gentlemen in the London Stock Exchange; and what was the opinion they had formed? Why, that the Government had offered the Company no more than the fair value of their property. They found, as a matter of fact, that as soon as the intended purchase was announced, the value of the shares remained exactly the same as before; but if it were true, as affirmed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), that the Government had made a sacrifice of £3,000,000 to the Company, how was it that hundreds of people in the City of London, who were shrewd enough to have found this out for themselves, had not gone in and bought the shares in the market for the purpose of getting their share of the plunder? The fact was, that those who operated in the Loudon market had rightly appreciated the bargain; they had perceived that the Government intended to give only the full value, and had given it, and, therefore, the value of the shares had remained very much what it had been. Why, what was the value of this property as compared with the value of the shares of other Companies? The Eastern Bengal Company was paying a less, or no better, dividend and their shares were quoted at a considerably higher price than the shares of the East India Railway Company. He did not think he need say anything further on this subject. The Government believed they had made a purchase of the Company's property on fair terms. They were told by the Government of India that they had bought the property at a price which was, at least, 30 per cent below its real value. [" Oh! "] That was the conclusion at which the Government of India had arrived after fully investigating the circumstances of the case. It was a purchase that at any rate, in their judgment, would commend itself as much to the House as it did to themselves; and, acting on this conclusion, the Government were prepared to sustain to the utmost of their
    1116
    power the terms on which the purchase had been arranged. The hon. Member for Hackney had put on the Paper an Amendment which, if carried, would not have the effect of defeating the Bill before the House. Looking at the terms in which that Amendment was couched, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) was not prepared to object to it. It seemed to him to be a reasonable proposition. The Government did not propose to purchase the railway under the terms of the contract, and he did not see why they should not tell the other Railway Companies that in future purchases each case would be considered on its own merits; and it did not follow that the Government would have the same object in purchasing other lines as they had in the present instance, nor would they necessarily pay the same price. Every case would, in fact, be dealt with separately as the time arrived; and, therefore, if the hon. Member for Hackney thought it desirable to put his Amendment to the vote he (Mr. E. Stanhope), for one, would certainly offer it no opposition.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, if any hon. Members were not present at the beginning of this debate they would be somewhat astonished to find the House still engaged in the discussion of a Private Bill; but they would speedily perceive that there was au excuse for this in the great importance of the measure. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had already stated that not only did the Bill involve a question of the expenditure of upwards of £32,000,000, but that the circumstances of this case would almost certainly furnish a precedent for other cases of a similar kind. There was also this point to be considered—that while the Bill ought to be fully discussed by that House, it was introduced as a Private Bill and referred to a Hybrid Committee, who found that, owing to the forms which governed the proceedings of such Committees, they had the greatest difficulty in dealing with the matter. Such a Committee had no power to express an opinion on questions of general policy, and in many other respects the proceedings of the Committee were beset with difficulties from which, he thought it only right to say, he questioned whether they would ever have extricated themselves had it not been for the tact and spirit of impartiality

    1117
    displayed by the noble Lord whom they were happy enough to have as their Chairman. As to the two questions of public policy involved, he agreed with his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. E. Stanhope), that there would be very little difference of opinion whatsoever—that was to say, the question, in the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government were right in exercising their power of purchasing the East Indian Railway; and, in the second place, whether they were right in refraining from attempting to manage the railway themselves, and in intrusting that task to the private Company from whom the property was to be purchased? The reasons that had been given for continuing the management of the railway in the hands of the Company appeared to him to be perfectly conclusive; but, apart from them, there was the general consideration that the Government of India, more, perhaps, than any other Government, had its hands perfectly full; and when they found an enterprize like the present, distinct and separate from everything else, it was certainly desirable that the Government should be relieved from the task of undertaking its control and management. The third question that arose was, however, one full of difficulty, and that was the question whether the terms of the agreement with the Company were in themselves fair and reasonable. There were, he thought, altogether four points in that agreement upon which there was some difference of opinion, and he would mention them in succession, although he should not dwell on any of them, with the exception of one. In the first place, there was the price given to the shareholders, which was £125, instead of £124 3s. 3d. The defence which was urged for the adoption of this course before the Committee was that, owing to the near approach of the period when the railway could be purchased, the shares were unduly depressed in the market. But he would remark, in regard to this argument, that this was a circumstance which must have been present to the minds of those who framed the contract. It was no new or accidental circumstance that had arisen; whatever effect the power of compulsory purchase might have must have been understood at the time the contract was made. With reference
    1118
    to the fact of the price of the shares having risen as high as £132, and then having fallen, he was not sure that that was, necessarily, in consequence of the step taken by the Government. The fluctuation in the earnings of the Company might have had as much to do with the variation of the price of the shares as anything else. But they were also told that they ought to deal with the Company in a generous spirit, and that the Government ought not to take a fractional advantage. He, for one, was not at all anxious to take advantage of the Railway Company, either fractionally or otherwise. But he could better have understood this argument being employed if a hard bargain had been driven with the Railway Company in all other matters; but the fact was that where the rigid application of the contract was found to bear somewhat hardly upon the Railway Company, the House was told that concessions must be made; while in other instances, where the rigid application of the contract would have the opposite effect and prove unfavourable only to the Indian Exchequer, they were ad to be told that the contract prescribed such a course, and, therefore, the arrangements must be made in exact accordance with its terms. The next point on which there was a difference of opinion was as to the sum which was to be involved in the sinking fund contained in the annuity, which was to include au annual sum for the re-payment of the capital and interest. This, it would appear, ought to be calculated on the amount that would be recoverable at the end of the lease. At the end of a period of 99 years the whole of the property of the Railway Company would fall to the State; but it had been pointed out that up to the period of six months from that date the Railway Company had the power of renouncing their property and. recovering from the State, not, as in the present instance, the whole of its market value, but merely the capital expended on the line; therefore, there was some degree of force in the argument that if they were going to have a sinking fund for the re-payment of the capital, they ought to base it on par value of the stock, and not on the proposed sum of £125. There was also the question of the Jubbulpore branch. The period for purchasing that line had been anticipated, and the consequence was that

    1119
    £10,000 a-year more had to be paid in respect of that branch, because if the four years still unexpired had been allowed to run out, a certain 5 per cent loan, which greatly affected the amount of interest, would have been extinguished; and, therefore, the rate of interest payable on the Jubbulpore branch would not have been so great. That, of course, was a necessary part of the arrangement, and he would not complain of it; but what he wanted to point out was, that in all the instances where the literal application of the contract bore hardly on the Indian Exchequer and was favourable to the Company, the literal acceptance and strict letter of the contract had been insisted upon. Where, in the one instance he had quoted, the matter was the other way, they were told that an allowance ought to be made. But the main point, undoubtedly, was the question of the rate of interest, which was a matter not only of greater intricacy, but a much larger sum was involved, and great attention was required. The words which were used in the contract were—
    " The rate of interest used in calculating the annuity is to be determined by the average rate of interest during the preceding two years in London received upon the public obligations of the East India Company."
    He thought there was something in the argument of the hon. Baronetthe Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the meaning imparted to the clause by the use of the expression " received; " and he was bound to point out to the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), who quoted the rate of interest in Calcutta as an element in the calculation, that the clause distinctly said—" the rate of interest in London; " and, therefore, what, in the least, had the average rate of interest received in Calcutta to do with the question? The meaning given to these words in the Bill was this. The rate of interest was arrived at by this computation—all the Company's stock, and all their obligations in London, were taken at par, and divided by the total interest payable thereupon. There was so much stock at 4 per cent, and so much at 5 per cent; they struck an average between them, and said that should be the rate adopted. The two other alternative interpretations that had been mentioned
    1120
    were either the rate of interest received on investments on Indian securities, or the rate of interest at which money had been actually raised during the two years by the Secretary of State. Surely, at any rate, the intention in placing these words in the contract was to ascertain something that was affected by the circumstances of those two years; they wished to ascertain what rate of interest should be employed in borrowing the money; they, therefore, wished to know hew the credit of the Government of India stood in the market. For that purpose, they took certain events connected with those two years into consideration; but it appeared to him to be quite unnatural to accept the interpretation which had been adopted by the Government, because it had nothing whatever to do with the two years; it had only to do with the circumstances under which the loans were issued 10 or 20 years ago. If they took the nominal rate at which new obligations had been issued during the two years, or if they took the amount of money received on investments in old obligations, then they ascertained the facts which indicated the present state of the credit of the Indian Government. But if they, on the other hand, used the interpretation which was acted upon in the Bill, they were fixing a rate of interest for the next 73 years according to something that happened 10 or 20 years ago. That, he admitted, was an à priori argument, and he would not for a moment set it up against any legal obligation strictly binding upon the Indian Government. But it had been avowed by the India Office that the original contract was, in reality, set aside and superseded; and they, therefore, need not be particular about the strict technical application of the words, but ought to be guided by the spirit and intention in the minds of the framers of the contract. He asked the House to allow him for a moment to accept the interpretation which the Government had put upon the words, to assume that it was true. and that the meaning they had acted upon was the right one. What was the account they themselves gave of it? Sir Louis Mallet, who gave evidence before the Committee on the part of the India Office, made a statement of the history of the matter which was extremely instructive. He said—

    1121
    " At the time when this clause was drawn the only securities of the East India Company on the London market were bonds which bore a fluctuating rate of interest—that is to say, that the value of the bond was not allowed to vary, but the interest was raised or lowered according as the price sunk below or rose above par; and, therefore, the consideration in the minds of the drawers was just this—they thought they had got the whole thing before them; that the conditions of the problem were undisturbed by the considerations of price. If they had foreseen that the Government would have taken over the Company, that we should have heaped up our London debt and issued larger loans for a number of years, bearing different rates of interest, but the price varying infinitely, it would have been very imprudent not to have inserted words which would have referred to the market price; but I think the fact I have stated shows that it was not in the minds of the drawers of the contract, and that, therefore, they drew their clause with reference to the facts before them, and did not foresee that, as applicable to a different state of things, the effect of those terms would have been injurious."
    It amounted to this—that the thing with which they were dealing was opposed to two elements, either of which might vary—capital and interest. At the time those words were inserted in the contract it was the interest only which varied; but, now-a-days, it was quite the reverse. Now, there might indeed be different rates of interest; but it did not fluctuate from year to year, and it was the market price of the stock that showed the whole variation, and therefore indicated the credit of the Government. This was an excellent historical account of the matter, and a perfect defence of the good faith and good sense of the framers of the contract; but it appeared absolutely subversive of any claim to equity on behalf of the bargain now proposed in the Bill. It amounted to this—that the criterion or gauge of the credit of the Secretary of State which was adopted in the contract was no longer applicable; the facts which were ascertainable 25 years ago, by consideration of the interest alone, were no longer so ascertainable; the calculation, which was then complete, was now incomplete; and yet it was with that confession in their mouths, and with a light heart, that the India Office, at a cost, it might be, of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to the Indian Exchequer, accepted the literal interpretation of the words of the contract, though they themselves admitted it was contrary to the spirit and intention of the framers.
    1122
    He never knew a more extraordinary instance of recklessness in a matter of that kind. He could have understood the India Office coming forward and saying—" The meaning which we give to the words governing the interest is quite right and proper; we think it a fair, and reasonable, and natural thing that the interest which is to be paid for the next 73 years should be governed by the rate at which loans were issued 20 years ago." Or he could understand them saying—" These are unfortunate words; our agents were outwitted; these words were put in, and there they are, and we must abide by them." But the Government did not say that. They said that this was the literal meaning of the contract; but that the effect of the words was never in the mind of those who framed the contract. He would not argue against the ample fulfilment of every legal obligation under which the Secretary of State for India might find himself; but this he would say—that when the effect of that clause was fortuitously enhanced in the interest of the Company, surely a reason might be found in the windfall which had thus come, unexpectedly, to the Company for, at all events, insisting upon a rigid application of the contract in other respects where it was more unfavourable to the Company. But what would they say when they found this extraordinary interpretation adopted by the Government, without ever having sought independent legal advice, or without going, as prescribed in the contract, to the " Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England? " The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House said the Government could not consult the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, because different Governors were in office at the end of the time to those in office at the beginning. The Governor of the Bank of England was like the King, he always reigned; and what was meant in this instance by the word " Governor" was the functionary, and not the individual. And, surely, when those words were explicitly in the contract—if the contract was to be of any force—that was a very good reason for, at all events, taking the opinion of the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, although the 24 months might not absolutely have expired. The

    1123
    duty of the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank was not to interpret the clause, but to ascertain certain figures. The figures that were necessary to be ascertained in order to arrive at the facts required for the Government's interpretation of the clause were very easily ascertainable. He imagined it would be the simplest matter possible; indeed, he should be surprised if the lowest class in a Board school would not be on that point as good an authority as the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. Those officials, however, were mentioned in the contract because they were eminent authorities, who would be able to vouch for the quotations in the money market which were involved in the calculations. That appeared to be the natural interpretation, whatever might be the legal interpretation, of the words. As to the question of independent legal advice, it had been said that there were legal members of the Secretary of State's Council. They never knew whose opinion had been taken, and it would have been more satisfactory if they had seen a copy of a special legal opinion obtained before the arrangement with the Company was concluded. But the most important fact of all was that the literal meaning of the contract was no longer strictly binding, because the contract was superseded, and was pronounced by the India Office witnesses to be no more than a "basis" or a " guide." It was, therefore, an open, and, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) had said, an " amiable " bargain; and, in that case, they were thrown back on the natural fitness of things; and who could say that the natural fitness of things justified the Secretary of State for India borrowing money for the next 73 years at the rate of £4 6s. per cent, when his 4 per cent stock was quoted at par? The difficulty they had had all through the consideration of the question had been that sometimes the contract was quoted, and sometimes it was not. If they were to be guided by the strict letter of the contract, let them know what they were doing. If the contract were not binding, then, surely, they were entitled to apply the ordinary principles of business in discussing the matter. His contention was three-fold. He doubted whether the words could bear the literal meaning ascribed to
    1124
    them; in the second place, he was certain—in fact the Indian Office had told them so—that they were never intended to bear that meaning; and, thirdly, if the matter was to be judged as an open bargain, then it stood self-condemned. It might, indeed, be alleged that it was necessary, in order to induce the Company to come into the arrangement, to offer them large and generous terms. He did not think that was an argument that could be sustained for a moment. What was the commodity that the Government had to offer to this Company? The Under Secretary of State for India talked about the necessity of giving liberal terms, because the Government were asking the Company to sell some advantages. What they were doing was asking the Company to take something, and not to sell it. They offered the Company a one-fifth share of the clear profits of the undertaking for the next so many years. Was this a good or a bad thing? Was it a lucrative property to which the shareholders were being admitted, or was it a burdensome service chat they were being asked to undertake? Obviously, it must be a good thing; for, otherwise, the whole case of the Government fell to the ground. In order to secure the good management of the line, there must be a substantial interest on the part of the shareholders; and they believed that it would be a lucrative concern, and that, therefore, the one-fifth share would furnish that substantial interest. The theory of the Government, therefore, was that it was a good thing; and, if so, why give the shareholders any extra advantage? If it were a bad thing, Lad not the Government better manage the line themselves? As to the whole question, lie was not disposed to use the strong words that had been applied to the India Office in some quarters; but he would say he thought that they had been distinctly overridden by the Railway Company; that they had been too much impressed with the idea that they were in a difficulty, and that they were obliged to conciliate the Railway Company. The Company were just in as great a difficulty as the Government. Supposing the matter had been allowed to run out to the bitter end; supposing the change had been made on the terms of the contract; supposing it had been necessary to go to law; all of that would

    1125
    have been as difficult for the Company as for the Government. The Government had done quite rightly in endeavouring to avoid it; but it was quite as much for the interest of the Company that there should be no recourse to law. He, therefore, could not see how, on the ground of the difficulty, a case had been made out for giving extravagant terms in the purchase of the railway. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy, in his usual bold and courageous manner, said they ought to throw out the Bill at once, and disregard the consequences. Ho (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had never been prepared to take that course; in the first place, because he approved of the principle of the Bill, and, in the second place, because the bargain had been made and published, and stock had passed hands on the faith of it, and to upset it would cause great inconvenience. Again, if the Bill were thrown out, the Government would have to make another bargain with the Company; but they would be the last persons in the world to make a good bargain now, because they had already committed themselves. Neither did he agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir George Campbell) in thinking it would be desirable to purchase the line, and take over the management. He thought the Resolution of the hen. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) was a sound one; and he expected that great benefit would accrue from the discussion of the question in the House, and from the thorough inquiry which took place before the Committee. They ought to be content with these advantages such as they were, and he advised the House not to support the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in absolutely opposing the measure.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that as the was Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, he might be pardoned if he trespassed upon the time of the House for a few moments. He believed the Committee acted in a thoroughly impartial manner, and they felt exceedingly the difficulty of the task before them. The House would allow him to point out what would be the consequence if the Bill were rejected. The Bill provided for the purchase by the Government of a valuable property, the Fast India Railway. Everybody would adroit that the Government were right in exercising their power to purchase
    1126
    the railway. The next feature of the Bill was the manner in which the Government were to get possession of the property. They proposed to obtain possession by means of annuities, and he did not think anyone would consider that the Government were wrong in arriving at that conclusion. Thirdly, it was determined that the present Company should be continued as the working authority of the line, and that was a point to which sufficient attention had not been called. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said that the railway officials ought to be placed on the permanent Staff of the Government of India. Of course, the officials would approve of that, because they would receive higher pay, and very materially improve their position. But if the Government had at once undertaken the working of the line, no one could estimate how far the receipts would have fallen off. If the Government had decided to undertake the management, and had been able to keep the expenses within 10 per cent of those at present, they would have succeeded very well. The Government had found it necessary to anticipate the contract, and they wished to maintain the present Company as the working authority of the line. It was the intention to adhere to the contract, except in two particulars, the exceptions being the price for the stock, and the acquisition of the branch line. And this last, though it involved a payment of £10,000 a-year, must ultimately be a greater gain to the Government than it had been to the Company. As to the price to be given for the stock. According to the contract, this was to be the average market value of the stock for the three years preceding the date at which the Government might take over the line. According to the terms of the contract, the three years would be those antecedent to February 20, 1879. By anticipating the contract, the term of years was from November 1875 to November 1878. There was no doubt whatever that the mean rate would have been higher during the period mentioned in the contract than it was during the period the Government took; and, therefore, when it was found that the mean market value of the period taken was £124 4s. 3d. it was agreed to give £125 as a compensation for the higher price the stock would have attained, if there had been a

    1127
    literal adherence to the terms of the contract as to the time of purchase. That the price of the stock was prejudicially affected by the operation of the Government was beyond question. The average price of East India Stock for two years was £125; and the average price of Eastern Bengal Stock was £134; but the dividend paid on East India Stock was 6¾, and on Eastern Bengal only 6, so that, though the dividend was ¾ higher, the value of the stock was considerably lower; and this diminution was unquestionably due to the prejudicial effect of the negotiations with the Government. Therefore, he thought, the case of the Government was perfect on these two points. Then, as to the rate of interest, the Indian Government contend no concession was made. In the careful discussion, and many calculations, as to whether or not it would be advisable to buy the line, one element was always involved—that, according to the terms of the contract, higher rates would have to be paid for the East India Stock than for that of other Companies, because of the 5 per cent loan which was redeemable next year. The Indian officials maintained that this 5 per cent loan was an element not to be eliminated. But, after all, they were upon the same footing as they were in the Committee, for the question was one for legal interpretation, and no one had a right to interpret it except a Court of Law. Without going into this at length, he might fairly say that, whether the India Office were in their interpretation right or wrong, it was quite clear that had any other interpretation been adopted it would have been open to doubt, and, probably, would have led to a law-suit. Was it worth while for the Government to decline to treat with the Company, because of the interpretation the latter put upon the contract, leaving the settlement to a Court of Law? Assuming that the Government ultimately proved their case, the damage to the line and the loss of revenue would have been great; while, assuming that they lost, their position would be much worse than it was now. Therefore, he confessed, as regarded himself, he had been influenced less by the consideration of whether they might be charged with a breach of faith than by the conviction that if the House threw out the Bill tomorrow,
    1128
    it would be difficult to make arrangements more advantageous to the people of India. The whole question must be taken together—not merely the question of annuities to be paid, but how far the Government could recoup themselves out of the railway to compensate for the charges the annuities entailed on the Revenues of India. According to the calculations the Committee had before them, assuming the continuance of the present management, there was no reason to doubt that the revenues of the railway would be amply sufficient to meet the amount of the annuities, and to put, besides, a considerable surplus into the pockets of the Government. They would be in possession of one of the most valuable railways in the world, and, instead of paying towards it for 73 years, they would during the time be actually making a profit out of it. Therefore, he hoped the House would not attempt to upset the Bill either by opposition to the consideration of the Report, or, by the insertion of Amendments here and there, upset the framework of the Bill. The Committee went at length, and with great care, into the details of every clause, and it was their unanimous opinion that the House must either accept the Bill as it stood, or else throw it out. A great difficulty the Committee were under was owing to the mode in which the Bill was presented to them. It was essentially a question of public importance; but the Committee had to follow the procedure and practice of Private Bill legislation, by which the Preamble of a Bill was first considered. But the Preamble in the present Bill occupied 19 pages, and was full of contentious matter. It embodied a despatch from the Secretary of State, all the terms of agreement, the details of purchase, and the proposals for working the line. It was found impossible to alter one detail of this despatch, and the Committee were compelled to pass the Preamble or throw the Bill out. After a long and anxious consideration, the Committee came to the conclusion it was best to pass the Preamble, and then amend the Bill as best they could, and in this sense they reported to the House. He quite agreed with the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), for, practically, it supported the words of his own Report. Guaranteed railways would understand

    1129
    in future negotiations that the present action settled nothing as regarded the interpretation of the annuity clause. He would even go further, and express an opinion that if the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England were to be the sole judges of the clause —and no one could say what views these officials might hereafter hold—if their decision was to be absolute, then that would be putting enormous power into the hands of those gentlemen, without giving power to the contracting parties to appeal to a Court of Law. The Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank were mentioned in these old contracts probably because they kept the official records of the Fast India Company, and they were only to be applied to as to the facts upon which the contracting parties were to agree; but it was unjustifiable, in his opinion, to assume that in any essential points of the contract both parties should not appeal to a Court of Law. Another difficulty might occur in cases where the Governor and the Deputy Governor gave independent opinions. Suppose one party appealed to the Governor for his interpretation of the clause, and the other party referred to the Deputy Governor; and supposing the two opinions to conflict, who was to decide? There was no provision for settling this difficulty. Rather strong and unfair language had been applied to the Secretary of State in Council in respect to these contracts; but it must be remembered he did not make the contracts—they were a legacy from the East India Company. The hon. Member for Hackney had often praised the finance of the old Company; and, as a matter of fact, this contract was drawn up by Mr. James Wilson, one of the ablest men of his day, and though it might now seem ambiguous and difficult of interpretation, at that time these contracts were considered models of lucidity. But they were applied to the different circumstances of 25 years ago, and that was the main cause of the divergence of opinion now. He hoped the House would assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney, and then pass the Bill without alteration. The arrangement had been shown to be altogether of an exceptional character, inasmuch as the loan bearing 5 per cent was redeemable next year, and would be altogether eliminated from future calculations
    1130
    as regarded the rate of interest. It was exceptional, inasmuch as the Company had reduced their working expenses to a lower amount than they had ever been before, and, in consequence, the property had become so valuable that it was necessary that the Government should acquire possession of it. Under the circumstances, he hoped the House would accept the Resolution of the hon. Member for Hackney, and then pass the Bill without alteration.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, when the noble Lord argued in favour of the Indian Government dealing in a liberal spirit with the Company because it was due to this purchase that their stock stood at a diminished price in the market, he used an argument of a somewhat extraordinary character. The fact was, there was the power of pre-emption given to the Government by the original contract with the Company, and the existence of this had the effect of bringing down the price of stock in the market. Yet, when the Government proceeded to exercise the power given by the contract, then it was proposed to take into account the depreciation of stock which resulted from this right of pre-emption. Take a parallel ease. Suppose the Government had two stocks at 5 per cent; one redeemable in 20 years, and the other next year. Of course, the 20 years' stock would be selling at over £150 in the market, while the other would be £101 or so. And suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer came with a proposal to give these people a bonus next year because their stock could be redeemed at a depreciated price. That was the whole gist of the comparison the noble Lord made between the East India Railway and the Eastern Bengal.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONexplained what he had said was, that by the operations of the Government during the three years antecedent to the date the Government entered into the arrangements the price of stock was lowered.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the argument went further than the three years antecedent to the period when the right was exercised. The price would be depreciated, the price of stock would begin to fall as the period approached for the right of purchase. This had the effect of depreciating the stock, and now it was proposed to give an extra price to

    1131
    the Company in consequence. What was this, but giving away that very power of pre-emption the Predecessors of the Government had secured 25 years ago? Then came the question of the conversion of the capital sum into annuities. This was divisible into two points. The railway stock was to be paid for at £125 for £100 of stock, and what followed was supplementary, not, of course, to be affected by the course of fair and easy dealing with the Company. Then arose the question upon what terms this should be converted into annuities terminable in a certain number of years. As the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) said, this conversion was not made in pursuance of the contract. Here they were acting outside the contract, and only acceded the contract as a guidance in the transaction. Taking that to be true, the question was, what was the meaning of the contract as guiding this conversion of the capital sum into Terminable Annuities? It was at once obvious that since they were not taking it as an imperative direction, they were entitled to look at the intention rather than at the words themselves, if the words were ambiguous and incapable of direct interpretation. It had been conceded by everyone speaking from the Government Benches that the obvious intention was that the conversion of the capital sum into Terminable Annuities should be made upon such terms as the annuities would sell in the market, so that the railway should suffer no loss from this form of the bargain. That was regarded as the intention of the contract by the Chairman of the Company himself. It was obvious that if they wanted to discover the rate at which these securities would sell, they must go to the market and find out what was the interest on current Indian Annuities. There could be ascertained at once the exact rate at which the £125 could be converted into its equivalent in Terminable Annuities. More than this, there was a guide to be found by reference to the antecedent practice of the East India Company. The Fast India Company were in the habit of borrowing from time to time in the London market, and they offered such terms as floated their obligations at par. According to the Under Secretary, they were not bound by the exact terms of the contract, but could work outside it, only following its spirit.
    1132
    Then, recurring to the rate at which the Fast India Company borrowed, he found it was £3 18 s. 5d. per cent, instead of the £4 6s. 0d., by which now the Government would throw a loss upon the Indian Exchequer of between £2,750,000 and £3,750,000. They had been told that this had been very carefully considered by the Indian Government, and there had been an unanimous opinion in favour of dealing with the Railway Company in the manner proposed by the Bill; but it appeared to him the Indian Government were liable to very grave censure for the sacrifices they had made of the Indian Treasury—first, by giving a greater capital sum than ought to have been given; and for the still more flagrant sacrifice by converting this sum into annuities at an unnecessarily high rate. What was to be done now? The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had been somewhat misunderstood. What he (Mr. Courtney) understood him to say was that the cardinal fault of the Indian Government in carrying through these transactions was that they thought they were " under the thumb " of the East India Railway Company, whereas the reverse was actually the case. The Government had the power in February of this year of compulsorily buying the main line of the Company, though they could not buy the Jubbulpore branch for four years to come. But they could easily have waited four years for this, the main line being the profitable line. If they had said to the Company —" We are going to buy your main line under our compulsory powers, but if you are willing we will enter into agreement for the transfer of the Jubbulpore line also," then they could have secured terms very much more favourable than they had now. If the Company had stood out, then the Government need not have bought the Jubbulpore branch line at all, but have gone on with the main line independently. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said, the compulsory power was still open; it ran for six months from February, so that it would not expire until August. Even then, if the Bill were put aside summarily—which, however, he did not advocate—it would not follow that the policy of purchasing the railway would be negatived, or the power of purchase negatived. The Government might still give notice of their intention

    1133
    to purchase the main line, and might enter into a new contract with the Company; this might be easily and profitably done. The House was much indebted to the hon. Member for Hackney for bringing forward his Resolution, and demonstrating as he had done that the Indian Government, in two ways, had shown deplorable laxity in guarding the Revenues of India.
    MR. MUNTZdoubted if any Committee had more difficulties to contend with than the Committee to whom this Bill had been referred; but if they had a difficulty there, it had now been increased by the extraordinary statement of the Under Secretary, in which he had informed the House that this contract was not binding, but merely put forward for guidance. [" No, no!"] Then he was glad to hear it was legally binding; but that was precisely what they had been told all through, that it was not. Then, let the contract be adhered to, and there would be no sacrifice of this £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. Either the contract must be binding or not. It was absurd to say the contract should be adhered to where it suited the Indian Government, or where it suited the Company, and where it did not suit the Company it should be overturned. The Committee were informed that the contract was not binding, but that it was to be made the basis of an arrangement; otherwise, the contract was binding on both sides. In the first place, the Committed were in a difficulty from having the Bill laid before them as a Private Bill, and being told to discuss the matter on ground of public policy, and they were obliged to call evidence to this public policy. The question of finance was clear enough, supposing the contract to be binding. On the subject of general policy, ho had himself put questions to Sir Louis Mallet, and received for answer that the advantages contemplated, if the Bill became law, were twofold. The witness believed that, in future years, Government would derive a large revenue from the railway; and, in the next place, the longer the transfer was delayed the larger the sum Government would have to pay. For military purposes, it was not absolutely necessary to acquire the line; in fact, the only advantage was, that the property ought to be secured because it might increase in value. In reply to another question,
    1134
    Sir Louis Mallet said this was not a speculative opinion; but it was formed on solid reason and experience as a basis. That was precisely the case with all railways, and when they gauged it they found their net receipts were so much in excess of the expenditure that they could afford to pay very large dividends; and if hon. Members would recollect, they would remember hew some railways that had paid 10 per cent, 7 per cent, or 6 per cent, were now paying only 5 per cent, 4 per cent, 2 per cent, and even nothing at all. If they would consider how they commenced, they would know very well those railways, in their first operations, had everything new—new engines, carriages, rails, new bridges, and everything else; there were no repairs, there was everything to receive, and nothing to pay.
    MR. F. STANHOPE: These have occurred since the Famine.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he was now talking not of the Fast Indian Railways, but of what was the result on the receipts in this country. He said they would have the same occur with respect to all railway property in India; and, therefore, it was unfair to make such a commercial arrangement as the one that had been made. At the present moment, there had been received up to June, 1878, the sum of £518,000; the year before it was £630,000. He had no doubt it had fallen off from the exigencies of circumstances; but it showed that the increase was not going on as was anticipated. At this moment, the Railway Companies worked the railways under a guarantee of India 5 per cent. They received five-tenths now, and they were going to give two-tenths to the Indian Railway Companies for their management; that was, some £200,000 a-year, and all they gained by that was three-tenths; they got three-tenths of the surplus beyond the 5 per cent, and was it worth the while of the Government incurring the great risk by taking the burden of the Company upon themselves? He did not wish to trouble the House with financial opinions; but the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India made this remark—he said, after the purchase, it could not be disputed—no one in that House, and, he believed he said, or out of the House, could doubt the policy of the purchase. Now, he was one of those who did doubt the policy

    1135
    of it; be believed the purchase of railways was a fatal mistake. He thought the noble Lord who had spoken, the Vice President of the Council, stated distinctly they were never expected to give the amount to the old railway, because they felt it was impossible to carry on the railway on terms that were advantageous to the Government. They were not competent to compete with private individuals, and, therefore, the less they had to do with them the better. He objected altogether to the purchase, and he had seen some little of the working of those purchases. Let them look at the commencement of that contract; what was it? It was originally a 99 years' lease. His hon. Friend the Member for Dover gave them some figures as to how they began; but he forgot to tell them about the 22nd clause—how that get into the contract. Then came a little clause touching the payment, to the effect that any time during those 99 years the Railway Company should have the right of payment, to demand the payment of the whole of their capital. He did not find fault with the Government; but he could not understand how the clause should have got into the Bill. There was nothing new in a 99 years' lease; the French Government did it, but the French Government took possession of the lines; and they should have done the same in India, if it had been properly arranged. But here, after guaranteeing five-sevenths, having done that, they allowed that clause to be introduced, stating, to the astonishment of mankind and all who read it, that those gentlemen to whom they had guaranteed the 5 per cent and granted a 99 years' lease should have the right to come and demand the whole of their capital. They might say, " Why did you pass the Preamble to this Bill? " And there he agreed, without hesitation, with the noble Lord, in saying they could not do otherwise; the inextricable counfusion that would have arisen made it impossible to do otherwise. He agreed entirely with the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and he was extremely glad that Her Majesty's Government were willing to accept it, as it would, in the future, prevent contracts being made like the present one.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he merely rose to address himself to one point in his hon. Friend's case, and he should merely
    1136
    speak to that one point. He thought there was some misunderstanding. His hon. Friend the Member for Hackney had moved an Amendment expressing the sense of a portion of the majority of the Committee, expressing the sense of those who had looked into the matter, and the Government had accepted that Amendment; therefore, there was really no question before the House, except to reject the Bill altogether, and into that question he would not go. There was, however, one point, and that was, on what basis should the annuity be calculated? If, instead of accepting a cash payment, an annuity should be demanded, on what basis should that be calculated, under the terms, not only of the railway contract, but of the present arrangement? He wished to call attention to the circumstances existing during the term of Sir Robert Peel's Government. It was then proposed that all of them should revert to the State. That was considered, by a most able body of men, to be the best; and it certainly was the view taken at the time, and was done in France and other foreign countries. It was desirable that the Government should acquire the railway property of that kind, if necessary, and it was held that Railway Companies should not acquire the actual soil; they should not be the proprietors, but only hold a long lease, terminable, according to the French practice, at 99 years. The railways were constructed by Companies on the old basis of a former Act—upon an Act passed in the year 1844, or 1855, he was not sure which—under which the Government had power to acquire all the railways after a period of 21 years, on giving certain notice, on a certain basis of valuation. Although that compromise was accepted by Parliament, it had never been put in execution at all, and the plan of the French Government was adoded—that was to say, they only had property in their line for 99 years, and, at a certain interval, Government could acquire those lines upon paying an adequate compensation. But there was this difference. In the case of English railways, the Companies were to hold the lines absolutely; but in the case of India, the Companies were only to hold them under a 99 years' lease, and the amount to be paid was fixed by Government. There was an alternative. Instead of paying the capital

    1137
    sum down, as for English Companies, the Government should be empowered to pay an annuity, current over the remainder of the period of 99 years; and that was the origin of the special clause which had been the subject of so much discussion to-day. The question he wished to ask he dared say the Chancellor of the Exchequer could answer satisfactorily; and, if so, it would, perhaps, clear up the matter. In the agreement which they now had under consideration, and which was explained in the Bill, but which was still more explained in the portion of the evidence to which no reference had been made, the owners of stock in the East India Railway had an option—they might either accept the annuity during the remainder of the 99 years, or they might accept a perpetual annuity. If they referred to the evidence, they would see it was stated by Mr. Crawford—and if they referred to the Preamble of the Bill, they would see it there—that they had the option of taking either a perpetual annuity, or an annuity for the remainder of the 99 years. In the answer given by Mr. Crawford, they would see that 2,427 proprietors had agreed to accept the perpetual annuity, instead of the annuity for the remaining period of 70 years, or whatever it was. It was the option of receiving cash, or the equivalent of cash, at the present time, fairly represented by the annuity; and the railways, representing nearly £4,000,000, had acceded nearly £4,500,000 of stock in the nature of that annuity. The question he wanted to ask was this, If the railways had the option of taking a terminable annuity at a fixed term of 70 years, or a perpetual annuity terminable by the Government at a certain date, why, he wished to ask, was the rate of interest different one from the other? It seemed to him that if all the proprietors were to be put on a level, as had been so strongly put by the noble Lord, those two were not upon a level. That was the only question he wished to ask, and, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give him an answer.
    MR. LAINGsaid, he did not wish to prolong the debate; but there was one point that had not been touched upon, and which he thought should be referred to. It was unanimously agreed that, as to the main point, there was no difference of opinion; and he believed the majority
    1138
    of the House were satisfied that the Government had acted wisely in making the purchase; that they acted very wisely in making arrangements with the Company to work the line instead of attempting to work the line themselves, and he did not think there was any great dissatisfaction as to the payment of the £125 per cent stock; but there was a great amount of dissatisfaction at the confusion that had been effected in the terms that had been so unfavourable upon the Government, and which had imposed a needless burden of £3,000,000 upon the taxpayers of India. Rightly or wrongly, that had been interpreted at the India Office to mean they were to take the amount of interest paid, and not the interest that would be yielded by stock. He could hardly imagine that interpretation could hold good, and he could not see any meaning in the reference to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, unless it was for ascertaining what the rate of interest should be. The whole difficulty might have been avoided by standing on the other alternative, never offering an annuity, but paying off the amount in cash or in stock, which would be equivalent to cash. He should have thought the natural mode of proceeding was this. When the India Office found they were fettered by the wording of the clause, they should have offered the payment in a different form, and have said
    — "Here is £125 in cash, or its equivalent in 4 per cent stock;" and they should have given those who liked to take the opportunity of participating in one-fifth of the profits a less amount in cash or stock. They might have said they could either take £125 in cash, or £100 in cash or stock, and scrip for £25, representing the profits, and, in that way, they would have got rid of the annuity altogether. As regarded finding the requisite cash, a loan for an equivalent amount, specially secured on the purchased railways, could easily have been raised in the market; but, practically, a fair offer of stock would have been taken by nearly all the shareholders, and the operation would have been an ordinary one of the conversion of a loan into one of lower interest. Therefore, if he might say so, under all the circumstances, it was no excuse to say the annuity clause had placed them in a disadvantageous position.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he would venture to answer the question that had been put by the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing). It was self evident that if the purchase could have been made in that way, it would be the better course to adopt; but the Committee was told by all the responsible advisers of the Indian Department that it was felt, in financial circles, that the Government could not take such a course without disarranging the finances of India. It was unanimously felt it would not bed wise to go to market at the present time, with finances that were considerably disarranged, to borrow the £30,000,000, which would be required to pay them off in cash, when there was the certainty of having to raise £17,000,000 next year to pay off the per cent loan. It had also been stated they should have had stock itself. The shareholders would not have accepted stock; and, that being so, it became a matter of " Hobson's choice." It had been assumed the Government were net bound to pay anything as the sinking fund, and that the 4s. 6d. given for the sinking fund was not necessary. Now that, ho thought, was a mistake, because the annuity clause came in. It was true there was a clause in the contract giving the Government power to purchase at the end of 25 years; but if the Government where to come in before the Company had derived the full benefit of their outlay, which they would do at the end of 99 years, then there was a reason why the property should be treated as freehold, and not as leasehold, and should be taken at its full value. They were told, therefore, that if the Government purchased the line, it would be very difficult for them to raise money in cash, and that it would he cheaper to pay a larger sum in the shape of an annuity. That being so, there was no choice on the part of the Government at all; for the construction put upon the annuity clause as to the necessity of providing a sinking fund was, he had no doubt, the correct one. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), and the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), that if the Government could have paid in cash it was their duty to have done so; but, under the circumstances, they had done the best they could, and, indeed, they
    1140
    had no other course open to them than the one they had adopted.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I merely rise in consequence of the question put by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and I rise rather to say that I should prefer to have that question answered by my hon. Friend (Mr. F. Stanhope) or my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) who sit near me, and who are familiar with these matters. I think it would be more convenient if the question were put to-morrow on the Report. The position in which we now stand is this. The Bill has been laid before the House with a view to the consideration of it. The hon. Member for Hackney has moved an Amendment upon the question of its being taken into consideration, and that Amendment the Government are prepared to accept. Therefore, instead of considering the Bill now, we shall pass the Resolution of the hon. Member for Hackney; and, to-morrow, we will endeavour to proceed with the consideration of the Bill, when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has one or two Amendments to propose.
    MR. CHILDFRS: I will repeat my question to-morrow, and put it more clearly, so as to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a fair opportunity of replying to it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That this House, adopting the recommendation contained in the Special Report of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, is of opinion that its provisions should not be regarded as a precedent for defining the terms on which the Indian Government may hereafter exercise its right of acquiring possession of the other guaranteed Railways in India.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    INDIAN MARINE (re-committed) BILL.
    (Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mi. J. G. Talbot.)
    [BILL 211.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that this was a measure of too great importance to be considered at that period of the Sitting, as it dealt not only with ships in Indian waters, but with Indian ships in all waters, even in the waters of this country. He, therefore, begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. F. STANHOPEhoped the objection would not be pressed. The Bill was a very simple one, and it had been discussed the other evening on the second reading. Hon. Members would have the opportunity of moving Amendments in Committee, and he hoped that the time they had at their disposal now might be devoted to its consideration.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he should support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.

    POOR LAW AMENDMENT (No 2) BILL.
    (Mr. Salt, Hr. Sclater-Booth.)
    [BILL 212 .] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. " That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  MOTION.

    EDUCATION (WALES).— RESOLUTION.
    MR. HUSSFY VIVIAN, in rising to call attention to the deficiency of due provision for higher education in Wales, and to move—
    " That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to consider the best means of assisting any local effort which may be made for supplying such deficiency;"
    said, he rose with a sense of the deepest responsibility, because he felt that on
    1142
    the fate of his Motion might depend the future intellectual advancement of the people of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in that great speech which he delivered on moving the second reading of his Irish University Bill, said—
    " When we look into the far future, the well-being of Ireland must in great degree depend on the moral and intellectual culture of her people; and in promotion of that culture the efficiency of her Universities cannot fail to be a most powerful and effectual instrument."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 378.]
    Of all men in this country, the right hon. Gentleman had probably drank deeper at the source of intellectual knowledge than any other man. No man was, probably, more capable of appreciating the benefits of high education—such education as was imparted at their old Universities—than his right hon. Friend; and, certainly, no man had sacrificed more than he in the endeavour to extend such education to Ireland. The first portion of his (Mr. Hussey Vivian's) task to-night was to show that there was a deficiency of high education in Wales, and he regretted that he would have no difficulty in proving that. Before, however, they could determine whether there was a deficiency, they must arrive at some standard of what should be the number of students, as compared with population, who ought to receive high University Education, and for that purpose he would again advert to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, to which he had already referred. The right hon. Gentleman then showed that in Ireland there were students in arts at Trinity College, Dublin, 563; at Belfast, 136; at Cork, 50; and at Galway, 35—being a total of 784. In law, medicine, and engineering, there were altogether 455, and for degrees at Trinity College there were 395—being a total, in the whole of Ireland, of 1,634, or one student for every 3,121 of the 5,500,000 people in Ireland. His right hon. Friend characterized that as a bare and meagre figure. The right hon. Gentleman further showed that in Scotland there were 4,000 students, which meant one for every 840 of the population. He (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had ascertained with as much care as he could the number of Welsh students in

    1143
    the enjoyment of University Education. He found that at Jesus College, Oxford, which was open to all the world, although, for the most part, the students were Welsh—and for the purpose of this statement he had taken them as being so exclusively—the students were 55 in number; at St. David's, Lampeter, he took them at 70; and at the University College of Wales, at Aberystwith— founded in 1872—at 64: making a gross total of 189. Those figures gave one student to every 8,000 of the population of Wales, taking the population to be 1,500,000. That was the actual condition, so far as he knew, of higher education in Wales at this moment. In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, one in 3,121 for Ireland was a very poor and meagre figure. What, then, must one in 8,000 be considered. If Wales had the proper proportion of students—the same proportion as Scotland—instead of having 189, it would have 1,786. If that did not prove the deficiency of higher education in Wales, he could not conceive what would do so. In that estimate, however, he did not include students who might be at other Colleges, not strictly Welsh Colleges, for the reason that it was not possible to ascertain the figures correctly, and also because both Irish and Scotch students studied at the other Colleges, and were not included in the figures given. Nor did that estimate include the students in Nonconformist Theological Colleges, which were not in the nature of Universities, and at which students were educated for a special purpose. Those students, however, were in the whole only 360. In Wales they were not wanting in young men, for it was estimated that there were no less than 48,000 young men belonging to the professional, commercial, and agricultural classes, between the ages of 15 and 25; therefore, the supply was there, and the means of education only were wanting. He had spoken of three Colleges belonging to Wales, and now must show what these Colleges were. He first took Jesus College, Oxford. He had heard it stated, on the authority of the Principal of the College, that Welshmen had net so great a legal claim on the College as they believed. Jesus College was founded in 1571, on the petition of Dr. Hugh Ap Rice, under the Charter of Queens Elizabeth,
    1144
    and was afterwards largely endowed by Sir Leoline Jenkins. It consisted of a Principal, 13 Fellows, 22 scholars, and about 30 exhibitioners. Six of the Fellowships were confined to Wales, and six were open, the remaining one being devoted to the Channel Islands; 20 Scholarships were entirely devoted to Welsh boys, and the exhibitioners were all Welsh. The students averaged from 45 to 65; last January there were 59. The cost of the education was £16 per annum, and the cost of the living was about £57 per annum, or a total cost of £71. He was, however, told that the actual expenses were larger, and amounted in the whole to about £100, or £110 per annum. The income was not very easy to ascertain. From the figures given in the Report of the Committee of 1873, he found that the income from all sources was £13,567 10 s. 11 d. Then the Meyrick fund was £1,805 17 s. 10 d., and the tuition fund £1,083 6s., giving a total of £16,456 14 s. 9d. The expenses of the College were £13,161 7s. 1d., of which the Principal had £1,822, and 13 Fellows £3,765 12 s. 1d. He wished to draw attention to these figures, because his own impression was that great economy might be introduced in the working of the College. He thought an efficient Principal might be got for less than £1,800 a-year; nor could he imagine that so many Fellows were requisite for the training of 50 or 60 young men in Arts. He believed a scheme had been propounded for Jesus College, which would take away a portion of the Welsh endowments; and he ventured to urge on the Government that they should ' not allow any hasty legislation to occur before they had fully considered the whole question of University Education in Wales. The next College was that of St. David's, Lampeter, which was founded by Bishop Burgess in 1822. It redounded greatly to the credit of that good man, who had the interest of his diocese, and of Welshmen generally, at heart. For 18 years Bishop Burgess set apart a tenth of his income for endowing Lampeter College. With the aid of subscriptions from the clergy of the dioceses and others, among which were grants of £6,000 under the Administrations of Lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning, and a donation of £1,000 from the Privy Purse

    1145
    of George IV., the College was established. The College was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1828, and since then Charters had been granted which enabled them to confer degrees. It was now sought to open the College more widely to general students. Up to the present time the College had been essentially a Theological College, and must be regarded as strictly for Church purposes—to educate the clergy. Now, however, other than theological subjects could be substituted for what were called Classes 2 and 3. That, to a certain extent, opened the College to lay students. The average number of students in attendance was 70; last year there were 59. It was endowed with three sinecure livings, which amounted to £535 a-year, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had allotted £1,525 to Lampeter—he believed from the fund of Christ's College, Llandovery. The student's fees amounted to £1,050 on the average, and the Phillips Natural Science Endowment produced a revenue of £350. The total was £3,455. From 1828 to 1871 the College was granted £400 a-year, which was reduced to £300 in 1871, and very shortly afterwards to £150, and finally taken away altogether. The Examiners of the College were appointed by the Vice Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge; and he presumed that as, by their Charter, they were compelled to put the standard of their degrees at the same point of efficiency as those of Oxford and Cambridge, the B.A. degrees of Lampeter might be taken as of equal value. He next came to what was called the University College of Wales, at Aberystwith. That University was the result of the spontaneous efforts of the Welsh people to supply the deficiency of higher education. It was opened in 1872 with 25 students; it had now 64, of whom 31 were resident within the walls, the remainder residing in the town. Their average age was 21, so that, in respect of age, they might class as University students. They had, although the University had been established for so short a time, obtained two open Scholarships and one exhibition at Oxford; five open Scholarships at Cambridge, and seven matriculations at London University. Three others had obtained a first, and two a second degree. Three hundred and forty-four persons
    1146
    had contributed, for the purposes of this College, £10, and under £100; 38 had contributed £100, and under £500; seven had contributed £500, and under £1,000; and seven had contributed £1,000 and upwards. Altogether, upwards of £50,000 Sad been voluntarily contributed for the purposes of the College. That, for a poor country, and considering the short period that had elapsed, showed how deeply the Welsh people were sensible of the want of higher education. £16,000 of that sum had been expended in purchasing the freehold of the magnificent University building, which originally cost £80,000; £19,000 had been expended in carrying on the work of the University, and £15,000 had been invested. A large proportion of these contributions had come from the poorer classes, and there were 90,000 contributors of under 2s. 6d. If that did net show the general feeling of the Welsh people on the subject, he did not know what would. There was an institution in Wales called the Eisteddfod. Eisteddfod were held yearly in 'Wales, and the surplus funds were, to a large extent, devoted to the maintenance of this College. The Eisteddfod of Mold granted £250, and smaller grants came from the Eisteddfodau of Bangor, Pwllheli, and Birkenhead. Scholarships of different value had been founded by the Llanberis Quarry district and other localities — a circumstance which again showed the universal interest the Welsh people took in higher education. He had visited the University a few weeks ago, in order that he might speak from personal knowledge of the condition in which it was. The situation of the College at Aberystwith was by no means a bad one, being removed from all evil influences, and equally accessible to North and South Wales. The building was a remarkably fine one. It had very fine lecture rooms. There was the nucleus of a very good museum, and there was a very good laboratory. It was purchased at a comparatively cheap price; £10,000 were required to finish it, when it would accommodate a very large number of students. The curriculum was modern languages and literature, classics, mathematics, natural and physical science, Oriental languages, logic, modern philosophy, the science of agriculture, history, and

    1147
    political economy; and there was no divinity or theological teaching whatsoever. There were nine Professors, who all taught in English. Ho believed there was one Professor who gave lectures on the comparison of the English and Welsh languages.
    He really felt ashamed to make such a statement as he had made as to the University Education which was provided for Wales. There were fewer than 200 young men receiving University Education in Wales, even including the College at Aberystwith, which had not the power to confer degrees. He took shame upon himself for having allowed such a state of things to continue. It was the duty of Welsh Members to have brought it forward long ago, and urged it on the attention of the House. Bat what was the position with respect to intermediate education? Why, the endowed schools of Wales were almost as wretched in regard to endowments as the University. As far as he could make out from the Reports of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, the figures in which were scattered here and there, the endowments of the English intermediate schools were upwards of £300,000 a-year. Ireland last year received £1,000,000, which must represent £35,000 or £40,000 a-year. On reference to the list of the endowed schools in Wales, he found there were 11 first-class schools, with an endowment of £4,063, and 11 second-class schools, with an endowment of £2,468, making a total of £6,531 only. Some of these, he knew, were doing good work; but, on the whole, the provision for intermediate education in Wales was of the smallest possible extent; the endowments were not adequate. He should have occasion again to refer to that matter, because he had invited the opinion of the Welsh Bishops on the subject, and they all dwelt upon the importance of intermediate education.
    The financial aspect of the question of higher education was quite as bad. When the Scotch Universities were established, a grant of £140,000 was made for the buildings of Glasgow University, and there was an annual grant of £20,824 to all the Scotch Universities. He was not stating this fact in any way to depreciate the grant to Scotland; he was only using the argument in order to show what Wales ought to
    1148
    get. Scotland had a population of 3,360,000, and Wales of 1,500,000 in round figures; and at the rate of the grant to Scotland, Wales ought to receive annually £8,844; but, as a matter of fact, she received nothing—not one farthing. Scotland, however, had cleverly secured the maintenance of her Universities at the time of the Union, while Wales in the time of Edward I had not been equally fortunate or sagacious. How did matters stand in Ireland? Ireland, with a population of between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000, received actual grants to the amount of £37,978, besides the grant of £100,000 for the building of the Queen's Colleges; and, in addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in 1873, in order to bring Ireland up to what it was thought she should be, proposed an additional grant of £18,000 a-year. He was aware that, at the present time, the Government did not propose to add to the endowments of the Irish Universities. Hem did not think, however, that they proposed to withdraw any portion of the existing grants; and, therefore, he should be prepared to base the claim of Wales upon the actual sums given to Ireland. If, then, the same proportionate amount, according to population, were given to Wales as Ireland received, the grant would amount to about £10,000 a-year—a sum which, according to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, would be so inadequate that a Government ought to endanger its existence in order to increase it. Now, he wished to know on what grounds the sums he had mentioned were paid to Scotland and Ireland, and nothing to Wales? He could not but dwell for a moment on the distinctive nationality of Wales, and would quote from the statement of the gentlemen who drew up the Report of the Census of 1871. They said that Cambria had as distinct a nationality as Ireland or Scotland, with a natural increase of 170,000 on a population of 1,426,000. The fact was, the Welsh were a separate race in language, temperament, and tradition. Their history cannot be ignored. The Welsh, the Cornish, the Irish Celtic population, and the Scotch Gaels, were the only pure blooded races now inhabiting these Islands. They claimed to descend from the ancient people that once inhabited

    1149
    the whole of England—namely, the Cymric Celts, who were in possession at the time of the landing of Julius Cæsar. One of the greatest experts on pre-historic races was his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), in whose opinion, based on the records of caves and tumuli, the race which occupied Britain before the Cymric Celts in many respects resembled the Esquimaux, who emigrated and were driven out at a period as remote as one of the great cold epochs placed by the late Sir Charles Lyell at about 800,000 years ago, and by his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone about 200,000 years ago. Be that as it might, their antiquity was very great. It was known that the Romans occupied this country for some 500 years, and had in their own control all the military arrangements of the country. When they had withdrawn they were open to the attacks of the savage tribes of the Continent, and were unable to defend themselves, having lost the art of war. They sent a despatch from their Foreign Office to Rome, in which they said—
    " The barbarians chase us into the sea; and the sea, on the other hand, throws us back on the barbarians; and we have only the hard choice left us to perish by the sword or by the waves."
    #
    The " barbarians " of that time were this now highly civilized nation. For 150 years they carried on the war; but at length they were driven back into Wales and Cornwall. They there remained fighting gallantly for 570 years more, and it was not until 1283 that they were finally subdued by Edward I. These were the traditions of the Welsh. They were a distinct nation, and when they heard their own national music, such as " March the men of Harlech," no man could conceive who had not lived among them how their souls were stirred. They had a separate nationality; their language was absolutely distinct; and there could be no better test than language. There was an entire separation in language between England and Wales; and, indeed, there was no such distinction between English and any other language of Europe, except the distinction between it and the Sclavonian and Greek languages. At present the number of Welsh-speaking people was estimated to be over 1,006,000. The Calvinistic Methodists, the -Congregationalists,
    1150
    the Baptists, and the Wesleyans in Wales numbered in their ranks 686,220 persons, exclusive of children under the age of 10, and of that number only 36,000 worshipped in the English language. If children under 10 were added, these four denominations alone would represent 870,220 persons who preferred to worship in the Welsh language. There were 12 newspapers in Welsh published weekly, having a circulation of 74,500; there were 18 magazines, with a circulation of 90,300; and five monthlies, with a circulation of 3,000. In addition to this, many standard works were being constantly translated into the Welsh language. The Welsh were an eminently religious people. He had seen many congregations in many parts of the world; but in no part had he found it so universally the case as it was in Wales, that as many men as women attended divine service, and that he considered a good test of real religious feeling. The Dean of Bangor had recently declared that the most strongly marked of all the sentiments of his countrymen were their powerful religious feelings; and in eloquent words he pointed out that in America the Welsh emigrants clung to their language and religion, and that the first building that arose in a Welsh village in America, as in the mining districts of Wales, was a simple house of prayer. One of their prophetic bards had said of the Welsh—" Their God shall they serve, their tongue shall they keep, their land shall they lose, except Wild Wales." They were a loyal and law-abiding people, and in support of that opinion he need only point to their conduct during the long strike of 20 weeks' duration which, unfortunately, took place two years ago. They were a poor people, and could not afford to go to the expensive Universities of England. As regarded crime, Wales compared most favourably with England. In England there were 14 persons in prison in every 20,000; in Wales nine. The commitments in England were 7 per cent; in Wales only 4 per cent. He had no desire, he might say, to do anything which would prevent any Welshman from acquiring a perfect knowledge of the English language. On the contrary, he desired that they should be more highly educated in the English tongue, in art, and in science. The Government, he thought, ought seriously to consider

    1151
    the points he had endeavoured to place before them. It was not for him to point out how they should deal with the question; but if he might venture upon one suggestion, he would say it was very desirable that their attention should be directed not alone to higher, but also to intermediate education in Wales, in precisely the same manner as it had been directed to the same questions in Ireland. He had received letters from the Bishops of Llandaff, Bangor, and St. Asaph on this question, with which he would not trouble the House; but he might say that they all alluded to the absolute want of proper intermediate education in Wales; and he had already shown that that feeling was general throughout the Principality. The deep interest that was felt in this matter in Wales must be beyond all doubt. Last year upwards of 100,000 persons subscribed towards the effort which had been made in founding the University College of Aberystwith; 256 Town Councils, Local Boards, and School Boards, representing a population of 1,042,874 persons, had presented a Memorial to the Government in support of that undertaking. One thing he would venture to warn the Government against. They did not want grants for denominational education. He thought he did not go too far in saying that the Welsh would not accept any grant of such a nature. He was happy to say that Her Majesty's Government had last year shown their feeling on this point in relation to the subject of intermediate education in Ireland, and in their view he entirely concurred. Wales paid taxes in support of the Scotch Universities and the Irish Universities; and if Wales had a separate nationality, what could be the reason why she should not be dealt with in a similar manner? Wales was a thoroughly loyal country. The Welsh laid down their lives in defence of their common Fatherland. If he wished to dilate on their bravery, he would only have to point to the heroic doings of the 23rd Regiment, the glorious record of whose deeds was embroidered on their Colours. The 24th Regiment, too, he might speak of. The depôt centre of that regiment was now at Brecon. At Isandlana one battalion had been cut to pieces; but they died shoulder to shoulder. Since the days of Ther-mopylæ there had not been a more gallant
    1152
    defence than that at Rorke's Drift, and that defence had been mainly conducted by Welshmen. A letter from the commanding officer of the 24th, in answer to a letter from the Mayor of Brecon, spoke of them in the highest possible terms. He could not see why justice should be refused to the Welsh, who paid equal taxes, and were as ready as others to lay down their lives for the sake of England. They had waited with patience, for since 1875 repeated representations to the Government had been attended with no success. He would now urge upon the Government that this was a serious question, and deeply involved the highest and best interests of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects, who possessed a separate and distinct nationality, and who wished to have their rights. He hoped the Government would not meet the case with a non possumus, or with a non volumus. The question had now been raised, and must not, and would not, be shelved. Justice must be done. The Government had now a golden opportunity before it; and it might, by a small pecuniary grant, secure for ever the gratitude of a devoted, a loyal, but a long-neglected race. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he rose with diffidence, but with much gratification, to second the Resolution. Hon. Members would recognize the importance of the question before the House, and would bear with him while he appealed for aid to assist that higher education which the Welsh people had long and anxiously looked for, and which they had a right to expect. As a native of Wales, he rejoiced that the question had been brought before the House, where the claims of the Welsh people were but seldom heard. In other methods they had urged their claims on the Government for increased educational facilities; but they had been left behind other countries, and keenly felt the isolation in which they were placed. It was urged that Wales was so much a part of England that it did not need special educational facilities; but the argument was a false one. Scotland had four flourishing Universities under the fostering care of the Government. The students at Edinburgh University outnumbered those at all the Colleges of Oxford,

    1153
    while at St. Andrews, Aberdeen, and Glasgow the Scottish youth, availing themselves of the high-class education at their own doors, achieved distinction in literature, science, and commerce, which was at once creditable to themselves and shed a lustre on the character and institutions of the country. The same might be said of Ireland. Why should they deny the like opportunities to Wales? Dr. Chalmers attributed the intellectual superiority of his countrymen to three causes—the appropriation of the Church endowments to a clergy exclusively national, the parish schools extended throughout the whole country, and the national Colleges. Many of what might have been the educational endowments of Wales were alienated for the support of distant monasteries in England, and the injustice was continued after the Reformation. Christ Church, Oxford, was in receipt of £14,000 a-year, derived from parishes in North Wales, chiefly in Montgomery-shire; and South Wales suffered still more lamentably. The introduction into Wales of clergymen ignorant of its language had largely aggravated the evils arising from the alienation of its resources. The time was passed when such wrongs could be committed, and statesmen of both parties had exhibited a desire to do justice to the country. Inasmuch as endowments had been taken from Wales wrongfully in the past, it might fairly claim some help to repair the injury it had suffered. He asked them to give to Wales something less than their due proportion, but something that would put them on a footing approaching that of the rest of the Kingdom. Their claim was one that could not be resisted. Wales had suffered inequality of treatment in the past, and the result was that she suffered from inadequate resources now. A remarkable pamphlet, recently issued from Jesus College, Oxford, showed that the secondary schools of Wales were poorly endowed as compared with these of England, having, in proportion to population, only about one-third of the endowment. Notwithstanding this, he would not admit that Wales had been intellectually barren, but claimed that, under great disadvantages, Welshmen had done wonders in providing religious ministrations and promoting the social and moral welfare of the people. " In
    1154
    their need they forged the weapons of self-help." But poverty had produced its natural effect in reducing the number of students seeking higher education, which was 33 per 1,000,000 in Wales, for 158 in England. The unanimity of the Welsh Members on this subject was a proof of the feeling of the country. They only wanted fair play; and their righteous demands ought not to be set aside by pleas of delay or of the necessity of taking a new departure. Their wrongs had been exceptional, and they claimed exceptional remedies. They did not ask for millions, like the Irish, or for tens of thousands, as were given to Scotland, nor even for their due share in proportion to their numbers or their contributions to the Exchequer; they only asked for a modest aid to enable them to provide encouragement to their young men, who, with equal intelligence, had not equal advantages with the young men of the other portions of the Kingdom. The working classes, the farmers, the tradesmen, and even the women of Wales had contributed many thousands to the College at Aberystwith, and great efforts had been made to revive grammar schools; but they had been crippled by want of resources, and they now appealed to the Government for that help without which their efforts must fail in producing the desired results. A revision of the existing school endowments might, to some extent, forward their objects; and the scheme for the administration of Jesus College, Oxford, now under consideration, might prove one that would increase the usefulness of that College, and advance the higher education of the Welsh people. It would be asked what plan they had to urge? He did not wish to advocate any specific plan—many men had many minds; and all he could say was that there was a growing necessity that something should be done, which necessity was recognized on all sides. Ireland put forward her claims, and Wales, which had for a long time been placed in a state of educational destitution, had an equal right to urge hers. It had been said, over and over again, that Wales was as much an independent part of the country as any other portion of the British Islands, and her wants had been generally admitted. At all events, they could not wipe out the distinct nationality; and he considered that the

    1155
    Welsh people, under all the circumstances, had deserved well of this House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to consider the best means of assisting any local effort which may be made for supplying the deficiency of higher Education in Wales."—(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)
    MR. HANBURY-TRACY, in supporting the Motion, controverted the argument that those who desired aid from the Government in this matter were really striving to keep up Welsh exclusiveness and antagonism to English influence. Their aim, if attained, would have a contrary effect. He believed that the presence of University Professors in Wales would add very much to the independence of the Welsh people. It had been said that the great want was an improved system of secondary and grammar schools. There was, no doubt, much truth in this contention; but this Resolution .was designed to benefit those who were beyond the age of school discipline. There was a feeling which prevailed among many people in Wales, that they had been robbed in former days of much money that should have gone for the purposes of education, and, no doubt, that was a grievance that had some reality. He appealed to the Government to consider this question seriously. The claim now put forward was based, he believed, on the united wish of the Welsh people, the justice of whose cause was only equalled by the moderation of their demands.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that what was asked of the Government was that they should consider the best means of assisting local efforts to supply the deficiency of education in Wales, and he hoped they would see their way to granting so moderate a request. He would, however, suggest a modification in the form of the Resolution. That part of it which referred to local efforts might, with advantage, he extended. As it stood at present, it only urged the Government to follow in the wake of local efforts; but this restriction was unnecessary. It would be better to leave the Government open to go further. What he was anxious to see was a full, searching inquiry, conducted by Commission or otherwise, into the position of Wales as regarded higher education; and he should not wish either that
    1156
    any limit should be placed on the extent of the inquiry, or that the Government should be committed to any particular scheme. It would not be wise to fetter the Government in any way. Hon. Members might say that all they wanted was a grant for Aberystwith College; but he doubted whether that would really advance the interests of higher education. It was not the only College that required consideration, as there were also Lampeter College, Christ's College, Brecon, and the Grammar Schools and Nonconformist Colleges, all of which had to be regarded before any adequate scheme could be formed. He wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words " assisting any local efforts which may be made," believing that his hon. Friend would, if he acceded that Amendment, gain all he sought without hampering the inquiry in a needless or even a mischievous manner. They asked the Government to make the admission that Wales had a claim on the public purse. They might be told, perhaps, that the Principality was rather a small place, or that it would be better for its young men to go to English Universities. Of course, Wales was a small country, but it was not like any English county. Its language at once placed it on a different footing, and made it as distinct from England as Scotland or Ireland. That being so, the same arguments that gave Scotland and Ireland grants from the public purse ought to obtain similar advantages for Wales. As for the other objection, he would remark that the higher education of the English Universities was mainly a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, and that those who could afford to do so would always go to them. That, however, was not possible for all, and it was on behalf of the less wealthy class that he was pleading that day. It might be said—" You come to the Government for a money grant; where is your scheme?" To that he would answer that he believed it would be impossible to draw up a scheme that would be acceptable to all concerned without holding a full inquiry. The ground, he had pointed out, was already occupied. Great care would be needed to deal gently with, and to utilize as far as possible, all existing institutions; and he did not think any inquiry would be of sufficient weight unless it were instituted

    1157
    by the Government of the day. He believed that if such aid as they sought were given, after careful inquiry and due consideration, for all existing Colleges and schools, a scheme might be drawn up which would utilize and consolidate those institutions which already existed, widen their sphere of usefulness, and confer a lasting benefit upon the people of Wales. He moved the omission from the Resolution of the words " of assisting any local efforts which may be made."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words " assisting any local effort which may be made for."—(Viscount Emlyn.)
    Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought that by this time Her Majesty's .Government would have perceived that, in the first place, this was a subject wholly detached from all considerations of Party; and, in the second place, that the substance of the Motion, which had been brought forward with so much pains and so much ability by his hon. Friend, commanded the approval and warm support of all those who were, in a Parliamentary sense, Welsh Members of the House. The noble Lord who had just addressed the House had moved an Amendment to the Motion before the House; but the House would not fail to observe that it had unlimited scope. His hon. Friend had made a limited demand; but the noble Lord proposed to remove that limit, and to make the demand of a large character. He must say he did not prefer the Amendment to the Motion, and for this reason—he thought it was not well that they should throw a large and exclusive responsibility upon the Government in this matter. The noble Lord stated that he considered local effort a condition not merely useful and not merely desirable, but absolutely necessary in the matter. If local effort was not quite indispensable, he confessed he did not see any objection to their specifying it. The Amendment of the noble Lord did not exclude local effort; and if the Amendment were more agreeable to Her Majesty's Government than the Motion, he did not think the Mover of the Motion would present any serious opposition to the enlargement. His
    1158
    object in rising was to bear what might be considered in some respects an impartial testimony on behalf of the movement. Geographically speaking, he lived within the limits of Wales; but he resided in a parish of 8,000 persons, where no Welsh was spoken except by those who had migrated to the parish within the last few years. The associations of the parish were quite as English as Welsh; and the witness he wished to bear was really witness not founded at all upon what affected his own immediate neighbourhood in any sense or degree. He wished to commend this subject to the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government. It was very rare for the people of Wales or their Representatives to urge any local claims whatever upon the attention of the Government or of Parliament. In this vast Empire those who were acquainted with it, mainly through the medium of Parliamentary discussions and reports, might almost suppose that such a country as Wales did not exist; that it was merely a geographical expression describing so many square miles without any distinctive features, without any history, or literature, or traditions. Such had been the patience of the people of Wales. He did not hesitate to say that while that patience was greatly to be commended, it had been pushed to extremes. The Welsh people would have been more justified in making endeavours, through their Representatives, long ago to convey to the mind of Parliament an idea that they had some distinctive and special claims to which no recognition had yet been given, but to which it was high time some recognition should be afforded. Let them just consider how the matter stood. The noble Lord had most fairly and justly compared the case of Wales with that of Scotland and Ireland, and distinctions undoubtedly might be drawn. They might say that Scotland had had for a great length of time an entirely independent existence as a separate Kingdom, and had had what was justly called, in a political sense, and as regarded Scotland, an Imperial, that was to say, a Sovereign, and independent Crown. The case of Wales could hardly, perhaps, be considered as standing in the same category, because Wales passed at once from a state of comparative political disorganization to a state of subordination to England; but

    1159
    there was this to be said—that in many respects Wales, if it had less of a distinctive, historical, and political existence than Scotland, it had even a more marked nationality. That was a fact which could not be too strongly impressed upon the minds of hon. Gentlemen. Take the significant and almost infallible test of language. There was in Wales a population of something like 1,500,000; there was in Scotland a population of 3,500,000; and in Ireland a population of 5,500,000. In Scotland and Ireland there were 9,000,000 people; but amongst the 1,500,000 of the inhabitants of Wales there were a larger number of human beings who loved and clung to and who spoke their national tongue than there were among the 0,000,000 of Scotland and Ireland; and that was not owing to Parliamentary encouragement. Nothing Welsh had had Parliamentary encouragement since the Revolution of 1688. During the Tudor and Stuart reigns Wales received not only equitable but liberal treatment. Unfortunately, however, after that period there was in the entourage of the Throne, and in the Throne itself, an idea that by proscribing the language of the people Wales would be more loyal and one with England. The consequence was that the Welsh language was not only negatively but entirely and cruelly ignored at the hands of Parliament, and it was most cruelly treated through the medium of its religious institutions. The hon. Member (Mr. Puleston), who seconded the Motion, spoke of the great advantage the people of Scotland had enjoyed in having her Church identified with the people. No doubt, that was an immense advantage. If they were to go back two or three centuries, there could be no question that, apart from all questions of establishment or disestablishment, the National Church, whatever else it was, was a vehicle by means of which the national and political life of the country was brought forward. The National Church in Scotland was of immense service to the people in fostering the national intelligence, and there was no reason why that should not have been the case in Wales. It was the same in Wales until the proscription of the Welsh tongue was established. A remarkable circumstance about Wales was that its religious condition 200 years ago was totally different from what it was now. They all
    1160
    knew that the Welsh were a nation of Nonconformists, for the Churchmen formed only a small percentage of the population. Two hundred years ago the Welsh were strictly a nation of Churchmen. The old Puritanism, which was so powerful in many parts of England, took no root whatever in Wales. It seemed good to the authorities, partly after the Revolution, and partly after the succession of the House of Hanover, to appoint English Bishops to every See. These Bishops introduced men of their own nationality; indeed, there was not a deanery or a canonry, and a living which offered a distinct existence, that was not given to an Englishman. The dregs, consequently, were left to the people of Wales. The people of Wales were driven out of connection with that great national institution which, in time, would have afforded means for the cultivation of the national intelligence, so that Parliament and the British Government had not only done nothing for Wales, they had not only withheld from Wales the aid that had been given, especially during the present century, to Scotland and Ireland, with more or less liberality, according to the views they maintained, but they positively drove the people of Wales out of the enjoyment of the only institution which offered any means of fostering and educating the national mind. Now, he contended that the position of Wales, the history of Wales, and the state of Wales, invested it with a claim which could not be much longer overlooked. His hon. Friend who made this Motion had shown that the people of Wales did not find their way into the enjoyment of higher education in the same proportion as the people of any other portion of the United Kingdom. That was not their own fault. Undoubtedly, they had shown quite as great a disposition to profit by the advantages of education whenever they had access to it, as had been shown by the people of Scotland itself. The Welsh cherished amongst themselves a literature of their own, institutions of their own, for keeping alive their national tradition; and the warmth of feeling which they entertained on those subjects, the affectionate manner in which they clung to those recollections, must command them respect. There were some who argued that the Welsh language was a misfortune to the Welsh, and that

    1161
    the sooner it was got rid of the better. He hesitated to subscribe to that doctrine. It was not the abstract question they had to consider as to whether an absolute unity of tongue was desirable. Where they had a large population warmly and closely attached to its tongue, and where that tongue was an emblem of the traditions they had received from their fathers, that attachment was one which ought to be respected, and any measure introduced under the supposition that they ought to be weaned from the use of their language ought to deprecated. He agreed with the noble Lord that the full accomplishment of the object in view would not prevent the access of Welshmen to English Universities. On the contrary, lie was persuaded that the establishment of a higher education in Wales would result in bringing a larger number of students to the English Universities; but it was not the less true that the operation of Jesus College, Oxford, had, down to this time, been in the main to bring from Wales a certain number of selected youth who were placed in English associations, and were thus weaned from their language. It had done nothing for Wales as Wales. The claim of Wales was very strong. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) published in the newspaper some time since a number of most interesting letters, which put before the world the intense desire of the people of Wales for the advantages of education and literature, and the disadvantages under which they laboured, and the total and absolute want of that assistance which was given to others. That, on the whole, made so strong a case for Wales that he could hardly conceive any one questioning it. He did not know what might be the intention of Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but it was quite evident that no instant measure was asked for. It would be very difficult perhaps to decide, without much inquiry and consideration, what were the precise steps that ought to be taken. It would be a great misfortune, he thought, if this Motion said one thing and meant another. To the founders of this College great praise was due; but he thought it would be a great injustice to the subject, and even to the founders of this College, meritorious as they were, if it wore supposed that an exclusive regard to its interests was the object of
    1162
    this Motion, or that the Motion was intended to prejudge the case of any other College. The present College had had to struggle with great difficulties; therefore, he would simply say that ho earnestly commended the Motion to a favourable and impartial consideration. Nothing was more alien to his usual habits than to press upon a Government an addition to the public charge. It was only here where there was a state of things so thoroughly inequitable that induced him to think that Government would be discharging a public duty were they to recognize the reasonableness of the grounds upon which the Motion was founded. Nobody acquainted with the native intelligence of the Welsh people, with their disposition to obey the law, with the comparative absence of crime among the people—violent crime, he believed, was almost unknown—but must admit that all the features in the condition of the country were of the most encouraging character. The void to be filled was a void which simple justice called on them to endeavour to supply. No prejudice of Party or religious distinction could possibly obstruct the consideration of the question. There was no intention, as far as lie was aware, to establish any distinction on behalf of the Colleges of Wales, as compared with Colleges in any other portion of the country; and he could not but cherish the hope that, before the discussion closed, Her Majesty's Government would, without giving any pledge so stringent as to unduly fetter their future liberty, in some shape or other recognize the fairness of the claim made, and would encourage his bon. Friend and others, whose knowledge might be available in the prosecution of the subject, to persevere with their intentions, in the hope that those intentions might ere long take effect in the removal of inequalities which now existed, and that a measure might be adopted which, he felt satisfied, would bear fruit a hundred-fold.
    MR. B. WILLIAMSadmitted that the denominational Colleges in Wales were doing a great deal of good, but reminded the House that the majority of the inhabitants of the Principality were Nonconformists, and that any educational institution designed to meet their requirements must be based on un-sectarian principles, which would give no prerogative to one religious faith

    1163
    over another. All hon. Members appeared to be agreed as to the necessity of some assistance being given for the promotion of high-class education in Wales. The speech of his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution before the House clearly showed what the position was which was taken up by the Welsh people on the subject; and he would ask the Government carefully to consider what was the object which it was sought to attain. The people of Wales had endeavoured to establish a free University College, and that was the sort of institution they wanted to maintain. They had got together between £50,000 and £60,000 for the establishment of that College, and they had hitherto kept it up by means of voluntary subscriptions, amounting to £3,000 a-year, as a sustentation fund. What they now required was a subsidy for that College at Aberystwith, which was free and open to all, which they had established by their own unaided efforts. They desired to see that College placed upon a safe and sure footing; and, speaking on their behalf, he must say that he felt greatly indebted to those right hon. Gentlemen who sat upon the Treasury Bench for the interest which their presence that evening in the House testified that they felt in the important subject of high-class education in Wales. He would repeat, that what the Welsh people really wanted was that the College of Aberystwith should be made a safe and permanent institution in which young men might receive a free un-sectarian education. In making that request they were, he contended, asking for no more than had already been freely given to England, and Scotland, and Ireland; for he begged the House to bear in mind that Wales was the only nation in the United Kingdom which had never had any aid or consideration extended to it in the matter of high-class education. Men in the position of Dissenters in Wales were obliged to send their sons to the Universities of Germany or Scotland to receive that instruction which the Government denied them the means of obtaining at home. When the question of his own education was being considered by his family, it was found that, being a Nonconformist, he could not go to the University of Oxford or Cambridge. He was, therefore, sent to Glasgow—and he was now
    1164
    glad that he went there—where he received that education which he could not get in his own country. And why, he should like to know, should Wales have no consideration extended to her in the matter? She had always been faithful to England throughout all her difficulties and dangers. The Welsh people had fought side by side with England, and had always shown that they were desirous of being sharers in the glory, and of casting in their lot with the destiny of the English nation. Lately a portion of the inhabitants of Wales had passed through a great crisis in Glamorganshire. Thousands of the working classes there had been thrown out of employment; but they had borne their difficulties and privations in silence. They never murmured, or caused the Government a moment's anxiety by their conduct, because they were loyal and true, and prepared to wait peaceably to have their case considered. There were, he might add, no people in the Kingdom who had a greater thirst for knowledge than the Welsh, or who were more anxious to learn and to advance themselves in the world. When young Welshmen had the opportunity afforded them of competing with others in the Universities of Europe or America, they had always held their own; and all that they now asked the House of Commons to do was to aid them in maintaining the modest institution which, as he had already stated, had been established by means of voluntary contributions, and which was specially adapted to the circumstances of Wales. The Welsh people had no wish to perpetuate dissensions between nationalities; and, in his opinion, the sooner all historic distinctions drawn between the various parts of the Kingdom were abolished the better. There were, at the same time, certain peculiar circumstances connected with the nationality of Wales of which the Government ought not entirely to lose sight. They had to deal with a case in which the inhabitants of the locality had established for themselves an unsectarian institution; and it was but right, he thought, that they should not refuse to listen to the appeal which was made to them to place that institution on a permanent basis, and thus to provide the means by which those young men who might wish to do so might obtain a high- class education without being

    1165
    driven to the necessity of seeking it elsewhere.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had listened with great attention to the exhaustive speech in which the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had introduced the subject to the notice of the House, but that he had failed to learn from that speech what the real meaning was of the Resolution which the hon. Gentleman had submitted to the notice of the House. Several other hon. Members, representing Welsh constituencies, had also spoken in the course of the discussion; but the interpretation which they had, for the most part, put upon the Resolution only tended to render its meaning even more doubtful than it was before. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Hanhury - Tracy), speaking on behalf of the Welsh people, said they wanted a University; and his noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Viscount Emlyn), to whose speech great attention was paid by hon. Members sitting in every part of the House, said that money, and not a University, was that which was required by those who supported the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who followed his noble Friend, spoke with caution; but stated it to be his opinion that the question raised by the Motion could no longer be overlooked, although he admitted that it was one with which it was exceedingly difficult to deal, and went on to point out that it might be desirable that an inquiry should be instituted into the subject before any further steps with regard to it were taken. So great a divergency of opinion tended to place the Government in a position of some embarrassment. But the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had put a clear, distinct, and unmistakable interpretation upon the Motion before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. B. Williams), speaking on behalf of a Welsh constituency, informed the House that what the Welsh people wanted was a subsidy for the College at Aberystwith. Now hon. Members knew exactly what the Resolution meant; and he could not help thinking, when ho first saw it on the Notice Paper, and when he listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved it, that its real meaning was that
    1166
    which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. B. Williams) had explained it to be. He was all the more inclined to take that view because, on two previous occasions, an appeal had been made to the Government on behalf of this particular College. In 1875 an appeal was made on its behalf by Lord Aberdare; and in 1877 a very large and influential deputation, composed of leading Welshmen, waited upon his noble Friend the Duke of Richmond and laid before him a definite proposal, which was to the effect that the Treasury should make a grant of £5,000 to increase the funds of the College, and that they should place on the Estimates a further sum of £2,500 each year to be devoted to its maintenance. He would also point out that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion spoke not only of higher-class but also of intermediate education—in some respects making an ambiguous, but in others an unmistakable appeal to Her Majesty's Government to aid intermediate education in Wales by a grant from the Consolidated Fund. Well, he did not mean to contend that, because of the difference of opinion which had been expressed on the subject, Her Majesty's Government ought not on that account to consider it. The hon. Member (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had shown that there was a strong opinion in Wales, which was not confined to a particular class, as to the deficiency of higher education in the Principality, and that it might be well that Her Majesty's Government should do something to supply that deficiency. Now, great stress had been laid on the nationality of Wales; and he did not deny that the hon. Member had given them statistical facts which showed that the Welsh, so far as their nationality' was concerned, were quite distinct from their fellow-subjects in other parts of the United Kingdom. But he could not help thinking that the plea of nationality was not the foundation on which the Motion was based; and he was confirmed in that opinion by what had fallen from more than one speaker in the course of the debate. It was, no doubt, a very agreeable argument to put forward that one spoke on behalf of a people whose language no one could understand—[A laugh]—he meant no Englishman could understand—a people who were justly proud of their traditions, and were, in consequence of natural
    traditions,

    1167
    desirous that a national University should be established among them. It was, however, a singular fact that every hon. Member who spoke had been educated at a University, although there was no University in Wales. It was admitted that those who were in a position to do so would still send their sons to Oxford and Cambridge; and the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had said that he was in favour of degrees being continued to be conferred on all educated young Welshmen, who were able to bear the expense, by the University of London. What, then, became of the plea of nationality? The real ground on which the Resolution was based was that Wales was a peer country, and that the few endowments which she possessed were devoted to sectarian education; but, assuming that the force of that was admitted, was it a sufficient reason, he would ask, for agreeing to the Resolution—of drawing upon the Consolidated Fund? Let him suppose that Cornwall could establish a separate nationality, and that she set up a similar plea—what would be said in that case? The question was, where were they to stop? If they allowed the soundness of the argument urged in support of the validity of the plea, he could not see how they could prevent its being almost universally expanded. In dealing with the Resolution, therefore, the House would do well, in his opinion, to regard it as not being applicable simply to Wales, but to the case of secondary education in England also; because, although assistance had undoubtedly been given to the Universities of Scotland, and recently to certain Colleges in Ireland, he was, he believed, correct in saying it had never been our policy to give such assistance for the promotion of secondary or University education in England. He was merely stating objections to the Resolution which at once occurred to him, and they were, he was sure, objections which would be appreciated by every person who had studied the difficult position in which University education stood in other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, and who would, he thought, agree with him that the House ought not by a side-wind to pass a Resolution which either meant nothing, or, if it meant anything, affirmed a principle which was capable of indefinite application. He was
    1168
    anxious, he might add, to place before the House certain facts which showed what was the actual condition of the University College in Wales. It appeared from The Western News, and other Welsh newspapers, that a very serious dispute was going on between the College and the Governing Body, and that the students were in rebellion and refused to be examined, while a serious disagreement existed between the Council and the Senate. The most influential of the local newspapers were, it appeared, taking different sides in this quarrel, which was every day assuming larger proportions. In these circumstances, it was clear that the Government should hesitate before making grants from the public Exchequer to such a College, because the money might possibly be expended, not upon education but upon litigation. But these were not the only objections to which the Resolution was open. No doubt a great desire existed in Wales, as it did in England, to obtain University degrees; and why? Because a degree was a mark of merit. But there was always the danger that, in proportion as the number of Universities in a country were increased, the value of a degree would be diminished. The Resolution, too, sought to pledge the House to assist local efforts, not now being made, but which might be made at some future time; and it was, he believed, almost the invariable rule, that when Government gave grants in aid of local efforts they should know exactly how the money was to be expended, and what the local efforts were which they were asked to assist. But, in the present instance, it was proposed that the action of the Government should be immediate, while the local efforts were to be prospective; and the only result of passing the Resolution in its present shape would be that the House would be pledging itself to assist, by a grant of public money, some local efforts, no matter what they might be, which might hereafter be made. Another reason why, at the present moment, even with the utmost anxiety to supply any deficiency of that kind in Wales, they ought to hesitate was, that there was now before the Government a proposal to grant a Charter to a Northern University. The proposal which was made on behalf of Owens College, and various other Northern Colleges, was not that they should

    1169
    receive any assistance from the public Exchequer, but simply that they should have a Charter for a University, with the power of conferring degrees. It seemed to him that the wants of North Wales would, to a certain extent, be met by the creation of such a University, for he believed that it would be quite as easy for students from North Wales to go to Manchester as to any other part of the country. A further reason why the House should hesitate to accept the Resolution was that the authorities of Jesus College were at present revising their statutes; and it was possible that they might make some proposal which would give greater facilities for the higher education of Welsh students than those which now existed. For these reasons he was afraid, therefore, that he could not, on the part of the Government, hold out any hope of their assenting to this Resolution as it now stood. It was true its terms were somewhat vague; but it was equally clear that its ardent supporters attached to it a meaning which could not be acceded by the Government. On the other hand, the House had had a most interesting discussion, and there was, undoubtedly, a great desire on the part of all the Welsh Members to supply the existing deficiency. He, therefore, suggested that it would be just as well to wait a little time before any definite proposal was made by those Members to the Government. Let them wait and see whether they could make a real success of the College established at Aberystwith; also how far the Northern University about to be created would meet the wants of Welsh students; what was the exact nature of the alterations to be made in the statutes of Jesus College; and whether the system of local examinations connected with the older Universities would do anything towards affording facilities for higher education in Wales. It would be possible, shortly, to obtain information on all these points; and he was prepared, on the part of the Government, to undertake that if, after that, it was found that something further ought to be done, an inquiry, such as had been suggested by the right hon. Member for Greenwich, should be made. But it was essential that there should first be a full inquiry into all the circumstances he had mentioned. He thought it was impossible for the House
    1170
    to assent at this moment to an abstract Resolution such as the one before it; but if the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution decided to test the feeling of the House by a division, he should feel disposed, on behalf of the Government, to move the Previous Question, as he did not wish, admitting the deficiencies of higher education in Wales that did exist, to throw cold water on any sincere effort made for its improvement.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the noble Lord had raked up some very sensational paragraphs from a local newspaper, descriptive of some very stormy proceedings which had occurred in the Senate of the Welsh College; but he could inform the noble Lord that those matters could be very satisfactorily explained. On behalf of the University College of Wales, he could assure the noble Lord that no Welsh Member would think of asking the Government to grant money for the purpose of a Welsh University, unaccompanied by conditions for its fullest inspection and control. He should not have troubled the House but for one observation of the noble Lord, who stated that it would be a very good thing if Welsh students could be induced to go to Oxford or Cambridge, at the former of which Universities they had a College of their own. He further stated, that every hon. Member from Wales who had addressed the House had been to an English University. But they were not taking the part of Gentlemen in the position of his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorgan, or the noble Lord opposite, who were able to afford to go to an English University, but they were speaking on behalf of the great body of Welshmen. As regarded the great majority of students in the Principality, they were just as well able to go to Salamanca or Padua as to the great English Universities. No doubt there was a Welsh College, more or less richly endowed, at Oxford; but there were two features in the University education given there which practically excluded the greater number of Welshmen from taking advantage of those benefits. Jesus College, Oxford, was still a denominational institution; for, although they had passed an Act of Parliament by which theological tests had been abolished, yet it was impossible to abolish the character or spirit of an institution by Act of Parliament;

    1171
    and, like every other College at Oxford, except one—Jesus—it was, in every sense of the word, a Church of England institution. He did not say it was still necessary to subscribe the Articles of Religion; but at Jesus College all students were, as a rule, compelled to attend the Church of England services in the Chapel. One effect of the system would be seen from an extract in The University Calendar, which he would read. It stated that there were upon the books of Jesus College 94 members, exclusive of members upon the foundation, who had taken the degree of Master of Arts; no less than 72 out of that number, or nearly 80 per cent, were not only members of the Church of England, but actually clergymen of the Church of England; so that the clerical element at Jesus College stood to the lay element in the proportion of 4 to 1. But that was just the proportion which in Wales the Nonconformists bore to the members of the Church of England. How, then, could they expect any Nonconformist to go to that College, or their parents to send them there, if they could be sent to any other? There was, therefore, that feature in connection with Jesus College which made it impossible for the majority of Welshmen to take advantage of that College. But there was another objection to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and that was that the age at which young men usually went there was 19 or 20. He wished to call attention to this very important point, for it concerned, in a material degree, the question, not only of Welsh University education, but of all University education. The chief educational problem of the future would be to provide education for those young men who were too old to be submitted to the discipline of a school, but who could not afford the time, nor the expense, which attached to the education they could receive at an English University. To these young men time was money; and they had to begin the business of life at the very time young men of fortune entered the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge. These were the young men for whom it was sought to provide by the proposed University College at Aberystwith; men who were provided for in Scotland by the Universities which existed there—which were, in fact, high schools. He thought the University College of Wales
    1172
    was, therefore, entitled to the favourable consideration of the Government; because it was the only academical institution which could give to the people of Wales the University education which they wanted. Look at what had been done for Scotland. Parliament annually voted a sum of money, amounting to £20,000, to keep up the four Scotch Universities. He did not say that that sum was too much, nor did he begrudge it—in fact, he did not think that in the whole Budget they would find another £20,000 so well expended. But Wales had a population nearly half as large as that of Scotland, and was entitled to the same advantages which were given to it. Let them look, also, at Ireland. He would not take into account the magnificently endowed institutions of Trinity College, Dublin, the endowments of which belonged to history; but, within living memory, they had endowed a second University in Ireland with a lavish hand—with so lavish a hand, in fact, that he could state, on the authority of an hon. Gentleman, that at one of the Colleges in that University there were actually more scholarships than scholars. And Parliament was now asked to endow a third University in Ireland, and to appropriate £1,500,000 of public money for the purpose. At the risk of some unpopularity, and even misrepresentation, he had given a qualified support to that proposal, mainly because it came backed by the large majority of the Irish people. If he went into the subject, however, he was afraid he might draw upon his head a storm which would sweep him away, and he would, therefore, say no more about it. All he would say was that he thought it the duty of the State to meet the people half-way in a matter of this kind, and to encourage and foster those generous aspirations after a higher education which he believed to be amongst the healthiest and most hopeful signs of the times. The question of the University for Ireland bad been treated by him as a purely Irish question; and he hoped that the question that they were debating that night would be considered by his Friends below the Gangway solely as a Welsh question. He was quite sure that everyone would feel grateful to his hon. Friend for having brought this matter forward; and especially would the natives of the Principality

    1173
    be grateful to him, for there were no people in the whole of the United Kingdom—not even in Scotland—who were so deeply sensible of the value of higher education than the people of Wales. What could show their sense of the value of University education more than the history of this University College in Wales? It was established in 1872; and since that it had been supported, literally, by the pence of the poor —by sixpences and pence subscribed at the chapel doors in Wales—by scholarships founded by quarrymen, out of money earned by the sweat of their brow. He thought the people of Wales were entitled to some recognition from the State for what they had done in this matter. It might be very well for the noble Lord to talk about what had been done in Lancashire, and the establishment of a University there; but what comparison was there between the Lancashire cotton lords and the poor colliers and quarrymen of Wales? When the Wigan colliers were found clubbing together their weekly wages to found an exhibition for Owens College, then, and not till then, would he admit that there was any analogy between the two cases. There was no part of the United Kingdom which had suffered so much from the terrible depression the trade of the country was now undergoing as Wales. Nearly every day he received letters from men who, a few years ago, were in positions of comparative luxury, but who now did not know where to turn for the necessaries of life. Was it wonderful that, under circumstances such as those, the subscriptions for a University College had fallen off? He feared that, unless some aid were forthcoming from the State, this University College of Wales, which was doing well a great and noble work, might fall to the ground altogether. And if that should happen, it would be a disgrace not only to Wales but to England also. They did not ask much from the Government—not more than they were in the habit of shooting away on a single morning over the heads of a couple of hundred Zulus. And, now, he would wish to make a bargain with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had heard a good deal about bargains with the Government on University questions lately; but the bargain lie proposed should be a perfectly open one. The right hon. Gentleman the
    1174
    Home Secretary knew very well that there was no part of Her Majesty's Dominions which gave less trouble than Wales; the Judges could tell them what little crime existed in Wales, and how, when they passed from England into Wales, it was like going from darkness into light. They had the criminal statistics of the country before them; and ho challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was any part of the United Kingdom which would compare with Wales in respect of its absence from crime. Why, they could not, in the whole six counties of North Wales, scrape together a sufficient number of prisoners to justify the holding of an autumn Assize. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them back, in the shape of a University grant, one-fourth of what they saved him in prisons and police; and if he would do that, he thought that the bargain would be alike honourable and satisfactory, both to the Government and to the people of the Principality.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had entirely mistaken the arguments used by various hon. Members who had spoken in support of the Motion. It had never been supposed by any hon. Member that this demand which was made upon the Government was made on account of the poverty of the Welsh people. They had not come there to present a Petition from the Welsh people in forma pauperis, nor to ask the Government to give a grant to the College of Aberystwith, because they were poor. Their demand was a simple one, and it was this—Wales had a right to be placed on the same footing with England, Scotland, and Ireland in regard to University education. They demanded that as of right, and if they were not entitled to it they would not ask for it. But they were entitled to it as of right. They said that, owing to its history, Wales had been under special disadvantages, which had been, in a great measure, owing to its connection with England, and its conquest by the English people at an early period of history. The English people destroyed the institutions which existed in Wales at a very early period. The celebrated University at Bangor-is-y-Coed, where, amongst other renowned men, Pelagius was brought up, was destroyed by the invaders. There were in South Wales other Universities

    1175
    which had continued in existence for a much longer period than the one he had mentioned. Those institutions were destroyed in consequence of the turbulent times following the invasion of the country by England; and, ever since, the Welsh had never had an opportunity of placing themselves on the footing of other nationalities in respect of University education. In the time of Elizabeth, when there was an effort made to benefit the Welsh people, instead of establishing a College in Wales a Welsh College was founded at Oxford. At the same time that the Welsh College was established at Oxford, Trinity College was founded at Dublin for the benefit of the people of Ireland. If the same course had been adopted as was taken with regard to Ireland, in all probability the Welsh people would not then have been under the necessity of coming forward and making the claim which they now did. On behalf of Wales, they put their demand forward as a matter of right; because they said that Wales had the same right as England, and Scotland, and Ireland to University education, and was entitled to the same grants which those two Kingdoms received. The noble Lord had commented upon divergences which he said existed between the demands put forward by hon. Members; but he would tell him that there was no real difference in the requests put forward by hon. Members. They all agreed that it would be desirable for the Government to make a grant to the College at Aberystwith—they all agreed that it would be very desirable, indeed, if the Government would take up the whole subject of higher education in Wales. But if they would simply make a grant to the College of Aberystwith, they would do as much as could be expected, and would show some consideration for the benefit of the Welsh people. In those demands they were all agreed; and the only difficulty that existed was that his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen had brought the latter more prominently forward than anybody else did. The noble Lord had taken pains to expose the present position of the College, and had endeavoured to show, by a number of extracts from local newspapers—papers which were destitute of influence in the Principality, and made themselves ridiculous by the views which
    1176
    they took, and were exceedingly glad to find any opportunity of raising a little storm in order to increase their circulation—that the Council of the College of Aberystwith was by no means united in itself. No doubt there had been some disagreement between the Council and the Senate of the College. But that was a disagreement which was produced by a misunderstanding; and he was happy to be able to inform the noble Lord and the House that this disagreement had been altogether settled. The Council and the Senate of the College at Aberystwith had explained matters to each other, and no further controversy really existed between the two bodies. The noble Lord had gone on to say that it would be a pity that the House should be obliged to negative this Motion, and hold out vague promises as to what he might do in certain improbable events. He said the Government could not be expected to sanction a grant to this College until it proved itself to be a success; but if, after it had been fully established, the people of Wales wanted help, Her Majesty's Government might be disposed to consider the matter. The answer to that was obvious. If they waited till the College was a financial success, they would not have very much to thank Her Majesty's Government or the House of Commons for. If it were a success, and when it was a success, they would not want any further help from any quarter. And as to the University to be established in the North of England, they would have to wait a very long time to see if it would be of any use. The people of North Wales might possibly find some benefit from that institution; but with regard to the greater part of the country, he could not see that this Northern University would be of any use to them. All the Government said really was, "Wait a few years." They were to wait until certain events had taken place before Her Majesty's Government would decide whether or not they should have the grant which they asked for. He would ask the noble Lord if he would undertake that his Party would be then in power? Such promises meant nothing; and he would ask Her Majesty's Government to state straightforwardly what they meant to do. If they did not mean to give this grant, let them negative the Motion; and if they did not care to do that, let them

    1177
    make some more distinct promise than saying that when something which might never happen had taken place, the matter would be considered. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorgan would go to a division upon his Motion, in order that they might see who were their friends and who were their foes. If Her Majesty's Government absolutely refused what was now asked, then they would understand who were their friends, and would wait for better times, and for an opportunity of bringing the matter forward again.
    MR. A. GATHORNE HARDYrose for the purpose of correcting an observation of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who had asserted that Nonconformists at Jesus College, Oxford, were obliged to attend at the chapel. Having been at that College at a later period than the hon. and learned Member, he could assure him that no such thing now existed, and that no Nonconformist was obliged to attend the chapel.
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIANthought that the remarks he had made in bringing forward this Motion were of a very specific character. He desired to urge, in the strongest possible manner, upon Her Majesty's Government the absolute necessity of immediately entering upon the consideration of this very important subject of University education in Wales. Therefore, so far as the Amendment which had been proposed was concerned, he begged to say that he should be happy to accept it. But, after the speech of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, he feared that there was no course open for him but to take a division upon his Motion. He regretted that there was so much bitterness in the speech of the noble Lord, and so very little to encourage their hopes and aspirations. He was in hopes that this question had really and sincerely engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government; but, after the statement he had heard from the noble Lord, he did not feel that he should be justified in doing otherwise than dividing, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could put matters in a different position from what the noble Lord left them. He could assure the Government that they were thoroughly in earnest about this matter, and they did not intend to be put off, for they had
    1178
    already shown sufficient patience. For several years this matter had been pressed upon the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and the position in which the noble Lord had placed it was such that there could be very little hope indeed that this matter would be taken up by Her Majesty's Government, or that they could get their righteous and reasonable claims recognized within any reasonable time. The noble Lord had suggested that they should first of all make the College at Aberystwith a complete success. Well, but they had net the funds—they had not the means to de so. They had been struggling to de their best; but to say that the College must be made a complete success before the Government would consider whether they would assist them or not was absolutely ridiculous. He did not urge the claims of the College at Aberystwith in particular—he had only suggested that it would form a very safe basis to proceed upon; but he advisedly made his observations as broad as he could, and only presented the claims of higher education in Wales generally. He had only urged that the same should be done for Wales as had been done for Scotland and Ireland. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel brought in a well-considered measure establishing three Queen's Colleges in Ireland; and what they asked was that Her Majesty's Government should take the just claims of Wales into consideration in a similar manner. The noble Lord had admitted that there was a most distinct nationality attaching to the Principality of Wales; but he said that that was not their real reason for bringing this matter forward. What right had the noble Lord to make such a statement as that? It was one of his main reasons for bringing this Motion forward; and he thought it was not the proper way to meet this case for a Member of the Government to resist the Motion, on the ground that it was not being made on account of the distinct nationality of the Principality of Wales. They could not allow themselves to be put off with the statement that, in the judgment of the Vice President of the Council, the distinct nationality of Wales was not the real point upon which they based their case. The noble Lord said, if it was owing to the poverty of the country that the people of Wales had not been able to avail themselves of the educational

    1179
    facilities afforded in England, the same might be said of any English county or district, and that there was nothing to prevent anybody in Wales from taking advantage of those educational facilities. The fact was not as the noble Lord had stated; for Wales had not been able, chiefly owing to its special nationality separating it from the rest of England, to avail itself of the educational facilities afforded in England. Why should they attempt to force Welshmen to quit their country to obtain University education in England? A high authority on these matters had said they should not take the people to the teaching, but they should bring the teaching to the people. It was on that ground they wished this matter to be considered. They came to the House to assert their special claims to consideration, just as hon. Members who represented Ireland and Scotland did; and they simply asked for the rights which they had never denied to those hon. Members. He begged to say that if they were to be met in the manner they had in urging their reasons upon the Government—if, when they had been pressing this matter for some years, they were met in the hoighty-toighty kind of way in which the noble Lord had met them—how could they expect them to do otherwise than to continue to push this matter forward in every legitimate way? He could not allow this matter to rest there — they must either receive some definite assurance that the Government would take this matter into its early consideration, or else they must divide upon the Motion, however much they might be beaten.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorgan had appealed to him, he was quite willing to tell the House what occurred to him upon this question. He wished, in the first place, to disclaim, on behalf of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council, the imputation that had been cast upon him—that he had spoken with anything that deserved to be called bitterness on this occasion. It did not appear either to himself or to anyone sitting near him that there was any tinge of bitterness in what his noble Friend had said. He was sure that, however much the observation might apply to others, it certainly did not apply
    1180
    to his noble Friend. With regard to this matter, he might say that the Government were really in a position of some embarrassment, and there was some little difficulty in ascertaining what was the exact request which was addressed to Her Majesty's Government. There could not be the least doubt that the Principality of Wales had as strong a claim to the consideration of any Government and of any Parliament as any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions. They were quite ready to admit that from whatever reason, whether in consequence of, or in spite of, having no University facilities, there was no part of Her Majesty's Dominions which contained a more loyal and peaceable people than the Principality of Wales. Most certainly there could be no other feeling than that of kindness towards the inhabitants of the Principality in the minds of their English brethren. But what was it exactly they were asked to do? So far as he remembered, they had never had a discussion of this character in the House of Commons before. The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that for the last 25 years this question had been raised. But, if so, the matter must have been represented at different times to different Governments. He did remember that his noble Friend (Lord Powis) addressed a question to the Government of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, and received a rather short answer, as to whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do anything towards the advancement of higher education in Wales? He forgot what the Question precisely was; but it certainly showed that a matter, which appeared to have been simmering for 25 years, could not be injured by a little delay. It was now brought forward at a time when it caused some difficulty, for very different proposals were made on behalf of the Principality. His first impression, on seeing the Notice of Motion, was that the Government was to be asked for the establishment of a Welsh University; but, after what had passed in that debate, he imagined the object the hon. Member had in view was not so much the establishment of a separate University, but to enable the inhabitants of Wales to take advantage, more fully than they did at present, of University education in other parts of

    1181
    the United Kingdom, and also to promote what was called intermediate education in the Principality. He had rather gathered that the object of the majority of hon. Members was to encourage and develop institutions like Aberystwith College, which would promote the higher education short of the curriculum of a University. It seemed to be the object to give such facilities for that kind of education which would afterwards enable a man to go to Oxford, or to one of the other Universities of the United Kingdom.
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIANdid not wish that there should be any mistake as to their aspirations. They had simply pointed to a Welsh College, which they had established, as a specimen of what they would like. He should not like it to go forth, that if a Welshman had so studied as to entitle him to a degree he should not be able to obtain one in own country, as Irishmen and Scotch-men were now able to do at their own Universities.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was very undesirable unnecessarily to multiply Universities. He did not want to speak ex-cathedra upon the subject; but, at the same time, there ought to be a case very clearly made out to justify the establishment of a fresh University. With respect to the matter of higher education in Wales, the promotion of that was an object which they recognized as one that ought to be distinctly ked in view, and, so far as was possible and in the power of the Government, promoted. So far as any encouragement, which it was in the power of the Government to give, to the promotion of higher education in Wales, they would do it, for they thought that Wales had as just claims as any other part of the United Kingdom in the matter. But to pass a vague Resolution, such as that of the hon. Member—to put that on record would be most embarrassing, for they could not toll what it meant or what it did not mean. It might be capable of being construed as a pledge or a promise which the Government did not feel themselves at the present time justified in making. His right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich had spoken in very appropriate language, which commanded their esteem, as to the just claims of Wales in this matter. He thought, however, that it would cause
    1182
    some embarrassment, for this or for some future Government, if they acceded the Resolution. He hoped that they would be allowed to postpone giving any distinct opinion on the matter; and he should be extremely sorry if the object which the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) seemed to have in view—namely, to go to a division—was carried out. It seemed that the hon. Member desired to take a vote, in order that he and his Friends might go about declaring that the Government were the enemies of Wales. He did not think that they would be able to satisfy the hon. Member for Beaumaris or those who shared his opinions; but the Government would certainly not accept the Resolution without considering whether there were any claims which could fairly be met, and whether anything could be done in the matter. Everything that had been said showed how desirable it was that time should be taken in order to see what could he done. Some reference had been made as to what was being done at Jesus College, Oxford. At present, they did not know what alterations of the rules would be made there. Then, with regard to Aberystwith, he did not think that his noble Friend the Vice President had gone the length of saying—" We will wait until Aberystwith is a complete success; " but rather that he had said—" We will wait until an end shall be made of the disputes which have recently taken place within it." Upon this subject the Government had very little information. It would be well to know how this institution was working; and it would be well to have before them some definite proposal to which they could give their assent, and proceed in the matter with their eyes open. It was quite impossible for the Government to accept the Resolution in the form in which it had been brought forward, and hoped that the hon. Member would not force a Division.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the Resolution which was put upon the Paper was perfectly clear and distinct. It was as follows:—
    " That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to consider the best means of assisting any local effort which may be made for supplying the deficiency of higher Education in Wales."
    The demand was then made upon the

    1183
    Government to consider the best means for assisting the efforts made by the people of Wales in the direction of higher education. He knew of no instance where such poor people as those of Wales, where quarrymen and colliers had subscribed for scholarships to send their sons to the Universities. Certainly, they had no instance of that kind in Scotland. So remarkable a thing had been done in this case, that he thought it ought to command the very serious attention of the Government. In the answer that had been given by his noble Friend, it was true he did not speak with bitterness—for he never did that—but he spoke with ridicule. No promise had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All he said was—" Allow the Government to consider, and postpone the matter until the alterations at Jesus College have been made. Let us wait until the Northern University is created." The request was, in fact, to postpone the matter for some indefinite time upon perfectly indefinite promises from the Government. He did not see what else his hon. Friend could do but take the sense of the House as to whether his proposal was to be rejected or affirmed; and, if rejected, to bring it forward again.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 105: Majority 51. — (Div. List, No .142.)

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY OF DRINK ON CREDIT BILL.
    [Lords.] [BILL 224.]
    (Mr. Serjeant Spinks.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SERJEANT SPINKS, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he should make his speech as short as possible. He might state that there had long been a disposition on the part of the Legislature to discourage the sale of spirituous liquors on credit in small quantities, for no less than five Acts had been passed with respect to that description of drinking. The main object of this
    1184
    Bill was to consolidate the law upon that subject. It had also to be observed that the prohibitions with respect to sales upon credit of drink were different in the three Kingdoms. Another object of this Bill was, therefore, to make the law the same in all three countries; it was also the object of the Bill to extend the provisions of the Act to certain liquors not now subject to this law. The law, as it stood at present, might be shortly described as follows:—By an Act of 24 Geo. II. provision was made with regard to spirituous liquors, and that Act was amended by a Statute passed in the present Reign, and the effect of the two was that no action could be brought to recover the price of spirituous liquors sold of any less value than the amount of 20 s., or any less quantity than a reputed quart, to be delivered at the purchaser's house. This Act applied to Scotland as well as to England; but its operation did not extend to Ireland. The Act that applied to Ireland was the 55th Geo. III. c. 104, by which it was provided that no action should be brought to recover the price of spirits sold on credit, unless the quantity sold amounted to two quarts, and that quantity was delivered at the purchaser's residence. By the Act of 1867, applicable to England alone, it was provided that no action should be brought to recover the price of beer supplied to be consumed on the premises, whatever the value or whatever the quantity. The Acts he had mentioned did not in any way apply to some other liquors which were provided for by the present Bill. This Bill provided that no action should be brought to recover the value of any spirits, wine, beer, cider, and other drinks, unless the quantity sold should amount in value to 20 s., or in amount to a reputed quart, to be supplied at the purchaser's residence. There were also provisions in this Bill which were contained in some of the other Acts, and amongst them he might mention a proviso by which nothing was to be taken by way of pledge for drink sold. This provision was extended by the Bill to monies lent to be paid for drink and securities given for drink. There was also a provision contained in one of the former Acts relating to Ireland, which was not to be found in any English Bill, which prevented the paying of wages in a public house, and

    1185
    that provision was contained in the present Bill, and was made applicable to England and Scotland. He begged to move the second reading of the measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dlr. Sergeant Spinks.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

    CHILDREN'S DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL [Lords]— [BILL 229.]
    (Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he wished to say that it had passed through the House of Lords without a Division. The object of the Bill was to prevent any future exhibition or performance of a child under the age of 14 years, if, in the opinion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, such exhibition or performance was dangerous to the child's life or limb. It was a very small Bill, and was really only a slight instalment of what was required upon the subject.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that he had not had time to look into this Bill, and hoped that the second reading might be postponed. The Bill had not yet been delivered to hon. Members, and he thought the best way would be to put it down for to-morrow. He thought it was only right that hon. Members should have an opportunity of looking at the Bill before the second reading was moved.
    MR. BENETT-STANFORDsaid, that this was not the first time that this Bill had been before the House, and he hoped that it might be allowed to go to a second reading, as the matters with which it dealt were of the utmost importance. The Bill was very small and very short, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Guildford would allow the second reading to be taken then, as the Bill had been well considered, and was well known to be of great importance in protecting young children.
    MR. DILLWYNdid not think that in any case they ought to allow a Bill to be read a second time which had not been delivered to hon. Members. In some cases great inconvenience had arisen from allowing that to be done. He thought it ought to be insisted that such a course was not to be allowed; and he should, therefore, join in the opposition to the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion. They ought not to go on with a Bill which they had not been able to see.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Bill was very simple. He agreed in principle with his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that it was not right that a Bill should be allowed to be read a second time before the House had had an opportunity of seeing it. This Bill had been in his hands some time, and he was not aware that there was any opposition to it. The proposition of the Bill was so very simple that he trusted on this occasion it might be allowed to be read a second time.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that they were only contending for the principle that the Bill should be seen by hon. Members before it became law. That was the only objection he made.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that, technically, hon. Members who objected to the Bill being read a second time were quite right; but it had been stated that the Bill was a very small one, and would raise no opposition. Anything which required amendment could be dealt with in Committee.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he had only had the Bill placed in his hands a few hours ago. He had looked it through, and he thought that it deserved their support; but his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea bad laid down a sound principle that a Bill ought not to be read a second time if it had not been delivered to hon. Members. He wished to take that opportunity of calling attention to a transaction which seemed to call for some remark. After the Orders on the Paper were disposed of two or three nights since, the House had agreed to Amendments made by the other House in the Hares (Ireland) Bill, which Amendments were not put down amongst the Orders of the Day, and had not been circulated among hon. Members. He thought they were entitled to know what those Amendments were, and why

    1187
    they were not printed and distributed to the Members of the House.
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: The Amendments were merely verbal.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

    CHARITY (EXPENSES AND ACCOUNTS) (NO. 2) BILL.
    Resolution [June 30] reported, and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETS0N, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 230.]

    NEW FOREST ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Order for Committee [9th July] read, and discharged:—Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Member, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.— (Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    And, on July 3, Committee nominated as follows: — Lord HENRY SCOTT, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, and Two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bills of Sale (Ireland) * (155).
Second Reading—Public Loans Remission * (144).
Report—Tramways Orders Confirmation* (135); Highway Accounts (Returns)* (143).
Third Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Whittington Common)* (136); Cork Borough Quarter Sessions* (142), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— THE DEFEAT AT ISANDLANA—THE COURT OF INQUIRY.—QUESTION.
LORD TRUROasked, Why Colonel Harness, who could give very full information with regard to the Isandlana disaster, was put upon the Court of Inquiry—a course which deprived the Court of the assistance of a most important witness?
VISCOUNT BURY, in reply, said, the suggestion that Colonel Harness was put upon the Court of Inquiry to deprive it of a material witness was a presumption which the noble Lord was not justified in putting forward.
LORD TRUROexplained, that what he said was that that was the effect of the appointment. He did not say it was done for that purpose.
VISCOUNT BURY: The noble Lord who commands in South Africa is a a Member of your Lordships' House, and he is not here to defend himself. The War Office is not in possession of the information which would enable you to come to a conclusion. In these circumstances I think we are bound to suspend our judgment.

SOUTH AFRICA—LATEST TELEGRAM.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government had received any further news from the Cape?
  EARL CADOGAN, in reply, said, that the latest news the Government had received was contained in the following telegram from Sir Garnet Wolseley to the Colonial Office, dated Pietermaritz-burg, Natal, 30th June, 1879, and which he would read to their Lordships:—
  "Pietermaritzburg, Natal, June 30, 1879.—From aspect of affairs, believe war can be finished this season. I am raising corps of 4,000 carriers to work with Crealock's column; can, if necessary, increase their number very largely. I am landing stores and forage at Port Durnford, where I also intend landing marines and reinforcements. I hope to land there myself on Wednesday morning. Telegraph communication completed to that point. Crealock's head-quarters now there. Hope to push with his column to St. Paul's Mission Station, and so join Second Division and Wood's Column, both of which are now at point about 12 miles south-west of Ulundi, near Magni-bonium on official maps. King says wants peace; to test his sincerity I have. to-day sent back his two messengers to say he must send three of his councillors, who I have named, to meet my agent in First Division camp, where terms of peace can be discussed. Best information says he can only now bring about 10,000 men into the field. Have taken measures of informing Zulu people that all who join us with their families will be well treated and protected, and their cattle assured to them. Many have already come in. Have placed Lord Chelmsford in command of Second Division and of Wood's force until I can reach them. Have no difficulty in flashing orders to him. Weather fine. Health of troops in the field good. Went round hospitals here this morning; only 100 sick and wounded, all doing well and wanting for nothing. Loss of oxen by sickness considerable; hope to supply their places by mule and carrier transport. All quiet in Natal, where General Clifford commands all troops, whether regulars or Native levies. I am receiving the most cordial support and valuable assistance from Sir Henry Bulwer. There had been no fighting since last mail; no news of importance from the Transvaal; have ordered Colonel Lanyon to undertake no offensive operation, and to restrict his operations to protection of life and property, and to curtail expenses in every possible way. Have just heard from General Marshall that the King sent in the ivory tusks, which is a sign of the message being from the King, also the cattle taken from us at Isandlana; cattle kept by Chelmsford, but tusks sent back with repeated demand for the guns taken at Isandlana."
  "July 1.—Have just received news that Chelmsford was to move his force yesterday five
  732
  miles front without tents, expected to be at Ulundi to-day; considerable bodies of enemy close to Ulundi; written despatch from Chelmsford will reach me this afternoon, and I then embark for Port Durnford."

METROPOLITAN AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): Having seen the Notice of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown), that he intends, on the third reading of this Bill, to move certain Amendments, I may remind your Lordships that it is contrary to the Standing Orders of the House that Amendments should be moved to a Local Bill on the Report, or on the third reading, unless under conditions which have not been complied with in respect of this Bill. The noble Earl cannot now move his Amendments; but I think it would be unfortunate if they were excluded from consideration. I should, therefore, suggest that the third reading should be postponed till Tuesday next. Questions have arisen with regard to widening streets, and the Company are apprehensive of difficulties that may arise in cases where houses may be pulled down, and where the Corporation might interpose. I think that an arrangement might be come to on these points. Of course, we must be very careful in dealing with anything that has been deliberately passed by both Houses of Parliament. If there is anything that can be done in a case of this kind to allow of an improvement which is considered very desirable being carried out—if a fair arrangement between the parties deeply interested in the improvement can be arrived at, we should make some efforts towards that end. I think, my Lords, an opportunity should be afforded for that purpose. Unless something is done, it would be very difficult to get the improvement made at all; and, therefore, we should be very careful what we do in this matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am perfectly ready to accede to the course proposed by the noble Earl. I should be the last to wish to do anything unfair in the matter. The clause

  733
  I object to was, in the first instance, rejected by the Committee, and it was ultimately only passed on the statement that if it were struck out the Company would not go on with the Bill. Now, although the Bill is a very important one, and I am anxious to see it become law, yet, at the same time, there are limits beyond which it is not right for us to go in order to secure it. It seems to me that the best course would be for the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to consider the matter; and lam sure, in a matter of this kind, general assent will be given to any clause or any modification proposed by him.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD: As far as the Committee are concerned who considered the Bill, they are quite satisfied with the conclusion at which they have arrived, and do not wish any alterations made in it. At the same time, if anything which appears to the House on the recommendation of the Chairman of Committees to be an improvement is proposed, they would raise no objection to its consideration.
  Third Reading postponed to Tuesday the 22 nd instant.

SUCHAIT SINGH—THE CHUMBA SUCCESSION.

  QUESTIONS. RESOLUTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the succession of the Raj of Chumba; and to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether a certain Sunned granted to the late Sri Singh, Raj a of Chumba, by the Governor General Lord Dal-housie in 1848 was designedly so framed as to disinherit his brother of the whole blood Suchait Singh, who, but for the terms of such Sunned as construed by the Indian Government, was by Hindu Law entitled to succeed to the Raj on the death of Sri Singh in 1870; and if such be the case, what were the reasons for excluding Suchait Singh, then a child under seven years of age; and whether the Government is aware that Suchait Singh, in consequence of the construction of the Sunned of 1848 by the Indian Government, is now reduced to destitution; and to ask how much Colonel Reid is receiving as pension out of the Chumba revenues in addition to the £3,000 a-year paid to the present Superintendent of Chumba; and whe-
  734
  ther, in view of the possibility of the action of the Government having been erroneous, Her Majesty's Government will direct a maintenance to be provided for Suchait Singh out of the revenues of Chumba until any questions as to the succession can be finally decided; to ask the Secretary of State whether he will cause an independent inquiry to be instituted into the conduct of the present Administrator of the Chumba States? and to move to resolve—
  "That this House is of opinion that the claim of Suchait Singh should be investigated, either by referring it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to a Select Committee, or to a special Commission not composed of Indian Government officials."
  The noble Lord said *: My Lords, I ask your Lordships for an indulgent and a patient hearing, because I am pleading for justice. I have sometimes asked myself if I was justified in taking up the time of the House with my inefficient advocacy; but I have come to the conclusion that it is not the weakness of my advocacy that is in fault so much as the apathy of those that opposed me, for it is not long since the noble and learned Lord, who is not now in the House (Lord Selborne), pleaded with the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India for justice and clemency for Sirdar Narain Singh; but, though he spoke with the eloquence which belongs to him, and with all the weight and responsibility of an ex-Lord Chancellor, he obtained no more results than I have done on other occasions. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India looks upon me in the light of the importunate widow in the Scriptures; but I have one advantage over that lady, for she addressed herself to a Judge who boasted that he neither feared God nor regarded man; and we know that the noble Viscount does not come under that description. Another strong point in my favour is that the Secretary of State cannot say that he cannot reverse the action of his Predecessor, for the noble Duke, his Predecessor (the Duke of Argyll), in whose time this case was decided, has asked for its re-consideration. This question, moreover, has never been really investigated by the Indian Government, or by independent officials, and it has not gone out of the hands of a very few local officials of the Punjab Government.

  735
  Suchait Singh, from the long time that his family have lived and reigned in Chumba, has a strong claim on the sympathy of the Scotch Peers, especially of those who have lately taken so strong an interest in the Earldom of Mar. The Moghul Government of Delhi cherished and honoured the Rajputs, and that is a precedent and a tradition which the British Government would do well to follow. This is no Party question, and up to the present time no Conservative Minister is responsible for it. Last year, about this time, I brought before your Lordships the case of the Bungana Pally succession, which, like this, rested upon Lord Canning's promises and charters. A weekly periodical, which gives the briefest summary of the Proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, said that that speech ought to have been delivered to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and not to your Lordships. I entirely agree with that opinion; but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is closed to those who seek redress. A short time ago, when I urged to your Lordships that access should be given to it, and that cases such as this one should be first decided by judicial authorities, and not by captains or subordinate Revenue officers, the noble Viscount answered me that Lord Canning had made no such promises; but the promise to follow Mussulman and Hindu Law in cases of succession includes and involves the promise of ascertaining judicially what that law is, and that can only be done by legal men, and not by political officials. The opinion, however, of the Civil Service in India is, in general, favourable to Suchait Singh. A short time ago, a deputation waited on the Secretary of State to represent the claims of Suchait Singh; it was introduced by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Tweeddale), who might well interest himself in this matter, for, when he was in the Civil Service of India, his life and that of the other English at Simla was saved at the time of the Mutiny by the exertions and influence of Mutsuddy Ram, the Vizier of Suchait Singh, who has followed his master here into exile; but up to the present time Mutsuddy Ram has received no reward or recognition of his services from the Indian Government. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State would give no other answer to that deputation than
  736
  that he could not enter into the matter, because it had not been remitted from the Indian Government for his consideration. This is on the ground of an Order published in the Government of India Gazette of March, 1878; and there is good reason to believe that this rule was framed to meet this particular case. The effect of it is to limit the authority of the Home Government, and to shut out the people of India from all hopes of redress of their grievances. After these preliminary observations, I come to the case. Chumba is a Rajput Principality, which for 3,000 years has been held by the family of Suchait Singh. It borders on Cashmere, its area is 3,216 square miles, the revenue is nowunder £30,000, and the tribute it pays to the Indian. Government 10,000 rupees, or £1,000. Sri Singh, the late Rajah of Chumba, received in 1848 a Sunned from Lord Dalhousie, on our taking the Punjaub, granting him the State of Chumba—
  "In perpetuity, and to his heirs male who, according to the Shastras, may be his rightful successors. In the event of the Rajah having no male heirs, his next brother who may be the eldest of his surviving brothers will succeed him."
  Sri Singh had a brother of the same mother, Suchait Singh. He had also a half-brother, Gopal Singh, who had not been recognized as a son by his father, Charrat Singh, nor had been brought up in the palace. Gopal Singh was older than Sri Singh and Suchait Singh. This is disputed. It is certain that he was older than Suchait Singh. In 1870 Sri Singh died, and, before his funeral rites were performed, Colonel Reid, the Superintendent of the Finances of Chumba, hastened to place Gopal Singh on the guddee, or throne, of Chumba, on the ground of the words of the Sunned, and that he was the eldest of the surviving brothers. Now, the cause of all the mischief, and of the setting aside of the lawful heir, Suchait Singh, was the mistake originally made by Colonel Lake, when Lord Dalhousie's Government was misinformed that there were three brothers, when there were only two. Later on, another mistake was made, which I will refer to further on. Lord Dalhousie's Sunned refers to rights under the Hindu Shastra; he would not, therefore, knowingly have preferred a half-brother to a full brother. I have, therefore, put down upon the

  737
  Notice Paper the first Question, and the answer which must necessarily be given to it will show that Lord Dalhousie was misinformed, and led to believe that there were three equal brothers. Suchait Singh wishes me to state that there has never been any enmity or ill-feeling between him and. Gopal Singh, and that Gopal Singh always writes to him recognizing Suchait Singh's rank. It is with reluctance that Suchait Singh has allowed me to mention the facts concerning the birth of Gopal Singh. In fact, Gopal Singh was not a brother at all; his mother had three lovers, one is still alive, two were executed, and the mother would also have been executed, had she not been with child, and on account of the intercession of Rajah Zorawer Singh, brother of Charrat Singh. As it was, she was expelled the palace, and Gopal Singh was born prematurely, a seven months' child. It is known that these lovers were executed some time before Sri Singh's birth, which corroborates the assertion that Gopal Singh was born before Sri Singh. Gopal Singh had no provision made for him beyond £50 a-year, which was left him out of compassion by a Ranee of Charrat Singh, who became Sati at the death of her husband. These facts are new facts—that is to say, they have not yet appeared in the official papers; but the Government would have been informed of them had there been any independent inquiry. Suchait Singh was always looked upon by the people of Chumba and by the neighbouring Rajahs as the heir to Sri Singh, his brother; and, not with standing occasional differences between the brothers, on two occasions Sri Singh sent Suchait Singh to represent him and appear as Dothain, or second in rank, at the Durbar of Sir John Lawrence; and later of Lord Lawrence, the Viceroy, who gave him the usual presents. I will ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will lay upon your Lordships' Table the Correspondence of Mr. Melville, containing the testimony of the Rajahs at the Gopipoor Dehra Durbar in 1861, as to their heirs, in which Suchait Singh is mentioned as the heir of Sri Singh. When Sri Singh died, his obsequies were delayed till Suchait Singh could arrive from Cashmere, where he had been staying with his relative the Maharajah. The people of Chumba would allow no one but Suchait Singh to perform them. The
  738
  performance of funeral rites is generally a safe index of the rights of inheritance. And now I ask what, besides a too literal adherence to the words of the Sunned, and a disregard of its reference to the Shastras, were the motives for setting aside Suchait Singh? There were not any of those high political considerations which it is sometimes alleged should have a preference over those legal rights guaranteed by Lord Canning's charters. The State of Chumba is too small for such, and the correspondence shows that Suchait Singh was looked upon as a man of promise, whilst no such hopes were entertained as to Gopal Singh. But whatever political considerations may be alleged as existing in 1870, these were all stultified in 1873, when Colonel Reid and General Taylor found it necessary to depose their puppet, Gopal Singh, and to instal a small child, his son, Sham Singh. But there was another motive of so patent a nature that there is no reason for refraining from saying that it was of a pecuniary nature. Colonel Reid entered the service of Sri Singh with a salary of £1,200 a-year. This was gradually raised to the sum of £3,000 a-year, besides horses, elephants, forage, &c, a large sum out of a total revenue of £30,000, and one which he would probably have lost, if Suchait Singh, an active man, able to administer his own finances, had succeeded. What do your Lordships think of the justice of taking more than £3,000 a-year for a stranger, and the attempt to force Suchait Singh, the heir of so ancient a family, to sell his birthright and renounce his just claims for the sum of £500 a-year? Now, also, that a child is in possession of Chumba, what becomes of its revenues, and how much is absorbed perhaps on the pretence of making roads? I have put down the Question on the Notice Paper as to the amount of Colonel Reid's pension, in addition to the salary of his successor, in order that it may be known how much is drained away from this small State, and the amount of pecuniary interest that exists for the state of things complained of by the people of Chumba, and what was the exact official position of Colonel Reid before and after 1870. And now, after the deposition of Gopal Singh, I take a fresh departure, and the Government of India might, and ought, to have taken

  739
  a fresh departure, for, according to these words of Lord Dalhousie's Sunned of 1848—
  "Should any of the Rajahs of Chumba mismanage the affairs of the country, the British Government will remove him, and appoint in his place another of the family. It is not the object of the British Government to take the country into its hands; the only thing which it has in view is that from the good management of the territory and the impartial administration of justice the people should continue to enjoy peace and happiness."
  The Indian Government should have appointed Suchait Singh, a grown man, to govern Chumba; it should have taken this opportunity to give peace and contentment to the inhabitants of Chumba, many of whom left their country to petition for the return of Suchait Singh and have not been allowed to return to their homes. I know that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State is under the impression that Chumba is well governed and its people perfectly happy, and so long as he makes no inquiry by independent persons he will be informed that it is so; but I must not only tell him that these are vain illusions, I must also ask him to order an official and impartial investigation as to the statements which I am now going to make. At the beginning of this year the complaints of the people of Chumba with regard to the prevalence of bribery became so great that Mr. Burney, the successor of Colonel Reid, thought it necessary to notice and check them. He therefore, last February, summoned the complainants to come to his Court and substantiate their accusations. He dismissed some complaints; but others were substantiated against Abtar Singh and another of the Chumba Vizirs. These he removed, and gave them pensions to the amount of half their pay; but did not oblige them to make restitution of the sums they had received. After this, a Mussulman of Noorpoor said that he had given certain sums for certain people to Mrs. Kelly, the wife of a barrack-master. He was asked why he did that, and he replied—"Because she has influence with your honour." Mr. Burney upon this was troubled, and hastily closed the Court, and sent this man to the House of Detention. Next day he sent for him again, when he said that he had time in prison to refresh his memory, and he had made out a list of sums given by various people
  740
  to make the false appear true, and to obtain various offices, and that what was certain was, that they got what they paid for. After this the Mussulman was released, and Mr. Burney went away for a time from Chumba. Amongst other irregularities and illegalities that took place when Colonel Reid and Colonel Taylor set aside Suchait Singh from the throne of Chumba, Colonel Taylor put Suchait Singh under restraint at Umritsir. He could not legally have done this to a Native of British India against whom there was no criminal accusation, still less could he do so in the case of an independent Prince. Colonel Taylor, indeed, alleges that Suchait Singh was intriguing, and had written seditious letters; but none of these letters are in evidence, and I deny that he ever wrote anything seditious, unless that term is also applicable to a statement made in this House, that this House has no jurisdiction over Scotch Peerages on the Roll before the Act of Union. I said before that another mistake had been made with regard to Gopal Singh, and this was that he had been represented to the Duke of Argyll as the full brother, and Suchait Singh as the half-brother, and the despatch of the Duke of Argyll confirming the decision of the Punjaub Government, dated July 20, 1871, mentioned Suchait Singh as the half-brother. This mistake was pointed out at the time from India and the despatch cancelled, and an amended despatch substituted. In May last, two gentlemen waited on the Duke of Argyll to point out this mistake and others that had led to the decision then arrived at. The Duke of Argyll wrote a letter to one of them, which I will read to your Lordships, as it entirely does away with the objection sometimes raised against reversing the action of a Predecessor—
  "Argyll Lodge, May 19, 1869,
  "Sir,—I really cannot do more than I have done. You may, however, show this note expressive of my hope that the case will be seriously re-considered at the India Office, with the view to see whether a mistake has not been committed in the decision come to when I was Secretary of State.
  "Your obedient servant.
  (Signed) "ARGYLL.
  "J. E. Liardet, Esq."
  The writing this letter by the Duke of Argyll was an act of great generosity. A short time ago, at Sheffield, the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India

  741
  twitted the Duke of Argyll with holding himself to be infallible; but after the letter I have just read that accusation falls to the ground; and if the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) should refuse to allow of an investigation of this matter, and the "serious reconsideration" of it asked for by the Duke of Argyll, he must take a degree higher than the Duke of Argyll, and hold himself to be what the Italians would call "infallibilissimo." I now move for an investigation into the claim of Suchait Singh, leaving to the Secretary of State the option between three methods of independent inquiry. It is melancholy to think that men with all the talents possessed by Ministers of State, animated as they must be by care for the preservation of the Empire, and the knowledge that it can only be preserved by strict justice and loyal adherence to the Royal Proclamations and Viceregal Charters, should devote too much of their time and energies to Party purposes, and, delegating too much of their authority to subordinate officials, consider themselves as bound by their errors and appear to make it a point of honour to refuse to acknowledge a mistake or to redress a wrong for which they then make themselves responsible, and for which the Empire must inevitably suffer. In conclusion, may I remind the noble Viscount of the words of Oamoens—
  "Who worketh injury reasonless and vain,
  With force engendered by his power of place,
  Nought conquereth; the sole true conqueror he
  Who knows to render justice fair and free?"
  Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that the claim of Suchait Singh should be investigated either by referring it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to a Select Committee, or to a special commission not composed of Indian Government officials.—(The lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the speech made by the noble Lord must have convinced their Lordships that the House of Lords was not an Assembly suited to the discussion of a question such as that raised by the noble Lord, and he must decline to go into the case. The case had been decided by the Government of the Punjaub and the Indian Government in the time of Lord Mayo; it was considered in the time of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of North-
  742
  brook), and the decision of those Viceroys had been confirmed by the Duke of Argyll as Secretary of State; it had also been considered by his Predecessor in Office (the Marquess of Salisbury), who, in a despatch sent out to India, said the decision come to must be considered as being final. That being so, the Petitioner had sent in a Memorial to the Indian Government for a re-consideration of the case; but it was no part of his duty as Secretary of State to go into the merits of the question. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had gone into the matter very fully, and had asked whether the Sunnud granted to the late Sri Singh was designedly so framed as to disinherit his brother of the whole blood, Suchait Singh? His answer was that the Sunnud of Lord Dalhousie did not in terms disinherit anyone; but directed that a brother of Suchait Singh should succeed to the Raj on the death of Sri Singh. That brother was the eldest, and he did succeed. There never was any question as to the successor being of the half-blood. The noble Lord asked him whether he was aware that Suchait Singh was reduced to a state of destitution? He (Viscount Cranbrook) regretted that the Claimant should have been reduced to destitution in consequence of the ease having been decided against him; but he must point out that the Indian Government had told Suchait Singh that if he was willing to accept the decision and go back to India, they would provide means for his maintenance, and the Government at Home would make arrangements for his return. If he would not take the money which was offered to him, it would be his own fault. There was no ground laid for any further inquiries, and he must decline to order any. As to the salary and pension of Colonel Reid, he must say that he was receiving no more than was regularly allowed under the circumstances, and the pension came out of the Revenues of India, and not out of those of Chumba. The pension, which was earned by long services, amounted to £984, and no deduction was made from the Revenues of Chumba on account of it. There was nothing new in the case as set forth by the noble Lord. It was fully gone into by General Taylor, and his Report was adopted by the Government of the Punjaub, and again by the Indian Government, and by the Go-

  743
  vernment at Home, after carefully and fully considering the facts of the case. The noble Lord had complained of the administration of the Chumba estate, and also of other persons, and called upon him (Viscount Cranbrook) to direct an inquiry into the administration of it; but he could not do so upon such statements, and he was astonished that the noble Lord should have made, upon such authority, charges against these persons. In conclusion, he would repeat that Lord Dalhousie had laid down the principles upon which this succession should go. On those principles his Predecessors in the Government in India and at Home had decided, and by that decision he must abide.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that in 1874, when Viceroy of India, he and his Advisers had occasion to examine into this case, which had been previously settled by his Predecessor, Lord Mayo. The case appeared to them perfectly clear, and the decision of Lord Mayo upon it was adjudged by them to be right. He had, since the present Motion was put upon the Notice Paper, looked again carefully into the documents which were in 1874 placed before him, and he could find no reason whatever for altering the opinion he had then formed. He had listened to the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) with interest; but had discovered in it no new facts essentially affecting the case. The whole of the facts appeared to be contained in the Papers which were before the Government of India in 1874, and published in The Gazette of India at the time. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from the Secretary of State; and, if he might offer his advice to the Claimant in this case, he would suggest that he should not let himself be deceived by anything which any interested persons might say to lead him to suppose that there was any chance of the case being re-opened and decided in his favour; but that he should at once accept the offer made to him by the Government of India, and should not remain any longer in this country, but return to his Native State and live there quietly on the provision he would receive.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhaving briefly replied,
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

MEETING OF THE HOUSE TO-MORROW (SATURDAY).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the Government proposed that the House should meet tomorrow at 5 o'clock for the purpose of receiving the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, should that measure pass through the House of Commons by that time.
MEETING OF THE HOUSE TO-MORROW (SATURDAY).

  BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to Bills of Sale in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read 1a. (No. 155.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Five o'clock.