Sitting of 13 March 1879

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Select Committee—Liverpool Lighting, nominated; Thames River (Prevention of Floods), Other Members nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Teachers Organisation and Registration* [101].
Second Reading—Marine Mutiny Act (Temporary) Continuance* [98].
Committee—Report—Mutiny Act (Temporary) Continuance* [99]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order (Blackwater, Essex) [76].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  THAMES RIVER (PREVENTION OF FLOODS) BILL (by Order).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved to nominate the Select Committee on this Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Goldney be a Member of the Select Committee."
    MR. CUBITT MR. CUBITT moved that the debate be now adjourned. He said, he took that course, because he objected to the general constitution of the Committee. He saw that a Notice had been put upon the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), to substitute for the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that of one of the Members for the County of Surrey. He thought it invidious to object to the name of any particular Member, and especially that of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who from his position had considerable interest in the matter. It seemed to him, however, that there was a great omission in the constitution of the Committee, and that was the ground upon which he ventured to oppose it. There was no person upon the Committee who represented the interests of the South side of the River Thames. He saw that the Committee included the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who represented the Northern boundary of the Thames; but none of the Members who represented the South side were
    796
    to be nominated—namely, the two Members for Lambeth, the two Members for Southwark, the two Members for East Surrey, and the two Members for Mid Surrey. Under those circumstances, he moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that the composition of the Committee might be altered, and the question be taken into consideration again to-morrow. The case was a very important one to the whole of the Metropolis; and it was undesirable that one of the great districts of London should be altogether unrepresented. He did not think it was necessary that he should enforce his position by any further argument. The locality for which he appealed was a large, populous, and poor district; and he thought it would be quite clear to the House that at least one of the Members charged with the representation of that district should have a voice on the Committee. He, therefore, begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Cubitt.)
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDquite concurred with the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite; but he objected to the constitution of this Committee for other reasons, and probably more personal reasons, than the hon. Member he referred to. This question of the prevention of floods in the Thames was considered two years ago by the House of Commons by means of a Committee, who investigated the matter very carefully, and arrived at a conclusion which, he understood, was in direct opposition to the Bill which the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was now endeavouring to promote as a Private Act. He saw, by the Papers published on this question, that the Metropolitan Board of Works declined to be bound in any way on the previous occasion by the decision of the Committee of that House, a decision which, he believed, was supported by the general feeling of the House. He was further given to understand that the whole object of this Bill was to reverse the decision of that Committee, and to return to the proposals which were rejected two years ago. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes), whose impar-

    797
    tiality he, for one, was always ready to admit, had, he thought, made a mistake on this occasion in nominating a Committee which contained the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Now, he said this without reference to any personal qualification on the part of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), because he knew the great attention which his hon. and gallant Friend devoted to all matters of public discussion to which he was able to give his time; but, in this particular case, he contended that the hon. and gallant Baronet was in an official capacity compelled to support the proposition contained in this Bill when it came before the Committee; and as the Bill asked the House of Commons to revert to the proposal which it had already rejected, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member ought to be upon the Committee, seeing that he was not an impartial person. The idea of nominating a Committee containing the name of a Gentleman who was known not to be impartial appeared to him to be entirely erroneous. As a general principle, he thought his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would agree with him in the proposition he advocated, and that was that if they were to respect the Reports and decisions of the Committees of that House, the Committees themselves should, as far as possible, be selected from persons of an impartial disposition, able to form an independent judgment upon all questions which would be brought before them. His hon. and gallant Friend, being the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, could not, of necessity, be impartial, but would feel it his duty to advocate a particular proposition. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him (Sir Julian Goldsmid) that the best plan would be to adjourn the nomination of the Committee, in order that the list of the Members of the Committee might be revised, and care taken that a more impartial tribunal should be nominated than would be the case if the name of his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works appeared upon it. With those remarks, lie would support the proposition of the lion. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. RAIKESthought that a rather unusual course had been taken on this occasion by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt). It was not, however, a very unusual thing to find a Motion, brought forward distinctly on one ground, supported by another hon. Member on the opposite ground. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey moved the adjournment of the debate, with the object of securing a better representation of the interests of Surrey and the South side of the river, and he was supported in his Motion by the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), because he thought the Metropolitan element ought to be omitted altogether. This showed the difficulty there was in a matter of this sort in endeavouring to steer between two extremes, in order to settle who should or who should not serve upon a Hybrid Committee. If the House were to admit the views of the hon. Member for West Surrey, they would simply take upon themselves the duty of performing functions which were performed by the Committee of Selection; and, in that case, he ventured to submit to the House there would be no use whatever in appointing a Hybrid Committee, because all the work could be effectually done by the Committee of Selection. There were, however, others who held an entirely opposite view to that held by the hon. Member for Rochester, and who thought the Committee should consist, as much as possible, of partizans; and that, therefore, the Committee of Selection should not have any part in the matter, but that it should be left entirely to the House. The object of appointing a Hybrid Committee was to have Members who were acquainted with, and took an interest in, the subject. At the same time, one particular element should not predominate; but it was desirable to have a Committee who would be entirely balanced, and who would carefully consider the two sides of the question. In selecting persons who were willing to serve upon this Committee, he thought he had arrived as far as possible at that result. He had placed upon it the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had charge of the Bill to be referred to the Committee, and he had placed upon it also the hon. Baronet the Mem-

    799
    ber for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the second reading. He thought that if they had those two hon. Gentlemen on the Committee, they would ably represent the views, pro and con, of those interested in the Bill, and they would be posted with information which would enable them to aid counsel in eliciting important facts. He thought those two hon. Gentlemen, balancing each other, would be a sufficient representation of the antagonistic forces, and that the other four Members of the Committee should be selected from the interest they took in questions of this sort, and also from their entire indifference to the special and local interests affected by the Bill. If any hon. Member would refer to the list of the Committee, he would see that they were all Gentlemen who took an interest in questions relating to water and to rating, and on that ground they would command the confidence of the House. There was another point which must not be lost sight of, and this involved some little difficulty in the matter. It was important to boar in mind the malfeisance of the Board of Works on a former occasion, when the Board refused to act on the Report of the Committee of the House. It appeared to him that if the Board of Works was to be subjected to anything like moral pressure on the part of the House, that pressure would be stronger if the Committee did not consist of any Gentlemen who sat on the former Bill; and, that being so, he had eliminated all the names of Gentlemen who had sat before, with the single exception of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) who had charge of the Bill. He thought that was a course which would commend itself to the House. It was certainly of very great importance that if the Report arrived at in the last instance was to be re-affirmed, it should be reaffirmed by an entirely independent body, and by entirely fresh minds. If, on the other hand, the circumstances of the case were such as to induce the Committee to arrive at a different conclusion, it would be very much easier for a new Committee to take that course than a Committee who were already pledged to the former decision. That being so, he had thought it necessary to dispense with the services of
    800
    several Members of the House, whose services would have been exceedingly valuable, because he thought it better, as he had already explained, to have an entirely new Committee on this occasion. The adoption of this course had deprived him of the services of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), who served on the last occasion, and also of the services of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney), whom he would greatly have liked to have had. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey complained that the interests of Surrey were not adequately represented on the Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) could only point out that if he placed on the Committee another Gentleman representing the interests of Surrey, who was adverse to the Bill, it would be necessary to put also upon the Committee another Gentleman who was favourable to the Bill. The result would have been that he would have had four out of the six Members of the Committee pledged to a particular view before they entered the Committee-Room, and he did not think that would be a desirable result. If, however, the hon. Member who proposed the adjournment of the debate would withdraw that Motion now, he would be quite ready to consult with him whether it would be possible to add to the Committee at a subsequent time; and if he found an opportunity of placing upon the Committee two additional names which would satisfy the parties respectively interested, he would be willing to take that course. He should be glad if the House would now so far proceed in the matter as to say that the names he had ventured to submit were proper names to be adopted. He had only one word more to say in regard to the position of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). Of course, he knew that in a Private Bill it was not in an ordinary case the rule to appoint as a Member of the Committee the Gentleman whose name was on the back of the Bill, unless it was an unopposed Bill; but in this case they were dealing with a matter more in the interest of the public than in those of private parties, and they were nominating Gentlemen to serve upon the Committee, not on the nomination of the Committee of Selection, but of the House itself. It was

    801
    said that it was a thing unheard of to place the Gentleman in charge of a Bill upon the Committee appointed to consider it. The House, however, must bear in mind that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of this Bill represented a very large and important public body; and he thought the Committee would be greatly open to the animadversion of the ratepayers of the Metropolis if the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was excluded from it. He hoped the suggestions he had ventured to throw out would be adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt), and that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion he had made, and allow the Committee to be formed, with a view, if possible, to adding to their numbers at a subsequent time.
    COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he had placed a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move the omission of the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Worts, in order to substitute that of his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney). He thought the attention of the House ought to be drawn to the mode in which this important Committee had been constituted on the present occasion. On former occasions there had been two or three Committees appointed, in which the Metropolitan Board of Works were the promoters, or were otherwise deeply interested. In the present instance, there was not a single Metropolitan Member nominated on the Committee, with the exception of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). If they went back to the year 1862, when the Thames Embankment Committee was appointed, they would find upon it Sir John Shelley and Sir Samuel Morton Peto, both of them Metropolitan Representatives. In the year following, 1863, another Metropolitan Committee was appointed, and two of the Members of that were Mr. Cox and Mr. Doulton, both of them Metropolitan Representatives. Since then Committees had been appointed to inquire into the Toll Bridges Bill, which affected the Metropolis, and there were appointed upon it three Metropolitan Members from the North side of London, and two Members from the South side. Under these circumstances, he felt it was right
    802
    now that some Metropolitan Members should be placed upon this Committee. The question had now been in agitation for something like a fortnight; and he thought the House must have been taken by surprise yesterday morning when they saw the names placed upon the Paper by his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). He (Colonel Beresford) had been under the impression that, as his proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee had been accepted by the Government, he would have been entitled to nominate three of the Committee. He believed, at all events, it had been usual to accede to some of the names proposed by an hon. Member in his position. He strongly objected to the name of the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think it right that any paid member of the Metropolitan Board should be a Member of the Committee. He did not know what the rules were in circumstances of this kind; but he certainly objected to the Committee on that ground. He had received a letter from a firm of solicitors, asking him to bring the matter before the House, and a large number of Petitions had been presented against the Bill from the South side of the Thames. The Petitioners strongly objected to the Bill in the shape in which it had been pressed forward; and, for these reasons, he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHhoped the Chairman of Ways and Means would not yield to the appeal which had been made, and add to the number of interested Members on this Committee. He thought it was a matter which the House might consider with advantage, whether the very best method was adopted in the appointment of Hybrid Committees, especially in regard to Committees appointed to deal with Metropolitan questions. He believed that Committees dealing with other questions of a hybrid character, and appointed in the same manner as the present Committee, were not constituted as these Metropolitan Hybrid Committees were. For instance, the Committee upon the Manchester Corporation Water Bill, upon which he had served last year, was a Hybrid Committee, and it was appointed by the House

    803
    in precisely the same way as the Committee now appointed; yet upon that Committee neither of the Members for Manchester was placed, nor was there any Member for Westmoreland, or Cumberland, nor any other Member interested or committed to any particular view in the matter which had to come before the Committee. If they could get a jury of Members utterly unprejudiced, instead of having a Committee prejudiced by preconceived opinions, it would be a great advantage. The House had just nominated a Committee which he would refer to, though the House had been pleased to place his name upon it. He alluded to the Committee on the Liverpool Lighting Bill, in which the question of electric lighting was to be raised. No Member interested in electric lighting, or personally interested in gas, had been placed upon that Committee; and he had no doubt that if any Member had been proposed who was so interested he would have been objected to. A different view seemed to prevail, however, in the case of a Metropolitan Bill. He admitted that something might be said for placing the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon a Committee of this description. But, at the same time, he was bound to say there was much force in the objection of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Beresford), although he did not for a moment Bay this on personal, but solely on public grounds. It did seem to him open to question whether it was desirable to place on a Committee of this kind a Member who went there with preconceived opinions, whose vote upon every question that would arise upon the Committee would not be given upon the evidence, but according to the opinions of the Board of Works, which were well known and had been expressed in that House over and over again. He had not risen on this occasion for the purpose of objecting to the inclusion of his hon. and gallant Friend's name upon the Committee, but simply for the purpose of urgently requesting the House and his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means not to add to the Committee any more names of interested Members—he meant Metropolitan Members, or others officially connected with the Bill, or officially opposed to it—or of any Member whose opinions could be foretold,
    804
    and whose votes could also be foretold; but to make the Committee, as far as possible, an impartial one—a jury, in point of fact, that would impartially consider the merits of the Bill.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he represented a portion of the Metropolis which was very much interested in the questions which were brought before the Committee, and he thought they ought to be represented upon the Committee when it was proposed they should be subjected to compulsory taxation. This Bill contained provisions for imposing general taxation, and yet the interests of the people who were to be taxed appeared to be ignored on the Committee altogether. He could assure the House that the people of the Metropolis had no desire to be ignored in matters of this kind. If it were a Scotch Committee, upon a Scotch subject, he presumed Scotchmen would be placed upon the Committee; and if it were an Irish Committee, would the Irish Members rest contented if no Irish Members were placed upon it? He had no desire to be put upon the Committee himself. He was upon the one that had been previously appointed; but he thought that, in regard to the present Committee, there ought to be more Metropolitan Members upon it, seeing that the Metropolis was as large, as fur as its population was concerned, as the whole of Scotland, and that the principle of compulsory taxation was involved in the Bill. He told the Chairman of Ways and Means that if he did not give the Metropolis the fair share of representation which it deserved, he should certainly oppose the Committee.
    MR. RODWELLsaid, the subject was one upon which he was able to speak with some experience, and he wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth). The hon. Member for Rochester seemed to think that a Hybrid Committee was one that was an impartial Committee. Now, his (Mr. Rodwell's) experience was totally the reverse. It had almost always been the practice of the House to appoint upon Hybrid Committees Gentlemen of pronounced opinions, and of extreme opinions, who acted often as advocates, and very able

    805
    advocates, for the particular views they desired to press upon the Committee. It would be seen, in the divisions which took place, that certain Members voted throughout one against another, and were seldom unanimous upon any of the points raised. He thought that in this particular case, considering the position of the Metropolitan Board of Works, that it would be impossible to select a more fit person to represent the views of the Metropolitan Board. He understood the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was to be upon the Committee; and as the hon. Baronet moved the rejection of the Bill, it seemed to him (Mr. Rodwell) that between these two hon. Members they would have a good opportunity of eliciting the truth, which, to hon. Members who were acting in a different sense, might be difficult, if not impossible.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTwas desirous of saying a few words before the discussion closed. Objection was taken to the nomination upon the Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). The Chairman of Ways and Means had, however, pointed out that this was not an ordinary Private Bill, but that it partook of the nature of a public measure. [An hon. Member: No, no.] At any rate, that was his (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) opinion; and, if that were so, everyone would admit that both sides of the question should be fairly elicited. Any public question referred to a Select Committee should have represented upon the Committee those who took a strong view on both sides of the subject. In the present instance, it was proposed to place upon the Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, who had charge of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had moved its rejection; and if the question partook of a public character, it would be admitted that the lion, and gallant Member for Truro was the very person who ought to be upon the Committee. The hon. Member for Chelsea, who opposed the Bill on the second reading, was also named upon the Committee, so that neither side should be unduly represented. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) had, he thought, been somewhat misrepresented—unintentionally, of course—by the Chairman of Ways and Menus. What his hon. Friend

    806
    wanted was to secure a fair representation of Surrey Members who had a real interest in the question. But the Chairman of Ways and Means had met his hon. Friend very fairly, and said—"If you consent to withdraw your proposal to-day, I will do my best to put two more Members on the Committee." His advice to his hon. Friend—if his hon. Friend would take advice from him—was that he would withdraw his Motion, and allow the Committee to be nominated, as it had been proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He was quite certain that if that course were taken, a conference between the hon. Member for West Surrey and the Chairman of Ways and Means would result in the Committee being constituted in a perfectly fair manner.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwas of opinion that the Chairman of Ways and Means had acted rightly in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), both stated that persons interested in a Bill were frequently placed upon the Hybrid Committee to which it was referred. These Members, of course, went into the Committee with preconceived notions, and it was true that in every Division it might be predicted beforehand how these Members would vote. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire had had great experience of these Hybrid Committees upstairs, and could speak with much authority on the subject; and he confirmed the hon. Member for Rochester as to the preconceived opinions formed by Members of a Committee, and the want of influence produced upon them by the evidence. What, then, it might be asked, was the good of nominating upon the Committee an equal number of hon. Members who were prejudiced either one way or the other? In such a case the whole decision rested with the odd Member, probably the Chairman, who would be unprejudiced. But what had the Chairman of Ways and Means done? He simply proposed to place on the present Committee no prejudiced Member, except two. And who were those two? First, the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, who had charge of the Bill; and if he were not included in the Committee

    807
    he (Lord Robert Montagu) would like to know how the business of the Committee was to be conducted? In the event of certain evidence being brought before the Committee which rendered a compromise necessary, if the hon. and gallant Baronet was not present, who was to make the compromise? If, however, the hon. and gallant Baronet were sitting on the Committee, he would be authorized in such a case to say that as the evidence was different from what he had anticipated he would accept the compromise, and agree to it on behalf of the Metropolitan Board. That question would, consequently, be finished; the difficulty would be disposed of, and the Committee would be able to go on to the next point; but, as the Chairman of Ways and Means had told the House, if they placed the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board on the Committee, they must, in order to put the different interests upon a footing of equality, also place upon it the hon. Member who was the most decided opponent of the Bill; and no more decided or able opponent could be selected than the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) who, on the second reading of the measure, had placed a Notice on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill. It seemed, therefore, that the Chairman of Ways and Means had taken the only course which he could have taken as Chairman of Committees. He suggested that the House should agree to the names placed on the Paper by the Chairman of Ways and Means until they came to his (Lord Robert Montagu's) name. That name might be omitted, and the further consideration of the matter left open until to-morrow, when the Chairman of Ways and Means would be able to bring forward two or three names to complete the composition of the Committee. He thought that was a course which would suit all parties, and he hoped that it would be followed.
    MR. WATNEYremarked, that as his name had been placed on the Paper by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), he wished to make an explanation in order to prevent a misconception. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had put down his name without having consulted him, and he had no wish that his name should remain in opposition
    808
    to the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. With regard to the Bill itself, he certainly wished that either himself or some other Member representing the interests of Surrey should be upon the Committee. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that the inhabitants of Surrey desired to oppose the Bill; on the contrary, they were anxious to have it. Surrey, especially Lambeth, had been flooded over and over again, and the people living on the banks of the Thames were anxious to have some Bill which, in future, would prevent the damage which had so often been done. Considering the large amount of property in Surrey that was affected by the flooding of the Thames, and the heavy rating which the inhabitants had to pay, he thought it was not unfair to ask that some Member representing a Surrey constituency should be appointed upon the Committee, as Middlesex was represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. If the Chairman of Ways and Means would consent to add two additional Members to the Committee, one of whom should be a Surrey Member, he thought that would go very far towards meeting the merits of the case.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought there was a very strong objection to the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means to place the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon the Committee. The hon. and gallant Baronet was, in point of fact, a personally interested party. The Board of Works were the promoters of the original Bill, and the promoters also of the present measure. They could not divest themselves of their interest in the matter; and it appeared to him that full effect would be given to the demand of the Metropolitan Board if the Chairman of the Board were examined as a witness. If the hon. and gallant Baronet were placed upon the Committee, he would assume the twofold character of a witness and one of the jury. That, he thought, would be contrary to all judicial principles, and even to common sense. Questions would arise in considering the Bill as to taxation, as to who were the parties to be taxed, and to what extent and degree taxation was to be borne by the district, or whether it was

    809
    to fall upon the Metropolitan Board of I Works? Under such circumstances, the one man who ought not to be upon the Committee, in order to pronounce the judgment of the Committee, was the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, who would find it impossible to divest himself of the interest which he had in the measure as Representative of the Board. In that capacity, of course, the hon. and gallant Baronet would have a direct interest in saving the revenues of the Board. No doubt, the revenues of the Board ought to be saved and economized as much as possible; but the Chairman of the Board was not, as between the Board and other contributaries, the best judge of the economy that ought to be exercised. His proper position in regard to a Bill of this kind was to be examined as a witness. The Committee itself should be composed of independent Members, who had no interest whatever in the measure, and whose only object would be to do that which was right.
    MR. MARK STEWARTwas certainly of opinion that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) ought to be upon the Committee. He (Mr. M. Stewart) had had the honour of serving upon the Select Committee which sat two years ago upon this very question. Although his views did not altogether agree with those of his hon. and gallant Friend, he had had great satisfaction in hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman named upon the Committee. Upon the previous Committee the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works certainly knew more about the question than anybody associated with him; and he was therefore able to give the Committee, not only good and valuable information, but to ask many useful questions. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Stewart) should support the proposition that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro should be upon the Committee.
    MR. CUBITTsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, on the distinct understanding that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would propose two additional Members of the Committee, one of whom should be a Representative of the Metropolitan part of the County of Surrey. He hoped, upon
    810
    that understanding, that he would be allowed to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Sir BALDWYN LEIGHTON, and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE nominated other Members of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir James M'Garel-Hogg be a Member of the Select Committee."
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he felt bound to move, as an Amendment, that the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro be omitted. It was not from any personal feeling in regard to his hon. and gallant Friend that he took this step, but because this was a Private Bill, and he did not think that the principal promoter of it should be asked to serve upon the Committee which was to inquire into its merits. He knew that he would be met by the argument that this, although introduced as a Private Bill, was more in the nature of a public measure. Nevertheless, it was a Private Bill, introduced into the House in the ordinary form of a Private Bill; and he could not call to mind a single instance in which the promoters of a contested Private Bill had been placed upon the Committee to which the Bill was referred in order to report to the House upon its merits. The noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) said that it would be of advantage to have the hon. and gallant Member for Truro upon the Committee, in order that he might be present to accept any compromise that might be offered. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) wished to point out that that statement was altogether inaccurate, because the hon. and gallant Member for Truro had stated some time ago, in his place in the House, that he would be prepared, on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to accept any decision the Committee might arrive at. At the same time, it was only right to say that he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) understood the Metropolitan Board had repudiated that promise made by the hon. and gallant Member, and had said that he had no authority to bind them to do what they thought was not desirable in this manner. It would, there-

    811
    fore, be much more preferable that the hon. and gallant Baronet should appear before the Committee as a witness, and not as a Member of the Committee itself. The Chairman of Ways and Means had himself used an argument which went against the nomination of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro. He said that it was desirable to have persons upon the Committee with impartial, unbiased minds. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means at once proceeded to nominate upon the Committee the one person who was the least impartial person who could be selected. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart) also told the House that he was glad the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was to be upon the Committee, because he knew more about the matter than anybody else. It was exactly because the hon. and gallant Member for Truro did know more of the matter than anybody else that he ought to appear before the Committee as a witness, and not as one of the judges. Under these circumstances, he deemed it right, in the interests of the public, to oppose the nomination upon the Committee of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro.
    MR. RAIKESthought he might fairly appeal to the House to support him in his endeavour to secure a sufficient representation of those who took a lively public interest in the matter, without allowing the Committee to degenerate into an arena for partizan warfare. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who was just as much opposed to the Bill as the hon. and gallant Member for Truro was in its favour, was already upon the Committee, his name having been agreed to. These two Gentlemen had been placed upon the Committee, on the understanding that the views of one would counterbalance those of the other. Neither of them were interested in the matter in any sense that could be called private interest; but the interest they took in the question was altogether in a public capacity. The hon. and gallant Member for Truro was nominated because, as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he had charge of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Chelsea was nominated because he had moved the rejection of the Bill. It would, therefore, be an unfair proceeding to strike off the name of the hon.
    812
    and gallant Member for Truro, now that they had already confirmed the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.
    MR. LOCKEstrongly objected to the appointment upon the Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, and wished to call attention to what was done on a former occasion. Some time ago, a Committee was appointed upon this very question. He did not know who the Members of the Committee were, except that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro was one of them. Well, that Committee arrived at a certain decision, and what was then done by the hon. and gallant Member opposite? He stopped the further progress of the Bill altogether. Nothing more was done in the matter; and his hon. and gallant Friend was allowed to do precisely what he liked. The state of things which it was the object of the previous Bill to remedy had since been allowed to go on for a considerable time, and he failed to see what was to be the end. He did not know what the opinions of his hon. and gallant Friend were; but it appeared to be the fact that Parliament was able to do nothing, if the Metropolitan Board of Works chose to stop the way. What was the position of the question, and what was the former attempt to settle it? It was held that as both sides of the river would be benefited by preventing the overflow of the Thames, and that great damage to property which periodical floods occasioned—it was held that both sides of the river should contribute equally to the cost of the necessary works. But what did the body say, which was represented by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite? They said—"We will not contribute any of our money," notwithstanding the fact that both sides of the river would receive advantage. His hon. and gallant Friend contended that, although this was undoubtedly the case, the parts benefited should be called upon to bear the expense. The result was that the matter had remained unsettled, and the House was called upon to consider a scheme precisely similar to that which was inquired into, and reported upon, some years ago. If it had not been for his hon. and gallant Friend, and some others, who endeavoured to keep their money in their pockets, all that was necessary would now have been carried

    813
    out. He must say that, in his opinion, his hon. and gallant Friend was one of the last men who ought to be allowed to sit upon the Committee. He was at the head of the Board who were promoting the Bill, and, in that capacity, he might again feel it right to do that which was opposed to the interests of everybody else. If anybody was to be eliminated from the Committee, it was certainly the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGremarked that his name had been so prominently brought forward in the course of the discussion, almost by every speaker, that he felt it impossible to sit entirely quiet. He should not, however, have risen to address the House, if it had not been for the numerous mistakes the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had made in the two speeches he had addressed to the House. The only excuse that could be made for the hon. Member was his ignorance, which was abundantly manifested in the two statements he had made. The hon. Member said that the Metropolitan Board declined to accept the decision of the previous Committee of the House. That statement was somewhat inaccurate, and it was proved by the present Bill, which was brought in in order to meet the views of the Committee. The Bill, it was true, did not cast the whole cost over the Metropolis, a particular portion of it being thrown upon the riparian owners; but the other portion—namely, that for compensations—fell upon the Metropolitan Board. He therefore contended that the Metropolitan Board had shown a deference to the views of the Committee. Then, again, the hon. Member said that when he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) brought in the Bill the other day, he promised that the Board should acquiesce in any decision the Committee might arrive at. Now, what he said was that, as far as he had any influence with his Colleagues, he would do everything he could to induce them to accept the decision of the Committee. Of course, he would be glad to have an impartial Committee; and it would be in the recollection of the House that when he brought in the Bill he asked for an impartial tribunal that should inquire into the merits of the Bill, although it was only a Private Bill, as if they were a jury. When the House
    814
    expressed an opinion that there should be a different tribunal from that to which Private Bills were usually referred, he at once bowed to its decision. The hon. Member for Rochester was now kind enough to inform him and the House that the Metropolitan Board had repudiated what he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had said. The hon. Member was entirely incorrect. The Board had said nothing upon the matter. He had not asked his Colleagues their opinion on the subject, and the Board had not attached any blame to him. He would advise his hon. Friend, before he again got up to make statements to the House, to be quite sure that the statements he was about to make were accurate.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was not usually the champion of all the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, on this occasion, he thought the objection taken to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was altogether unjustifiable and without foundation. It would almost seem, from the conversation which had taken place, that there was no part of London, except that part of it which was bounded by the Thames. He begged to remind the House that a large portion of London had really very little interest in the question of the embankment of the river, but had a great deal of interest in the question how the expense was to be spread over the Metropolis. At present, what was their position? In the names already appointed upon the Committee was that of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had already expressed his views as to how the mode of payment should be adjusted over the Metropolis; and the hon. Baronet, therefore, could not be said to be altogether an unprejudiced Member of the Committee. Then they had an offer made, and accepted, as he understood, that an hon. Member should be placed on the Committee who represented Surrey. They would thus have on the Committee the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, who directly represented the interests of a water-side constituency and was interested in having the cost spread over the whole of the Metropolis, and they would have a Member for Surrey, who would also have a direct interest in having the cost spread over the whole of London, and not confined to the localities which would derive most advantage from the

    815
    Bill. What was proposed now? Simply that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro should be put on the Committee. His hon. and gallant Friend had charge of the Bill, and was also the mouthpiece of a body which consisted of Representatives from every part of London, so that he might be said to represent a large district which might probably be called upon to contribute to the cost without participating directly in the benefit. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Ritchie) that if they did not place upon the Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, or some Representative of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Committee would be unfairly constituted. For his own part, he should be glad that neither the hon. Member for Chelsea, nor the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, nor a Member for Surrey, should be put on the Committee, and that the whole question should be submitted to the investigation and decision of a thoroughly impartial tribunal. But if they were going to have two Members on the Committee who were directly interested in having the expense of the works spread over the whole of London, they ought at least to have one Representative who, from his position, would be able to speak for the other parts of the Metropolis. Upon these grounds, he should vote for the nomination of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDhoped he might be allowed to say a word in explanation. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro said the statement he had made was totally inaccurate. He begged to say that he was informed, on the best authority, that a Member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Board of Works, of which his hon. and gallant Friend was Chairman, did find fault with his hon. and gallant Friend's conduct in the matter. He believed he would be confirmed in this statement by the very best authority, however much the hon. and gallant Gentleman might deny it.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGtrusted he might be allowed to give the strongest possible denial to every word the hon. Member had uttered.
    COLONEL BERESFORDremarked, that in 1877 the proposal of the Board of Works was treated as a Public Bill; but this year it was brought in as
    816
    a Private Bill, in order that it might be pushed forward. So far as he was personally concerned in the matter, he believed that he had taken a right course. His hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had put his name down as one of the Members to be nominated upon the Committee; but he had declined to act, on the ground that he was a riparian Member. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Truro came forward as the proposer of the scheme which was rejected in 1877, and he did not think his name should be placed on the present Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Lord Robert Montagu be a Member of the Committee."
    Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  PRISON RULES—REPORTERS OF THE PRESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR (for Mr. P. A. TAYLOR)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the new rules affecting the admission of reporters within prisons permit their presence at coroners' inquests held within the walls; and, if he has any objection to lay a Copy of those Rules upon the Table of the House?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,in reply, said, that there were no new Rules on the subject. He had made inquiries of the Prison Commissioners, and he was informed that, so far as they knew, no application had been made for the admission of reporters to be present at the coroners' inquests, and no orders had been issued one way or the other.

  AFGHANISTAN AND KHELAT—TREATIES, &c.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will place in the Library of the House, for the perusal of Members, the Records relating to the Treaties of 1854 with the Khan of Khelat, those of 1855 and 1857 with Dost Mahommed, and the Papers relating to the 1856 proposal to advance into Central Asia, including the Report of the late Sir Henry

  817
  Durand, which he made by the direction of Lord Canning, together with Lord Canning's decision on that proposal?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the particular Report referred to by the hon. and gallant Member cannot be found in the India Office Records. As regards the other Papers, they are contained in many large folio volumes, which include also other Papers of a confidential character; and I am afraid, therefore, that they could not be placed in the Library of the House for perusal.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I shall repeat my Question in another form, so as to admit of an explanation.

  ARMY—LINKED BATTALIONS.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that a regiment on foreign service is kept below its regulated establishment of subalterns, if the regiment with which it is linked has supernumeraries of that rank, in consequence of its establishment being reduced?
    LORD EUSTACE CECIL,in reply, said, it was the case. The supernumerary officers of the linked regiment, in all instances where the establishment was reduced, were made available if required.

  ARMY—THE STAFF COLLEGE—VACANCIES.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House on what principle the vacancies occasioned in the Staff College by the departure of several officers for Natal have been or will be filled up.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I beg to say that the vacancies in question have not been filled up, and I understand there is no intention at present to fill them up.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE INDUS AND THE BOLAN PASS.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the construction of a Railway from the Indus to the Bolan Pass has been urgently pressed upon the Viceroy of India for military considerations; what decision the Viceroy has arrived at; and, whether any Minutes or Corre-
  818
  spondence on this subject have been received at the India Office and can be laid upon the Table?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: We have not at present received any official information from the Indian Government on this subject.

  ARMY—OFFICERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Why officers returning from India to England on medical certificate are excluded from the benefits of the Travelling Warrant dated 1st April 1872, which allows the claim to travelling expenses of officers returning to England on medical certificate from Malta, Gibraltar, and the Colonies?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL,in reply, said, that the Warrant in question was only applicable to officers at home and in Colonial garrisons, and did not apply to the officers of the Indian Establishment at all.

  SOUTH AFRICA—EXPORT OF MUNITIONS OF WAR FOR MOZAMBIQUE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RITCHIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received to the effect that a consignment of rifles and ammunition has left this Country for Mozambique; if so, whether he can state by whom they have been shipped, and whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to prevent the consignment from reaching the Zulus?
    MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir, we have received information that 831 muskets and 50,000 lbs. of gunpowder were shipped last week from Cardiff, in a French ship, called the Argus, for Mozambique. My hon. Friend asks me who shipped these munitions. The firm that shipped these articles is Messrs. Hutton, of Manchester, Dale Street; as well as Messrs. Hutton, of Temple, Liverpool. Sir, we have communicated with the Portuguese Government on this subject, and we have also taken other measures with the view of preventing these munitions of war from reaching the Zulus. As I have mentioned the Portuguese Government, I think I may state that we have every reason to be-

    819
    lieve that this Government will act in this case, as in other cases of a similar character—that is, they will do their best to prevent these warlike stores from reaching the Natives who are at war with this country.

  GRAND JURY LAWS (IRELAND)— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If, having regard to the necessity of giving the Irish Constituencies an opportunity of considering the proposed changes in the Grand Jury Laws, he will introduce the Grand Jury Laws Amendment Bill and cause it to be printed before Easter?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir, I hope to be able to adopt the course suggested.

  ARMY (INDIA)—PAY OF LIEUTENANTS.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL NAGHTENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government is prepared to give to officers, on being appointed as Lieutenants in India, full Lieutenants pay as in England?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I can only at present say, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, that the question of applying to India the Royal Warrant regulating the pay of lieutenants is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.

  IRELAND—TOWN INSPECTORSHIP OF BELFAST.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANashed the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Is it true that the town inspector of Belfast has been asked to delay his resignation in order that Mr. Reid may qualify for the post, to the exclusion of one of the thirty-five constabulary officers years senior to Mr. Reid?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I have only been able to communicate by telegraph with Dublin since the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave Notice of his Question, so that I am not in possession as yet of many details relating to the subject. For instance, I am not aware what the age is of the Mr. Reid to whom reference is made, or what degree of qualification he would require to go through for any such post as the one alluded to. In fact,
  820
  I do not happen at this moment to know anything at all about him. I understand, however, that the Town Inspector of Belfast was requested to defer his resignation on the ground that it was considered undesirable in the interests of the Public Service that a change should occur at the time that it was first mooted.

  INSPECTORS OF COAL MINES—THE REPORTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. STEVENSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will instruct the Inspectors of Coal Mines to give in their reports, not only as at present the dates of all fatal explosions, but the dates of all explosions, whether fatal or not, and also the dates on which mines have been in a dangerous state from the abundance of gas without explosion occurring, in order to accumulate facts to show the influence of atmospheric conditions on the safety of mines?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am afraid it will be impossible to give instructions in order that the information should appear in this year's Report. That is already in print, and it is required by the Secretary of State to be in the Home Office by the 31st of March; but there will be no objection to giving the information in future.

  THE TREATY OF BERLIN—THE DESPATCH IN "THE TIMES" OF MARCH 12TH.—QUESTIONS.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the version of a despatch of Lord Salisbury to Lord A. Loftus, dated January 26th (as given in the "Times" of March 12th), is substantially correct; and, whether he will lay it upon the Table, with any reply which may have been sent.
  MR. BOURKE: The copy of the despatch in The Times is substantially correct, though not verbally so, being apparently a translation from the German.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Will the despatch be laid on the Table?
  MR. BOURKE: I did not know the noble Lord was going to ask me the Question, and I am not prepared to answer that part of it; but I have no

  821
  doubt It will be laid on the Table very shortly.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can answer the Question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No doubt, the despatch will be laid on the Table with the other Correspondence; but perhaps the noble Lord will repeat his Question.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE DEFEAT AT ISANDULA.—QUESTION.
  DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House the exact number of men slain or missing on the English side in the late Zulu ambuscade at Isandula?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: This information has already been proposed to be moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy); but I am sorry to say that I am not now in a position to give the information, as we have not yet received the official Returns. The information which has already appeared in the Cape papers is, no doubt, in the possession of the hon. Gentleman. As soon as the official Papers from the Cape arrive they will be communicated to the House. If the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question, perhaps the Secretary of State for War will be prepared to answer it.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF THE REV. H. J. DODWELL.—QUESTION.
  DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, on an early day, that part of the Lunacy Commissioners' Report which relates to the case of the Reverend H. J. Dodwell?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,in reply, said, the Report had been received at the Home Office last evening. By the Act of Parliament, it would be necessary to lay it on the Table within 21 days of its being received; but, so far as he had been able to ascertain, there was no special mention in it of the case of the Reverend H. J. Dodwell.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE REINFORCEMENTS—COALING OF TRANSPORTS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be correct, as reported in a telegram to the "Stan-
  822
  dard" from St. Vincent, dated Tuesday last, that the transports "Russia," "England," "France," "Egypt," and "Spain," have been prevented from proceeding on their voyage to the Cape in consequence of the want of proper facilities for coaling, and why, seeing the emergency of the employment, the vessels were not coaled for the Cape direct?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. Member that it is true, as stated, that these five steamers, the Russia, England, France, Egypt, and Spain, have been detained for several days at St. Vincent; but we have not been informed whether that was through stress of weather or from want of facilities for coaling. It appears, however, that the whole of the coaling facilities at St. Vincent have been placed at the disposal of the Admiralty. It is understood that more than 1,000 tons of coal a-day can be shipped each day; but that quantity, it seems, has not been sufficient. It would have been impossible for steamers to have taken on board sufficient coal for the voyage, between decks being filled with stores, camp equipage, &c., and also in consequence of its being necessary to take a quantity of ballast. The transport officers considered that question, and considered it absolutely necessary that these vessels should call at St. Vincent.
  MR. GOURLEY: Has the Secretary to the Admiralty any information as to when the transports are likely to be able to leave St. Vincent? Will he also give instructions that steamships engaged to carry coal to the Cape shall call at St. Vincent on the way out?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: All the information that we have is that the Russia arrived on the 6th at St. Vincent and left on the 12th—a long time to be delayed—and that the England, arrived on the 7th and sailed on the 12th. As to the other vessels, which arrived on the 7th and 8th, we have no further information.
  MR. GOURLEY: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question—whether coal transports bound for the Cape will be instructed to call at St. Vincent to supply the transports?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: I cannot answer that Question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat it to-morrow.

  EGYPT—MR. RIVERS WILSON.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any truth in the allegation in the Paris correspondence of the "Times" of Wednesday, that Mr. Rivers Wilson had pledged himself to great financial bodies holding enormous quantities of Egyptian Stock not to reduce the interest before a certain date; and if it is in consequence of any such engagement that the pay of the Native Egyptian officials was withheld?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he was not in the least aware of any such promise as that referred to having been given by Mr. Rivers Wilson; and no communication had been made to the Government on the subject.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  THE FRANCHISE AND THE CITY GUILDS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. H. JAMESrose to call attention to the proceedings of the Court of Aldermen on the 18th of February, and to move—
  "That the sale of the Parliamentary franchise by the City Guilds with the consent of the Court of Aldermen is an abuse and should be abolished."
  The House had already on two occasions discussed the question of faggot votes as acquired by individuals; but the importance of the subject was greatly enhanced when the system was openly recognized by a Corporation so wealthy and holding a position so illustrious and honourable as that of the City of London. He did not hesitate to say it was one of the greatest abuses in the whole of the three Kingdoms. In such a case the practice must be generally, he might say universally, condemned. On the face of it, the Companies and the Corporation had in their hands both the Parliamentary and municipal suffrage. The Companies could
  824
  not, therefore, be considered private bodies. It appeared that the Master and Wardens of the Company of Fanmakers, which had reached its full number of 60 members, had presented a Petition to the Court of Aldermen stating that a number of respectable persons wished to become freemen of the Company; that the increase of the Livery would conduce to the advantage of the Company and of the City of London; and requesting permission to add their names to the roll. After a somewhat lively discussion the request was granted. Primâ facie, there could be no possible objection to any addition to the members of the Company. The Company, which was established at the commencement of the last century, was a very respectable body, and a year ago they had rather an interesting exhibition, which was attended by many Members of Parliament, and not a few ladies. But why were the Company so desirous to make more Liverymen, except for the purpose of acquiring the Parliamentary vote? He held in his hands a Circular which he understood had been sent to various hon. Members by the clerk of the Company, in which he called upon Members of the House to vindicate the Livery's rights; and it was a remarkable thing that since he (Mr. James) had come to the House that afternoon, one of his hon. Friends had informed him that he had that day received two letters, one of which was the Circular he had spoken of, asking him to attend in his place that evening in opposition to this Motion, and another later in the day, inviting him to a dinner-party the following week, that the Company might have the pleasure of entertaining him. The clerk of the Company in his Circular said there had been no sale of the Parliamentary franchise. He (Mr. James) could not see what else it was. Was it barter, or traffic, or negotiation? The clerk of the Company pointed out that the Corporation had power over these Companies, and could increase the number of the Livery. But when this was increased, the number of persons would increase also, who could exercise the Parliamentary franchise. There was no doubt that the continued existence of this anomaly was due to an omission in the Reform Bill of 1867, and that on a future occasion it would be swept away, along

  825
  with other peculiar privileges, like that at Newcastle-on-Tyne, where the possession of a share in the Theatre Royal gave a vote for the Southern Division of the County of Northumberland. It was impossible that such privileges could be sustained. Mr. Sewell, the clerk to the Fanmakers' Company, denied that the Company was a political Company, and said that the application to the Court of Aldermen was made for the purpose of increasing the interest in the trade. But he (Mr. James) absolutely denied that. It was rather interesting to notice what happened on a previous occasion, when the Needlemakers' Company applied with a similar object, and their request was granted. He then looked at the City Directory, and when he saw who were the gentlemen who took an interest in the Needlemakers' Company—prominent amongst whom was the hon. Member for North Durham—he came to the conclusion that there was no knowing what support a new Needlemaker might be to the Conservative Party. These votes could only be defended on the ground he once heard taken by a wealthy banker in the City, who thought the best way to have a satisfactory form of representation and a good House of Commons was by putting the seats of hon. Members up to auction. The population of the Metropolis, within the City, was constantly decreasing; and one would have thought that, so far from there being any grounds for increasing the numbers of Liverymen, there were the strongest possible grounds for diminishing them. Perhaps it might be said that he had brought a small and trumpery matter before the House; but he must take exception to that. The Lord Mayor of London, who was chosen by the Liverymen, held a very important position; he had great influence, social and otherwise; and, recognizing these facts, he could not help remembering a meeting held last year, at the Cannon Street Hotel, and then adjourned to the Guildhall, under the auspices of the then Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Owden, which was said to have strengthened the hands of the Government, but of which he could speak, from his own observation, as one of the most discreditable and disgraceful scenes ever witnessed in the City. If the system of election had been placed on a more satisfactory footing, he could not help
  826
  thinking that a fairer and more just expression of public opinion at that time might have taken place. In connection with his Motion, he could not but refer to the entertainment which gave so much influence both to the Corporation and also to Companies, which formed one of its most prominent parts. Of these, the most mischievous was the dinner given by the Sheriffs in the dining-room of the House itself. Whenever they presented a Petition or introduced a Bill into the House, Members who came from different parts of the Kingdom received invitations to dine with them, and then when the question of reform came forward they were reluctant to vote against the Corporation. He expressed a hope that, at no distant day, the House would put an end to what he could not but term a flagrant abuse. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the sale of the Parliamentary Franchise by the City Guilds with the consent of the Court of Aldermen is an abuse and should be abolished,"—(Mr. James,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, he begged to give a complete denial to the statement of the hon. Member for Gateshead that the Corporation of London sold votes. Such a statement was altogether without foundation. The Guilds of the City of London existed for the purposes of good-fellowship and hospitality. He was sorry the hon. Member for Gateshead had not availed himself of some of the invitations with which he had been honoured by those Bodies in the course of his political career. Asit was, he watched over the affairs of the City of London, and viewed some of them in the blackest possible light. One would suppose, from the argument of the hon. Gentleman, that all the City Guilds were Conservative, and that every new vote created was a Conservative vote; but the hon. Member ought to know that the Fishmongers' Company—one of the most celebrated—was a Liberal Guild,

  827
  and that Liberal demonstrations took place there frequently. A vote was not conferred by the taking of the Livery, but by a man becoming a freeman of a Guild; but no one could become a member of a Guild unless he were a man of credit and respectability. His character would be well looked into before he was admitted. One of the motives for increasing the number of the Fanmakers' Company was that ladies were to be admitted as honorary freemen. He was obliged to say "freemen," because the term freewomen was not analogous in meaning. It was the right of the Aldermen to increase the Livery; and he hoped Liberal Members would not conclude for one moment that every freeman and every Alderman of the City was Conservative, although he should be exceedingly glad if they all were. In the olden days the majority of Guilds were Liberal, as were also a long succession of Lord Mayors, and it was only recently that there had been a change in the politics of the Chief Magistrate. He regarded the Motion as frivolous, and unworthy of the hon. Member who had taken in hand the great cause of the reform of the City Corporation. There could be no difference between allowing a man to become a voter by paying a fee and his acquiring a vote by taking a house through a landlord. He would undertake to say that two-thirds or three-fourths of the freemen had votes independently of their freemanship in respect of premises they occupied in the City. Therefore, there was no ground for the wholesale assertion that a number of faggot votes had been created. He trusted that if the Motion of the hon. Member was put to the House it would be rejected by a large majority.
  MR. CHARLEYobserved, that great latitude was allowed in giving Notices of Motion in that House; but if the hon. Member for Gateshead were to write a letter to the papers containing the same statements, he would expose himself to an action for libel, if not to an indictment. The franchise complained of by the hon. Member was the ancient franchise of the City of London. Down to the time of George I. it was the only franchise. He could not conceive any fancy kind of franchise that was preferable to this. It was preserved by the Reform Act of 1867. It was a mistake to suppose that a Liveryman received
  828
  his appointment for life, as if he ceased to reside within 25 miles of the City he ceased to be a Liveryman. The number of voters in the Fanmakers' Company had, no doubt, been increased recently; but the increase was made by a vote of the Court of Aldermen, and among those who supported it were some of the most active Liberals of the City of London. It was, therefore, absurd to say that those votes had been created in the Conservative interest. It was also perfectly incorrect to allege that there had been any sale of the Parliamentary franchise. It might be said with equal justice that a landlord sold votes to his tenants because he let houses to them, or that keepers of lodging-houses sold votes to those who resided within their dwellings. If the hon. Member for Gateshead wished to assist the Conservative cause in London, he could not do so more effectually than by Motions of this sort. He could not sit down without asserting, in opposition to the statement of the hon. Member, that the meeting at Guildhall to which he referred in terms of such sweeping condemnation, was of a perfectly spontaneous character, and was in no way open to the strong remarks he made upon it.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to observe, as the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) upheld the character of the Guildhall meeting in question, that on a former occasion he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated that artizans from Woolwich Arsenal disturbed the meeting, and he stated the sums which some of them were paid for disturbing it. Those statements had never been contradicted—so much for the spontaneity of the meeting. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that such statements as those of his hon. Friend might expose anyone making them to an action for libel, or possibly to an indictment; but, if so, that would be on the principle of "the greater the truth the greater the libel," for there was not a word of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) that was not truth. With regard to his argument relative to the faggot votes, there was this difference in the two cases—that a landholder could not pick out certain tenants to give the franchise to, refusing it to the rest; whereas that was precisely what

  829
  had been done by the Company. He supported the Motion.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he could not see that there was any reasonable pretence for the Motion, and he thought that it ought to be withdrawn. What did the hon. Member mean by "the traffic in votes?" To whom could a vote be sold? The hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that the ballot was in operation. The gentlemen who had been admitted to the freedom of the Fanmakers' Company had made a sacrifice to obtain a right of voting for a representative of the City of London—in his (Mr. Hubbard's) estimation a very legitimate object of ambition, hut one absolutely distinct from a sale of votes. He could only characterize the attack on the Company as trifling and offensive.
  MR. HERSCHELLthought that if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charley) had not believed that the Conservative cause would have been benefited by what had been done, he would not have supported it so strongly. The Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. James) was directed to an abuse, and the question which it raised was simply this—was it expedient or desirable that the Court of Aldermen should have the power of choosing and determining whether a number of persons, who could not be otherwise voters for the City, might become voters by procuring the franchise by purchase? He (Mr. Herschell) conceived that after the admission which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) had just made, there could be no doubt that there had been a purchase of votes in the City. The matter was one well worthy of consideration.
  COLONEL MAKINSwished to take exception to a remark which had been made by the hon. Alderman who represented the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton), that the Livery Companies existed for the purpose of the promotion of good-fellowship and the exercise of hospitality. They existed for very different purposes. Many of them had special duties to perform. For instance, the Goldsmiths' Company had the supervision over the Hall-Marking of all the plate in the Kingdom. The Fishmongers' Company seized and destroyed all fish which was, when exposed for sale, unfit for human food; and the Clothmakers' Company—of which he was himself a
  830
  member—encouraged technical education in Yorkshire, and other clothmaking districts. But, as had been said, it was only an incidental consequence of membership of one of these Companies that it conferred a vote. Whether language was given to men to conceal their thoughts might be a matter of doubt; but it was certainly an abuse of language to characterize the conduct of the Corporation of the City in this matter as a selling of the right of voting. If the City of London had been represented by three Liberal instead of three Conservative Members, nothing would have been heard of this matter.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, that the truth was that the Fanmakers' Company was a very poor one, and that they had increased their numbers with the view of obtaining a little more money. In order to calm the fears of hon. Members opposite, he might inform them that two-thirds of the Court of that Company were, he was told, Liberals. All these Companies had done much for the advancement of technical education in their particular branches of trade.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 114: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  EGYPTIAN FINANCE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,who had given Notice that he would move—
  "That it is not desirable that Her Majesty's Government should do anything to facilitate the raising of new loans by Oriental Governments which have failed to meet the old ones,"
  said, that although he was precluded by the Rules of the House from making his Motion, he wished to draw attention to the subject to which it referred. He was in hopes that the proposal that Her Majesty's Government should intervene in the raising of a loan for Turkey had gone off and would not come up again, so he need not say very much on that. But in regard to Egyptian transactions of that kind, he was afraid that our Government were venturing upon dangerous and slippery ground, which might give way beneath them. The House knew that various Missions had been sent out to improve the financial condition of

  831
  Egypt, and, among other things, to enable her to pay her debts honestly. After the Missions of the right hon. Members for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen Cave), and for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), came that of Mr. Rivers Wilson. Mr. Wilson had, in one respect, been much more successful than his predecessors, because his proceedings had had the effect of largely raising the price of Egyptian stock. It was a question, however, whether that result had been produced by fair means; and he (Sir George Campbell) confessed that he himself had grave doubts on that point. He should boldly and distinctly state that, in his opinion, the present attempt ostensibly to introduce good government into Egypt was nothing less than a great stock-jobbing operation to raise the price of Egyptian funds, and enable those interested in those loans to unload them on the general public. He had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Mr Wilson had pledged himself to great financial bodies in Paris, having great political influence, and holding enormous quantities of Egyptian stock, not to reduce the interest before a certain date? and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that no information had reached the Government upon the subject, though he did not say that the statement was not true. He (Sir George Campbell) had reason to believe that there was very considerable foundation for it. Those great financial bodies had very much burnt their fingers by meddling with Egyptian loans, of which they held enormous amounts, and unless they could put their bonds on the public above the rate at which they lately stood they were likely to lose millions. Under these circumstances, no doubt, it was a great temptation to do something to get those financial bodies out of their difficulties; and he had been given to understand that some arrangement had been made—he would not say a conspiracy, because that was an ugly word—by which those great financial bodies undertook that they would not throw their stock on the market, and so depress the stock, for a certain time, and that, on the other hand, the Egyptian Government undertook they would pay the interest for a certain period, in the hope—and that hope had been already realized—that the stock in the meantime
  832
  would be run up, so that ultimately those financial bodies would be enabled to unload their stock on the public, who would be duped by the transaction. There was a general belief abroad, although it might be unfounded, that the policy which was being pursued by the present Finance Minister of Egypt, and which, as it now appeared, was to some extent supported by Her Majesty's Ministers at home, was distinctly opposed to the policy of Mr. Consul General Vivian, and the views he had expressed. The newspapers told them that the present Government of Egypt looked not to the interest of the bondholders only, but sought to reform the Administration in order to benefit the people. That he believed to be a mere sham and a blind. The proof of the pudding was in the eating. Had the people of Egypt been treated more fairly and kindly by the present than by the former Administrations of that country? The truth was just the contrary; they were now, he believed, quite as much, and probably more, ground down than they ever were before. If the English public persisted in supposing that the Administration had lately been carried on in Egypt with a pure and simple regard for the welfare of the people, they were not without the means of knowing better in the shape of the information given by able correspondents of The Times. Some very striking communications on that subject had appeared very lately in that journal. One letter in The Times of that day described the state of things in Upper Egypt. The writer said—
  "We rode on donkeys 200 miles through the more remote districts. Everywhere the most heartrending state of poverty was revealed. Taxation having taken from the Arab every reserve he may have saved in years of comparative prosperity, the failure of the dourra crop through the extensive inundation of this year deprived him of any possible means of subsistence. Near the sugar factories the famine was proportionately greater, as the drain upon the resources of the people is of course heavier where a large area of land has been seized for a crop which returns nothing to the actual cultivator, and where forced labour in the fields and factory deprives the peasant of his most valuable time. It was sad, in the midst of so much want, to see men driven with whips to labour for the English bondholder while the fields were lying untitled."
  He was afraid there was too much truth in that. The same correspondent went down the Nile, and he said—

  833
  "The first news we heard when we reached Luxor was that the Viceroy had given a magnificent entertainment to the Europeans at Cairo. It is, of course, but right that money should be spent in Cairo, but the account of these festivities jarred unpleasantly on our feeling after the scenes we had witnessed during the past eight days. We next heard that the Khedive had sent two Englishmen to investigate the reports of the distress, and a few days later came the news that they had reported 'the accounts of the distress in Upper Egypt as greatly exaggerated.'"
  That was, apparently, the evidence of an impartial witness. With respect to the late proceedings at Cairo, another correspondent of The Times, on Monday last, stated that, notwithstanding an authoritative declaration made last May that all the arrears of pay were to be paid, the claims of the Army were neglected, that that most dangerous element was brought to a state of almost excusable disaffection; that in vain Mr. Vivian had remonstrated against the dangerous folly of disbanding an unpaid Army; it was to be expected that an outbreak must result. He would ask—Was it true that the present Finance Minister of Egypt refused to pay the just dues of those officials, and that Mr. Vivian remonstrated against that refusal? Another correspondent said that all those men were in arrears of pay, some of them for a few months, some for a year, and some even for two years; that severe hardship and privation resulted to them and their families in consequence; that they had petitioned again and again peacefully for what was owing to them, and were told that there was nothing for them, because all the taxation was mortgaged to pay the Public Debt. Were Her Majesty's Ministers supporting a Government which, while it paid the bondholders in full, treated its own officials in that way? He was very much afraid that there was a great deal of truth in these assertions, and if Her Majesty's Government could not say that they had information in their possession which enabled them distinctly to contradict them, then he must believe that it was true, as stated by the correspondent, that for the last two years, the affairs of Egypt had been administered in a most monstrous and unjust manner, entirely for the benefit of the foreign bondholders, and not for the benefit of the inhabitants of the country. He was aware that Lord Salisbury had candidly avowed that Her Majesty's Government
  834
  had become involved in their present policy because they found it necessary to stand well with France, but he hoped they would not persevere too far in the course they had adopted. He trusted the Government would hesitate before involving the country in a course which was not creditable to its position. If there were any truth in the universal belief that Mr. Vivian was of one way of thinking and Mr. Rivers Wilson of another, he would ask upon what ground Her Majesty' s Government had supported the views of Mr. Rivers Wilson rather than those of Mr. Vivian? He wished to know, also, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the plans for the government of Egypt, which had succeeded in paying the coupons in full and in raising the price of Egyptian bonds in the market, were really good plans? His own apprehension was, that when the French financial bodies had been enabled, by the higher prices, to "unload" their bonds, they would snap their fingers at the Government, who would then be left face to face with the question of the government of Egypt. He hoped the Government would say something which would relieve the public from that apprehension. He should like to ask Her Majesty's Government on what general grounds they had thought it desirable, to a certain extent in the case of Turkey, and in a decided degree in the case of Egypt, to assist, by the appointment of Commissioners and others, those Governments, which had not been able to pay off their old loans, to raise new ones? Clever as Mr. Rivers Wilson undoubtedly was—and he (Sir George Campbell) gave him credit for that—he had raised the price of the bonds, not by any action of his own, but because it was generally believed that he had the support of Her Majesty's Government, and of the Government of France. Great was the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government if, by any action of theirs, they had led a credulous public into supposing that the Government of Egypt was solvent. A debate on this subject took place the other day, and he found that in The Times of the next morning there was attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very distinct and strong statement, to the effect that Egypt was a country whose resources would enable her to pay the whole of her

  835
  debts, as well as everything else. He did not hear any such statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, but it had remained uncontradicted. A further statement had also been made which would lead the public to suppose that Mr. Rivers Wilson was, to a certain extent, a Representative of the British Government. He maintained that statements of that kind had a considerable effect in misleading the public, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would inform the House that they did not countenance them. He trusted that the first object of Her Majesty's Government was the decent government and fair treatment of the unhappy people of Egypt, and that they regarded as a matter of only secondary importance the claims of the French and other foreign bondholders.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he rose not so much for the purpose of discussing the very wide question raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), as to endeavour to extract from Her Majesty's Government some information with reference to an even more important question—that was the finances of Turkey. At the same time, it could not be denied that, especially in the circumstances of the present Government, and in view of its financial history in connection with both Turkey and Egypt, the question, raised was one of wide interest throughout the country, and deserved more discussion than it was likely to receive on that occasion. He rather thought that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in a different position in the House from that he now occupied, there would proceed from the Opposition side of the House a very able exposition of the principle which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had endeavoured to illustrate. The proposition, as it appeared on the Paper, was, perhaps, not one to obtain the general assent of the House. The proposition was, that it was not desirable that Her Majesty's Government should do anything to facilitate the raising of new loans by Oriental Governments which had failed to meet their old ones—that was, their old loans. Of course, the House would at once recognize that there might be the doing something towards facilitating the raising of new loans, something in the nature of a political character, and animated by political
  836
  relations to the Government putting forward the loan. There was no necessity to come to any immediate illustration which might not be of a very pleasant character to allude to, but he might take the relation between Russia and Turkey with regard to the indemnity. Undoubtedly, there was a relation of an international—a political—character, and which must be carefully discriminated from those existing between this Government and the French Government and Egypt in relation to loans which had been put forward by the Khedive of Egypt. He thought, therefore, he should be careful to guard against the general admission that under no circumstances was it possible for the Government of Great Britain to lend assistance to the placing of loans in view of certain political relations and international considerations. Having said that, he could not but join his hon. Friend in reprehending very much the attitude of the Government towards Egypt. No doubt, it was the Government's misfortune; for it could not possibly be their intention; but it was the fact that no Government which had ever existed had contributed as much as the present Government had done to favour stock-jobbing operations by the course they had taken in their action towards Egypt and Turkey and the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. Unfortunately, their action in these matters had been foreseen by persons who were well able to discount beforehand the profits which would be made. He did not bring this as a charge against the Government; but it was their misfortune that when action was expected of them, such was the effect upon the Stock Exchanges of Europe. What, then, must be the effect if the Government admitted the principle of interfering on behalf of private creditors into the affairs of other nations? The House ought to have explicit information from the Treasury Bench as to whether the Government was contemplating any arrangements with regard to Egypt or Turkey which were likely to involve on the part of Great Britain the guarantee of loans which had been placed upon the market on behalf of the interest of private creditors, whether in England or in France. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state distinctly that it was impossible for the Government to contemplate such

  837
  a course, because, as long as it was supposed that they were likely for one moment to aid in the guaranteeing of these loans—as long as there was supposed to be a chance of their guaranteeing the position of Egypt for the purpose of supporting the claims of the English, or the English and French, bondholders—so long would the supposition affect the Stock Exchanges, and could not fail to be disastrous and prejudicial to the prestige of the country. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get up and state distinctly that Her Majesty's Government had no such intention. As to Turkey, he was afraid Her Majesty's Government had placed themselves in a position in which it was almost impossible for them to avoid doing that of which his hon. Friend complained. He should like to know in what position they stood in with regard to the De Tocqueville scheme, and whether they contemplated entering in any way into any scheme for the rehabilitation of the finances of Turkey as they had done for the rehabilitation of the finances of Egypt? Were they prepared to appoint Commissioners, or any body whatever, under such a scheme as that? No doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it very difficult to answer that question; and why? Because Her Majesty's Government had undertaken responsibilities with regard to Turkey which were of a political character, and one could not conceal from himself that, in regard to these responsibilities, very serious questions arose as to the financial condition of Turkey. If Asia Minor was to be reformed and organized in such a manner that it should be able to contribute to the defence of the territories of Turkey, to which Her Majesty's Government had pledged themselves, it of course followed that the whole financial Turkish system became a subject of interest and responsibility at once to Her Majesty's Government. But the Government could not at once assume and disclaim responsibility, and he wanted to point out the dangerous position in which this country was being placed. If the De Tocqueville scheme had been carried out, and an International Commission had been administering the finances of Turkey, there would have been nothing whatever left to enable Turkey to carry out that which she had engaged to do under the
  838
  Anglo-Turkish Convention. The more closely they criticized that Convention—and especially in view of the present financial difficulties—the more impossible did it appear to them that it should ever become a practical fact, or that Turkey would ever be able to carry out the engagement into which she had entered. We were in this ridiculous position—that the Government must either undertake themselves to administer the whole of the resources of Turkey, or else they would be unable to secure that the Turkish Convention should be carried out. Turkey would probably go to other countries, and French financiers might, perhaps, find her money to go on for a few years. She would thus incur deeper obligations with the claim of Russia still in existence, and eventually the people of this country might find they were bound at any cost to defend the whole of the Turkish Empire against Russian aggression. He had endeavoured to sketch the situation to the House, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fill up the intermediate lines.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER,said, that having only just returned from Egypt, he could confirm everything that had fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the miserable condition of the people of that country, in consequence of the maladministration of the finances. While in Egypt he met the gentleman whose letter appeared in The Times of that morning, and that gentleman stated to him then exactly what had appeared in The Times. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Maitland) accompanied him, and, were he in the House, could confirm what had been stated by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. One of the gentleman who had been sent to inquire into the condition of the people, and who, from his knowledge of Arabic, was admirably qualified to do so, was unfortunately taken ill of small-pox soon after leaving Cairo. But if anyone on the spot were to say the distress was exaggerated, he could not have made use of his eyes. In his (Colonel Alexander's) progress down the Nile, he stopped at various places, and all he saw there proved that the statement of the writer in The Times was by no means exaggerated. The people were so many living skeletons, resembling very much

  839
  what they had heard as to the condition of the people of India during the Great Famine. He was in Cairo when the outbreak among the officers took place. There was no doubt that arrears of pay extending over about two years were due to these officers, and that the Government acknowledged the justice of their claims might be inferred from the circumstance that almost immediately after the outbreak, three months' arrears of pay were paid them. He was afraid that, as Mr. Rivers Wilson and M. de Blignières were Members of the Government, they had consented to the action of Nubar Pasha in withholding from these officers the satisfaction of their just claims. It was useless to look for improvement in the country as long as such things were done.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he wished to know what was really the present position of Mr. Rivers Wilson, who went out to Egypt, having obtained leave from Her Majesty's Government for two years? He put a Question to the Government not long ago as to whether Mr. Rivers Wilson had tendered his resignation; but from all he had yet learnt about it, by means of public information, that gentleman was at the present moment holding an official position in Egypt. Was he holding that position by his own authority, or had he consulted Her Majesty's Government, and received instructions from them to remain in Egypt? If he had received such instructions, he was not the servant of the Khedive, but the Commissioner of England.
  MR. O'REILLYwished to elucidate the exact position of our Government in the transactions referred to. Most unfortunately the action of the Government had, perhaps unavoidably, been used for stock-jobbing. There were three steps which the Government could take for assisting a foreign Government by facilitating and raising of loans. The simplest thing was for our Government to guarantee the loan; but he presumed there was no question about that —that there was no intention on the part of England to adopt that course. Another way of supporting a loan, and of encouraging capitalists to invest their money for Her Majesty's Government to adopt, was to concur with a foreign Government in appointing an officer for the purpose of collecting the revenue
  840
  appropriated to its payment. The strongest example of that course that could be taken was that taken by Her Majesty's Government in the instance of the Daira loans. Two gentlemen were appointed by the English and the French Governments at the suggestion of the Khedive, and a formal undertaking was given by the Egyptian Government that those gentlemen should not be removed from the administration of the Daira lands. That was clearly ensuring to the creditors that the revenues of that estate should remain in their hands, and that the creditors should get them; but a grave question might arise if the Khedive insisted on removing them. There was also a third way of backing up the credit of a foreign Government, and that was when that Government applied to our Government to recommend an official for the collection and administration of the revenue. An instance of this was the appointment of Mr. Rivers Wilson. In such a case there was no absolute security given to the creditors that the gentleman appointed might not be removed, and that the revenue might not be diverted from the purposes to which it ought to be applied. The appointment of Mr. Rivers Wilson by the Egyptian Government was looked upon with great confidence by the creditors and, as great anxiety existed in connection with the subject, it was extremely desirable that the Chancellor of Exchequer should point out the exact position which that gentleman and his colleagues occupied, and should inform the House whether they were removable by the Khedive or not. He wished also for some information from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to another matter. It was notorious that the Turkish Government were engaged in endeavouring to raise new loans, and that the first difficulty they had to encounter in doing so was the alleged priority of the claims of the Russian Government for precedence in relation to the War Indemnity. Now, he should like to know, whether Her Majesty's Government had any information as to whether any negotiation or inquiry had passed between the Turkish and Russian Governments on the subject, whether he could state what they were with reference to the priority claims, and to what extent that priority was claimed for the War Indemnity? If that difficulty was got rid of

  841
  by the Turkish Government, the second difficulty, of course, was what security could they give for a new loan? Had any proposal for the appointment of Commissioners to collect certain Turkish revenues been made, or would such a proposition be entertained if made? Until they gave some satisfactory security, nobody would be likely to lend them the money which they wanted. It was believed that it had been proposed by the Turkish Government to allocate certain of their revenues—the Customs, the revenues from Cyprus, and others—to the payment of the interest on the new loan which was sought to be raised. It had also been thrown out that it would be a great inducement to capitalists to invest their money if the administration of the revenues in Turkey were placed in the hands of Commissioners nominated by the English and French Governments. Was Her Majesty's Government prepared to follow such a course? It was perfectly well known the Government would not guarantee a loan. Therefore, that was a point which it would be well to have cleared up; for the feeling was, he thought, entertained by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that it would not be wise for the Government, by entangling itself directly or indirectly by guarantees in any of the three ways he had specified, to encourage financiers to advance their money. The less they had to do with them, the better would it be.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he trusted the Government would do nothing in the way of facilitating any foreign loan whatever, for he did not think it was in any way the business of our Government to go about as knighterrants seeking to remedy the financial difficulties of another country. He was of opinion that Her Majesty's Government would hereafter be called seriously to account for lending Mr. Rivers Wilson to the Khedive in the extraordinary manner they had done. The loans, he might add, on which that gentleman was now endeavouring to pay 7 per cent interest, had not been raised at par, and we were consequently assisting in the maintenance of an usurious rate of interest which the Government ought, in his opinion, rather to use its influence to reduce, seeing that the condition of the fellaheen was miserable in the extreme.
  842
  If Her Majesty's Government were to proceed in a similar manner in other countries, they would entail a responsibility from which he thought England ought to shrink. It was also a matter worthy of consideration, how far the English public service was to be made use of for the employment of foreign Governments. We were maintaining upon our Civil Service a man who was in the service of a Government which was only half-civilized, and certainly despotic. He doubted whether the majority of the people of England, if they considered this question apart from the financial point of view, would wish one of our public servants to be employed for such a purpose. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would recall Mr. Rivers Wilson, or, although he received no salary, would ask him to resign his office in our public service, for his employment in the service of the Egyptian Government and in that of our Government were incompatible, and he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) strongly objected to it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconfessed that it was with some difficulty he rose to speak to the various questions that had been put to him in the course of that conversation. He would, however, endeavour, as well as he could, to answer those questions; but he must ask hon. Gentlemen to exercise a little consideration if he was not able to speak so fully as they might wish. With regard to the Motion which his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) would have moved, if it had been in his power to do so, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was glad that that was a Motion which could not be submitted to the House, because it would have been difficult to have arrived at a satisfactory vote upon it. He sympathized with the views which he believed animated the hon. Gentleman, and he sympathized with the greater part of what had been said by the hon. Gentleman, and by others who had taken the same line with him. At the same time, to lay down so very broadly the proposition that it was not desirable Her Majesty's Government should do anything to facilitate the raising of new loans by Oriental Governments which had failed to meet the old ones, would, he thought, be to take a position which the House would find it rather difficult to maintain

  843
  in all imaginable circumstances. On the other hand, to negative such a proposition would give rise to a very false impression in another way. An hon. Gentleman—he believed it was the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins)— pointed out that such a Resolution would stand in the way of any step that might, in conceivable circumstances, be taken on political grounds for maintaining the financial credit of some country with which we were in alliance. For instance, take the case of the Guarantee that was given in 1855 to Turkey, in order to enable her to raise a loan at the time for the purpose of carrying on a war in which we were allied with her. That was an operation that gave rise to discussion at the time, and if such an operation were proposed again, no doubt it would be very seriously discussed. It was an operation against which Parliament would be slow to pledge itself, without duly considering all the circumstances of the case. There was another conjuncture which might occur. It might be that it would be possible to facilitate some operation by which a Power which had failed hitherto to pay its loans might pay them, and in that way to redeem its position from bankruptcy. He only gave these illustrations of cases in which it might be right for the Government to take a course which would be at variance with such a Resolution as that, but he wished it to be understood that he had not in his mind the idea that either the one or the other was likely to occur. They wished, however, to reserve entire liberty of action, in order that they might be free, if any case should arise, to come to Parliament and make such a proposition as might be suitable at the time. He had already stated that Her Majesty's Government would not, under any circumstances, pledge that House or pledge the country to any guarantee of assistance of that character without the previous consent of Parliament, and he could repeat that pledge with complete security. He had been asked a good many questions, some of them bearing upon political considerations, part bearing upon the condition of the population of Egypt, some of them bearing upon the effect of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government upon the stock-market, and some of them upon the particular question of the position of Mr. Rivers Wilson. He hoped he should
  844
  not be required to go into the question which was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, as to any correspondence between Russia and Turkey as to a priority of charge upon the revenues of Egypt. He should not be doing well if he were to enter upon that question at present. The House was quite aware that at the time of the Congress of Berlin the subject was mentioned and embodied in the Protocols. By referring to the Protocols, hon. Members would see what view was taken by Her Majesty's Government at the time, and that view was the view which they still maintained; but, at all events, he would rather not at the present time go more fully into that. He would wish next to refer to a matter of great interest, and although it was rather a bye-question, as regarded the Resolution on the Paper, it was one of considerable importance—he referred to the bearing of anything that had been done, or was contemplated, by Her Majesty's Government on the fellaheen of Egypt. There was an impression abroad, and it had been reflected in some of the speeches to-night, that the operations of the present Government of Egypt— he referred to the Government which had been revised within the last few months—had been calculated to place an increased pressure on the taxpayers of Egypt. It had been asserted by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Colonel Alexander), and by others who had either themselves witnessed the condition of the country, or who had received intelligence on the subject from trustworthy sources, that the condition of the population of Egypt was very miserable. Now, he was not disposed for one minute to question the perfect accuracy of those statements. He believed the position of that population was very depressed and mournful; and, though Her Majesty's Government could not go about like knight-errants, undertaking to remedy all that was wrong in the world, yet it had been an object of theirs, if possible, to accomplish an act, which in their opinion would be most beneficial—to improve the condition or lighten in some way the burden of this unfortunate people. He believed they were a most interesting people. He believed they were industrious, patient, and self-denying; but so far as he had been able to gain any information on this subject, he was inclined to believe that the pre-

  845
  sent condition of these people was owing, not at all to any recent step which the Government of Egypt had taken, but to a long course of misgovernment. He knew that his right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. S. Cave), and Mr. Rivers Wilson, had both been struck with the evils of the present financial system as bearing upon the condition of the people, and an improvement in that system was desirable, not only on account of humanity, but also because it would contribute more than anything else to the prosperity of the country. They believed, and that belief had been confirmed by the opinions of most persons who had in any way studied the subject, that the distress of the population of Egypt was greatly caused by the exactions of subordinate officials, tax-gatherers, and others, who took a great deal more from the people than was paid into the Treasury, and often used violence to extract it. They also believed that one feature of the system of Egypt which caused great suffering was the administration of the Daira lands. The Daira was a landed estate, of enormous extent, belonging to the Viceroy. That estate was managed entirely by himself, of course, with the assistance of stewards and bailiffs, and not upon the system of leasing out any portion of it to anyone; and the result had been that they had an enormous estate spread over Egypt, embracing some of the most fertile and productive portions of the country, which had been administered upon the system of a single farm, and had been worked to a very great extent practically by forced labour. In old times the work was avowedly done by forced labour; latterly that had not been possible, but the system was still not satisfactory. The people had suffered very much indeed from the refusal of the Khedive to break up his estate into farms and small holdings and let them out to the people, who were obliged, therefore, to make a living by accepting labour not nominally forced, but which was very inadequately paid for. That had a great deal to do with the existing misery and poverty of the people, and that idea was borne out by the letter in The Times to-day. The impression formed by persons who had studied the subject was, that it would be of the greatest possible advantage to Egypt that the Daira should be taken out of
  846
  the hands of the Khedive and out of the mischievous system in which it was, and that it should be let out in parcels to the people, who would then farm portions of it at a reasonable rent, and so make their profits by farming. This had been one great object to which Mr. Rivers Wilson and his colleagues had addressed themselves. After inquiry, the first thing that occurred to them was to get the Khedive to give up the Daira and allow it to be farmed. The whole of the history of the last few months centered in this—upon the pressure put on the Khedive to give up this personal administration of his, which, in the finances generally, and especially in regard to the Daira, was doing so much mischief—to give that up to proper authorities and so to enable proper reforms to be made. That was the object with which the Commissioners were working when they brought about the great change in the system of the government of Egypt; and he was convinced that if Mr. Rivers Wilson and M. de Bligniéres had fair play and were enabled to carry through their reforms, the great improvement in the Government of Egypt was an object which they might fairly hope to attain. He did not wish too strong a meaning to be attached to some words which fell from him the other day. He did not wish to express in a detailed manner an opinion, in a precise way, upon the extent to which Egypt was solvent. The country had great resources. Those resources were imperfectly developed because of bad government, and they would be developed if Egypt had fair play—that was, good government, good administration of its lands and of its taxes, and if, at the same time, the expenditure of the country were kept within limits. That was the point at which the Government of Nubar Pasha had been aiming; and he believed if that Government had time and fair play it might produce very considerable results. With regard to the fellaheen, he wished to impress upon the House that it was not the view of the Government that any pressure should be placed on the unfortunate taxpayers of Egypt; but, on the contrary, that such a system should be adopted as should at once improve the wealth of the country and relieve the pressure upon the people. He gave a flat contradiction to the idea

  847
  that the Government had in any way pressed upon the Government of Egypt that they should oppress the taxpayers or should take steps of a character which was unfair to the officers or any others with a view to pay bondholders. The Government had done nothing of the sort; they had, neither directly nor indirectly, put any pressure on the Government of Egypt to pay the bondholders. That was not their business. He was speaking now of recent proceedings, because he understood that an impression of this kind had gone abroad. With regard to the May Coupons that was a different matter, and he had explained the other day how it was that Her Majesty's Government had supported the French Government, to a certain extent, in the representations made by France in May last. Those representations were made under the belief that there was money, which it was necessary to put pressure on the Khedive to get from him—that it was a case where he could pay if he chose. But the Government had also joined in the demand, that M. de Blignières should represent to the Khedive that he would not be justified in taking any steps to increase the burdens of the people for the purpose of paying that Coupon. Their impression was that there was painful extravagance. One form of that extravagance was in building palaces. Money was spent in building and enlarging palaces really of no use at all, and they did not hold that that was an expenditure which justified the refusal to pay the claims of the creditors. But it never was in the view of the Government that any additional pressure should be put on the taxpayers to provide these funds. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) put questions, which raised in a legal form the questions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to consider. He said there were three ways in which one Government might assist another to raise a loan. First, there was a direct guarantee. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that that plan was entirely out of the question in the present circumstances. They never thought of such a thing. But, in saying that, however, he guarded himself with the general observation which he made in the beginning —that he did not intend to tie up the hands of the Government, in case circumstances should arise which ren-
  848
  dered it necessary to make any proposals to the House. At present, however, the idea was entirely out of the question. There was no question of giving a guarantee. Then the hon. Gentleman said we might adopt a second course, which was a less strong form of guarantee, but which gave considerable support. "You may," he said, "adopt a system similar to that under which administrators and receivers are appointed for the Daira lands." Well, they all knew what the object of that system was—the object was to get the Daira lands out of the hands of the Khedive. When the Government of Nubar Pasha had persuaded the Khedive to resign the whole of the Daira lands for public uses, it occurred to them that the best use to which they could immediately apply this property which came into their hands was to raise upon it a loan by mortgaging it, so as to enable them to meet the pressing demands of Egypt—to pay off debts running at high interest and to pay officers and others whose salaries were due. In order to raise that loan the Government of Nubar Pasha addressed themselves to leading financiers, and those gentlemen said— "The security you offer is in itself ample, the lands are sufficient to cover the loan; but how are we to know that we shall not be defrauded of our security by its being made away with under the pressure of circumstances which the Ruler of Egypt might find too strong for him?" Upon that representations were made to the French and English Governments, and it was said—"If you will undertake to recommend first the appointment of gentlemen who may administer these estates, and will be responsible for seeing that the revenue is paid to the mortgagees, we will advance the money." In these circumstances it was thought right, after full consideration and discussion with the French Government, to take the step of nominating gentlemen, who were not to be removed without the consent of the English and French Governments, and a diplomatic engagement had been made to that effect. It was asked—"What will happen supposing the Khedive breaks that engagement?" But they did not contemplate that he would break an engagement which he had entered into in the exercise of his constitutional power. The Government had been asked whether they in-

  849
  tended to do anything of the same kind for Turkey, and he could only say that up to the present time most assuredly they had no idea of the kind. He saw very great difficulties and objections to any step of the kind. What was done for Egypt was on a small and limited scale; and with regard to suggestions of a vast and vague and unlimited kind in relation to Turkish finances, he had never been able to see that it was possible to enter into any engagement without undertaking an amount of responsibility and power in the direction and management of the whole affairs of Turkey which he should never think of undertaking. It might, therefore, afford the hon. Gentleman who had asked the question some consolation to know that such a scheme was not contemplated by the Government. With regard to the third mode of assisting the country, the hon. Member said, it might be done by appointing collectors who should collect certain allocated revenues. Upon that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might say that there was nothing of the kind in contemplation, but he wished to distinguish between two different ideas. Take, for instance, the Customs of Alexandria or Smyrna. If they were placed in the hands of certain officials nominated by the English Government, that would bring the suggestion to very nearly the same as the second which the hon. Member had proposed, and would raise difficulties and objections of a very similar character, because if they allocated the revenues of a particular port they must give the officers powers, which would raise questions of a difficult and embarrassing kind. But if it was merely meant that they were to place at the disposal of the Turkish Government gentlemen whose characters they knew, and whom they could recommend as to honesty and ability, he did not think the proposal was open to the same objection as the other. They knew very well that one of the great difficulties of an Oriental nation was the corruption of its servants, and that constantly the amounts of revenue which were raised and paid by the taxpayers were intercepted on their way to the Treasury. And, moreover, they knew that there was an ignorance of the principles of administration which very often caused a great deal of waste and loss of power, and it had been the practice from time to time of
  850
  nations who had felt themselves behind in these matters to employ English or French officials, or people of other nations, because they thought them better informed or more trustworthy than their own officials. In China there was an English collector of Customs, and the same was the case in other places.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked whether these officials were appointed by the Government employing them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied affirmatively, and proceeded to say that in cases in which any Government with which they were on friendly terms had applied to them to recommend the persons who were trustworthy, they had felt that those Governments were making an application which was perfectly natural and which might be complied with, but they had always been particularly cautious and reserved. They had, as a rule, said—"We will not undertake any such responsibility, but what we will do is to give you a list of gentlemen whose names occur to us"—gentlemen very often who had served their time in England or the Indian Service—"we will place this list in your hands, and offer any facilities for you to make enquiries, and if you like to make any bargain with those gentlemen, do so by all means," but they had abstained from entering upon any direct responsibility. In that way Mr. Romaine and several other officers were selected. The single instance of an exception being made was that of Mr. Rivers Wilson. With respect to him they had done that which they had not done in any other case. They had given him leave for two years to undertake his office. It was not correct, however, to say that they recommended him. His services were sought for by the Egyptian Government, and they were granted by us, but not tendered by us. He made that distinction because he thought it was important. The case of Captain Tyler some years ago was not exactly similar. That was a case in which that officer wished to undertake certain duties outside his own country, and it was on account of Her Majesty's Government feeling that it was important that the assistance sought for should be given that they gave him leave. As far as Mr. Rivers Wilson was concerned, the Government assented willingly to his application for leave, because they believed good would

  851
  result from his appointment. It was not possible now to define the exact position of Mr. Wilson, because, unfortunately, the position of the Egyptian Ministry itself was in a very unsettled state owing to the crisis through which it had recently passed. When Mr. Wilson went out, he went as the Minister of the Khedive, who had the right to dismiss him from his post whenever he thought fit; but the precise circumstances were these:—The Khedive insisted upon the resignation or dismissal of Nubar Pasha, and it then became a question as to the course which should be taken by Mr. Wilson and M. de Blignières. They consulted their respective Governments, and Her Majesty's Ministers expressed to Mr. Wilson their opinion that it would be undesirable for him to resign, but that he was to be guided very much by the arrangements which might be come to with the Khedive. They had no control over Mr. Wilson, who was then and still remained perfectly free to take his own course; but they gave the advice and instructed the British Consul in Egypt to give Mr. Wilson his moral support. He might say that the French Government gave similar advice to M. de Blignières. This exceptional interference in Egyptian affairs was due to the fact that this country had not only a large financial interest in the country, but was also interested in it in a political sense. As far as the first-named consideration was concerned, hon. Members knew that the Turkish Loan of 1855, which was guaranteed by this country, rested to a considerable extent upon the payment of the Egyptian Tribute; and that Egypt was indebted to us in respect of the annuity for the payment of which its Government rendered themselves liable at the time of the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. But far beyond this was the political aspect of the question. Her Majesty's Government felt it to be of the greatest importance to the welfare and interests of this country and of European peace that Egypt should not fall into a state of anarchy and of that state of confusion which resulted from financial embarrassment and bankruptcy, and they thought that if financial affairs in Egypt got into a bad state, interference might take place from other Powers, and complications of a difficult character might arise. It was with that in view that they took the course they did in
  852
  connection with the Administration. They were at any time perfectly prepared to discuss the propriety of that course, but he thought the House would feel that it was one which should be discussed fully and not incidentally in a conversation of that kind. He thought he had substantially answered the questions which had been put, and if he had omitted any of them, he might, perhaps, be reminded of them. The course they had taken was consistent with their policy of several years past, and, at the present moment, while they were looking with hope to the success of the Egyptian experiment, they had not in contemplation any arrangements in regard either to Turkey or anywhere else of the kind which had been suggested, and which seemed so much to have alarmed several hon. Members of the House.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to know, whether Mr. Rivers Wilson corresponded directly with Her Majesty's Government or through the Consul General of his dominion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that Mr. Rivers Wilson did not communicate with Her Majesty's Government directly, but did so through our Consul General at Cairo.

  INSTRUCTION IN MIXED COLLEGES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper, but he was precluded by the Forms of the House from pressing it to a Division on the present occasion. He did not, however, regret that very much, as the Government had taught them the value of Divisions in a manner which did not tend to assure them that a Division was always a test of the opinion of the House. The Government had its majority in the neighbourhood, and when it was wanted it would march in and vote. Still he would call the attention of the House to the subject of his Resolution, which was—
    "That the professional instruction on the most important subjects in mixed colleges and universities is necessarily superficial and imperfect when the conditions of mixed education are observed, and injurious and offensive to one or other denomination of students when the professors endeavour to be teachers in more than name."
    Although continually impaled on one or the other horn of the dilemma set forth in his Resolution, the advocates of mixed

    853
    colleges continued to assert that those institutions taught pure, uncoloured, and undistorted truth and science in a manner which ought to be perfectly acceptable to every fair-minded person of every religious or irreligious denomination; but he affirmed that in a mixed educational college the teaching of the Professoriate on all the most important subjects was necessarily offensive where the conditions of such education were duly observed. They could do one or other of two things—they could either leave the Professoriate unpledged and free, or they could tie it down by restrictions. If they left it perfectly unpledged and free, if they left the Chairs open to every sort of denomination, and if they left the occupants of those Chairs at perfect liberty to express their views as they chose, of course it would be quite impossible to keep up the pretence of impartiality—the appearance of fairness under the mixed education system at all. In a University conducted under such a system 20 important affairs might arise, and there might be 20 self-important Professors occupying those Chairs, satisfied with their own views, but probably differing from one another. The result would be that in passing from class-room to class-room they might find an aggressive Protestantism, then an aggressive Pantheism, then an aggressive Atheism, then an aggressive Mussulmanism, and then some equally aggressive members of the Oriental branch of the Christian Church. In the colleges which were most skilfully constructed to bear out the appearance of a mixed system the Professoriate was strictly restricted. He referred to the Queen's Colleges and the Queen's University in Ireland, which, no matter what imitations might have sprung up since their establishment—no matter how much their principle might have been borrowed, avowedly or unavowedly, by other institutions—remained the most scientifically constructed system of mixed education which had yet been invented. The University of London had attempted to solve the difficulty by having no Professoriate whatever, and by becoming a purely examining body; but the Queen's Colleges and University in Ireland were not only examining but teaching bodies; and what was the gagging provision which at present existed in regard to them? The Professor of a Chair was
    854
    asked to sign a declaration to the effect that in lecturing, examining, and discharging the various duties of his office, he should carefully abstain from teaching or advancing any doctrine or making any statement derogatory to the truths of revealed religion or injurious or disrespectful to the religious convictions of any portion of his class or audience; and he also promised that he would not introduce or discuss, in his place and capacity as a Professor, any subject of controversy, political or religious, tending to produce contention or excitement. Let hon. Members imagine the effect of applying a provision of that kind over the whole sphere and area of educational subjects, and let them also imagine the position in which a Professor under the mixed education system might find himself. Suppose that there were within the walls of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland those who represented the various opinions of the Protestant world, the Catholics, the Buddhists, the Hindoos, the Mahommedans, the Oriental Christians, the Pantheists, the Atheists, and all the different sects which, since the coming and after the coming of Christ, had survived to the present day—suppose a Professor rising in his place under such circumstances and proposing to discuss any subject of philosophy or history, and to explain the influences which had been operating in any department of science, literature, or religion—he might at once be met with a remark— "Oh! you are depreciating the Catholic religion;" or, "You are depreciating the Mussulman religion;" and so on. There was not a question on which the veriest mentor might not have a right to shut up the most erudite Professor. The truth of the matter was that the whole theory of mixed education was absurd and impracticable, and that in practice it was simply a farce. He was by no means going to inflict upon the House an encyclopædic survey of human knowledge and research; but there could be no harm in making it manifest that this was a thoroughly practical question. Take, for example, the science of geology. There were schools which asserted that this earth bore evident traces of—indeed, was eloquent with abundant proofs of—the falsehood of the Scriptural narratives. There was also a school of geologists who equally maintained that there was nothing which

    855
    science had discovered which in reality opposed the conclusions of the Revealed Word as believed by Christians. What must be the position of a Professor in such a case? He must be at the best cautious in expressing or in hinting at his own opinions, and careful not to give what might be thought undue weight to the one side or the other. Again, take the subject of comparative physiology. There were those who believed that the lessons of that science were fatal to the theory of the Divine origin of man; but there were also those who believed that its lessons, rightly understood and accurately appreciated, contained nothing whatever which could hurt the feelings of any Christian. Once more, take the science of chemistry. At first sight that science might appear to be comparatively innocuous, and yet they knew that in the present day distinguished men came forward and informed them that they were convinced that the potentiality of matter was so great as entirely to dispense with the Divine Creator. In these, as in other things, the Professoriate must sacrifice the interests of truth and science to the interests of refraining from injuring the convictions of any portion of a class or audience. It was manifest, however, that even in the fundamental study of the physical sciences they came upon points of differences of the first magnitude—points on which varieties of view were very numerous. Then take the question of history. He defied any Professor whatever, of any talent and experience, to teach history so as to avoid making any statement derogatory to the truths of revealed religion or injurious to the convictions of any portion of a class or audience. In connection with what century, what period of a century, what country, could that be done? Take the era of the Protestant Reformation in England, in Ireland, in Spain, in Italy, and in Germany, and on broad principles he would defy any Professor to deliver a lecture on that subject without saying a great deal which would be certain to be disrespectful to a good section of those whom he addressed.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, though the attempted count-out occurred during his speech, he quite sympathized with the
    856
    natural indignation of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Whenever any question of Irish importance was brought before the House there was emptiness on the benches of the Legislators for Ireland. He was quite aware his hon. Friend was not opposed to his remarks, but properly desired to call attention to the manner in which Ireland was dealt with in Parliament. Neither national nor general history could be treated with any conformity to truth or science by a Professor who was under the pledge to utter no statement which might be disrespectful or injurious to the convictions of any portion of his class. It was equally impossible to deal with any other subject of importance without touching the susceptibilities of somebody. How was philosophy to be taught? How would a Professor who had drawn his philosophy from Oxford, or Cambridge, or Trinity College, Dublin, deal with the great masters of Catholic thought? What could be more calculated to unsettle the fundamental morals and mental principles of a young man than to hear his Professor vainly attempting to turn the corners of the mixed education difficulty, reciting with equal indifference the names of all the systems and sham systems and schools of philosophy and sophistry from the beginning of the Greek down to the last vagary imported from Germany? When a Professor tried to teach philosophy under the mixed system he was driven to this sceptical attitude. The objection to this system applied to every branch of human knowledge, for there was no point which could be taught in anything but a superficial way under the pledge not to hurt the individual susceptibilities of any portion of a class or audience.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. O'DONNELLresumed his speech. He asked how a Professor under the mixed system could discuss the influence of Voltaire on his century, or "the character of the Renaissance?" There would not be a single branch even of literature which must not be the arena of sectarian controversy, and in this country the system must work as an engine of attack against the convictions of Catholics. He entirely repudiated any thought of per-

    857
    sonal motive. No more honourable men could be found than the Professors of the Queen's Colleges with whom he had to do, and any shortcomings in their lectures or teaching were attributable to the system under which they worked. That system was in this country an assault on Catholic doctrines; but on the Continent it was an assault on Christianity itself; and in no long time the Anglican Church would feel the destroying influence of mixed education, and would disappear before the indifferentism which was both its parent and its off-spring. Ruin had been brought on the Continent to the Churches outside the pale of the Church of Rome, and the same ruin was in store for Anglican Christianity if it destroyed denominationalism out of intolerance for Irish Catholics, and sacrificed their common Christianity before the shrine of plain and naked infidelity.
    MR. M'LARENwas sorry that no hon. Member connected with the Universities had risen to remark upon the speech which the House had just heard from the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The reason why he wished to make some remarks was that he considered that if this Resolution could be put to a vote, and were carried, it would be one of the strongest possible votes of censure which the House could pass upon the system of University education which prevailed in Scotland. The system there was that which the hon. Member had described as mixed education, and yet there were none of the evils which he had described attending it. The teaching was not superficial, there was no discontent on the part of the people, and there were no attacks upon the Roman Catholics or any other body of men. Everything went on quietly and there was no complaint whatever. If the effects which the hon. Member had described were inevitably connected with mixed education, it would be found that the people in Scotland would not send their sons to be educated at the Universities; but was that the case? There were, he believed, as nearly as possible 5,000 students attending the Universities of England, and there were as nearly as possible the same number of students attending the Universities of Scotland. The result of these figures was that while England had about one University student to a population of 5,000, Scotland
    858
    had seven University students to a population of 5,000. Did not that show that the inhabitants of that country were highly satisfied with the system of mixed education? If they took the University of Edinburgh, for example, they would find that there was not even a chapel in it—there were no prayers—there was no kind of interference with the religious opinions of any persons who chose to enter. The hon. Member had dwelt strongly on what he called the gagging system, and he read to the House a declaration that the Professors of the Queen's Colleges were not to do this, that, and the other thing. Well, he could easily understand that, remembering as he did the discussions which took place at the time that the Queen's Colleges were constituted, and that the Government of the day were most anxious to please both parties in Ireland. He doubted whether they had succeeded, but at all events they tried, and those long and tiresome prohibitions that were made to prevent particular tenets from being taught were no doubt well meant, were intended to conciliate all, and make those Colleges beneficial to the whole population of Ireland. It did not appear that they had done so; but most certainly the system had succeeded admirably in the country with which he had the honour to be connected. It might be said—"Well, but Scotland is a Presbyterian country, all the Professors must be Presbyterians, and therefore they teach Presbyterian doctrines." ["Hear, hear!"] He recognized that cheer, but the fact was quite different. There were a number of Episcopalian Professors appointed, and they had just as good a chance of being elected as members of any of the Presbyterian bodies. He could speak on this point from personal knowledge. More than 40 years ago he was a member of the electing body which appointed the Professors in Edinburgh, and he remembered taking a deep interest in promoting the return of a clergyman of the Church of England who was a candidate for the Professorship of Mathematics, because he believed him to be the best qualified of all the candidates. He and those who acted with him were successful in procuring his election, and to this day he remained an honour to the University. He remembered another instance where, at a later period, about 20 years ago, a

    859
    gentleman, who was a very distinguished Greek scholar, offered himself as a candidate for the Greek Chair. That gentleman was, he admitted, opposed by certain parties on the ground that he was not sufficiently orthodox for the prevailing Presbyterian sentiment. That objection was strongly urged, but it did not prevail; and he was glad to say that the gentleman was appointed, although by the very small majority of his (Mr. M'Laren's) casting vote. He was proud of having been the means of appointing a distinguished Greek scholar, although objected to by some on account of his supposed religious views. He would like to say a word on the departments of that University. There were four departments—namely, the Faculties of Arts, Medicine, Law, and Divinity. The Faculty of Arts consisted of seven branches—Humanity, Greek, Mathematics, Logic and Metaphysics, Moral Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, Rhetoric and English Literature—from which the students made a selection, and when they passed their examination they got their degree of MA. He would put it to anyone why an honest man appointed to be a Professor should interfere with the religious opinion of young men in teaching any of those branches? The gentlemen who were appointed Professors made the single declaration that they should not teach anything contrary to the Westminster Confession. That negative test was the only test. [Ironical cheers.] He had never heard of any dispute arising, or of any Professor being brought up or complained of for transgressing that declaration. Many Members present might never have read the Westminster Confession. It was framed and enacted by Parliament in England, but the Scotch people adopted it; and he believed that there was a great deal in it which many hon. Members who ironically cheered him would concur in if they would only read it. Then, in the Faculty of Medicine there were between 1,100 and 1,200 students. He believed it was the largest medical school in the world. Why should the Professor of any of the branches of medicine or surgery interfere with the opinions of Roman Catholic students? Why, it would be a monstrous perversion of everything that was right and proper. He did not believe it ever was or would be done. What, again, had law to do
    860
    with religion? As to divinity, with the exception of the Church of Scotland, all the other religious denominations in Scotland had Professors of their own to teach students divinity according to their own views; but they sent them to the University for the purpose of going through the Arts classes. Now, if their Roman Catholic friends who complained of this system would just follow that example—would teach to their heart's content their own views of religion, and let the young men get their general education in the classes of the University which did not trench upon religious subjects at all—he thought they would find that, however theoretically wrong it might be in their estimation, that practically no injustice would be done to them. He had felt it his duty, as one of the Members for Scotland, to say these few words merely as a protest against the sweeping denunciations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan in regard to a system of education in which Scotland delighted.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid he was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) having suddenly changed the scene from Ireland to Scotland, a country of which the Irish Members were entirely ignorant. He did not, however, at all complain of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who had, perhaps, added a new interest to the debate by giving them his experience of the system of education in Scotland; but as that hon. Member had abandoned the Irish side of the question, he could not expect the Irish Members to follow him on the Scotch side with the same ability and the same amount of knowledge which he had himself shown. He was informed that the Scotch Colleges, with reference to the question of religious instruction, were not in nearly so bad a condition as the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. He heard that there were chapels in the Scotch Colleges; that there was a large number of clergymen in them; and that those clergymen were of the same religion as the students. He heard also that there were schools of theology in the Scotch Colleges. That was not his idea of irreligious Colleges. If the Government were to give them in Ireland some system of that kind, under which a considerable number of the clergymen belonged to the religion of the majority of the country, and under which

    861
    Divine worship was celebrated, they would be very much inclined to take the chance for teaching also. In the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge religious instruction was given. The Belfast College, which was frequented by Presbyterians, was in a condition much like that of the Scotch Colleges, and therefore it could not be an irreligious College. While religious teaching was excluded from Cork and Gal way Colleges, where the population was almost entirely Catholic, a different system prevailed in Scotland and England, where no difficulties were put in the way of Protestants. He considered this was most unfair, and he thought something should be done to place Ireland on a level with the rest of the Kingdom in this matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the terms of this Motion were of the very widest possible description. It contained the clear and unqualified statement—
    "That the Professorial instruction on the most important subjects in mixed colleges and Universities is necessarily superficial and imperfect when the conditions of mixed education are observed, and injurious and offensive to one or other denomination of students when the Professors endeavour to be teachers in more than name."
    This was wide enough to condemn without reserve the system which prevailed in the Scotch Universities, and to a substantial extent in the English Universities, in the Queen's University in Ireland, and which was recognised in the Dublin University. The Resolution of the hon. Member, in fact, amounted to this, that the system of mixed education must be a sham. How was that charge made out? The hon. Gentleman made a long speech, extending over two hours, but he had only endeavoured to show that if the subjects to which he had specifically alluded were taught in a particular way some injurious results might follow; or, in other words, if there was a system of cross purposes between the teachers and the taught, if the Professors had no common sense and the students were bent on mischief, no possible good could come of the instruction given. But these results were purely imaginary and most extravagant. No foundation in fact could be found for a Resolution so extreme as this. The Resolution, which contained no distinct reference to Ireland, was really an attack upon a system of
    862
    education which had existed for years in England, Ireland, and Scotland; and the question to be considered was, what were the results which had been accomplished by that system? The hon. Member should have examined into that before he condemned it without reserve. Were there no good social and moral results from the mixed system? Was there nothing gained from the companionship of young men of different religions at a period of life when friendships were most likely to be warmly cemented? Were not these results of the greatest consequence? One could not look back upon his educational career, whether in an old Scotch University, in one of the great English Universities, in the Queen's, or in the Dublin University, without being able to recall some of his warmest friendships, which had grown up without the least regard to differences of religion. But there were other more material advantages gained by the system, and it could hardly be so unreservedly condemned when the students it produced were able, in competition, to win great and substantial prizes. He should not confine his view to Ireland. The Resolution did not mention that country. It was an attack on mixed education, and he was entitled to look at the results of the competitive examinations in the Empire. Everyone knew how successful the students were in the case of England and Scotland, and Ireland also. These were reasonable answers to the hon. Member, who, though he had made an elaborate indictment, had totally failed to advance any evidence in support of his sweeping Resolution.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAcomplained that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had dealt in a very off-hand manner with the most important question of mixed education, which, as practised, not only led to, but absolutely involved, scepticism as to religious matters. It was true that in several respects the system, or rather, the theory of mixed education, had not worked ill in some parts of Ireland, but those were parts of the country in which some particular form of religion prevailed almost universally, and where the views of the teachers were actually in accordance with the religious predilections of the students who had to be taught. The question they were

    863
    dealing with was whether there should be a school education without history as a branch of study; and if there should not, could there be a system that did not deal with the problems of Christianity? He did not care what the religions were. Of course, he should prefer his own religion. But in all the forms of Christian faith there was sufficient protection for society at present, and to teach every man his duty to the State. Physical science in education was of great use to individuals, but of no use to the State, unless the individuals were made good members of society. That, he denied, could be accomplished without making religion a portion of the education, and therefore the wishes and the aspirations of the people ought to be consulted in the system of education. Were they to ignore the influence of the Roman Catholic faith, which had lived and taught the highest morality in Ireland in spite of every opposition? He thought they ought not to do so, and he therefore supported the Motion.
    MR. SULLIVANregretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had not attempted to grapple with the difficulties attending the system of mixed education in the Irish Universities. As was said in nautical circles, he gave a "wide berth" to that question. It was not, however, to be wondered at, in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished alumnus of Trinity College, Dublin, in which the difficulty existed in its most complete form. Charges had been made that in a Catholic University the Professors would be slaves, and dare not teach anything objectionable to the priests. Well, he rather thought that the Universities in this country attained to some eminence under the system so impugned. In the declaration made by a Professor connected with a College or University where mixed education prevailed, he bound himself to avoid all subjects which were calculated to produce any manner of controversy, religious or political. If he gave his pupils his own ideas of the history of the Reformation, the punishment meted out to him would be that he would be summoned before the Council and formally warned and reprimanded, and, if guilty of a repetition of the offence, he would be forth with suspended from his functions, and his removal from
    864
    office recommended. Well, how, he asked, could any such Professor in Ireland avoid references which would stir up such controversies on the part of one or more of his class? He remembered seeing a plate representing a scene in which some years after the battle of the Boyne an old Irish piper might be observed in the presence of a stalwart Irish soldier who was armed with a formidable shillelagh, and saying to the piper, "Strike-up 'The Battle of the Boyne;' I want to know how I can stand it." Might there not be some students to be found who would be as reasonable as that Irish soldier? He hoped that all traditions of the greatness, glory, and independence of University education had not faded from the land. Supposing that all the students were Protestants, a Professor dare not make use of phrases to them which Catholics would not shrink from using. If he was dealing with the time of Henry VIII., he might say he was a Prince of many virtues and many vices, but which were his virtues and which his vices he would leave to them. They paid their money, and might take their choice. It was an insult to Ireland to pretend this was to be the style of University education. The declaration to which he referred was a fetter on Professorial teaching. He had known cases of conscientious Protestant Professors who dared not treat the episode in history of the Inquisition in Spain in the manner in which their convictions would have led them to do, because a Roman Catholic student might be present, although they full well knew that such was not the case. The Attorney General for Ireland had asked what mischief had accrued from the present system? The answer to that question was this, that when they came to divert or to poison a system of education, the evil results could not, necessarily and naturally, be pointed to for a long time. The system had been sought to be palliated and defended by the fact that Roman Catholic students had gone through Trinity College, Dublin, and had not been prejudicially affected by the system which prevailed in that institution, of which every Irishman was proud. But the fact was due, not to the system which the Resolution condemned, but had occurred in spite of that system. If he were a Protestant parent, he would prefer to send his child to a Protestant

    865
    rather than to a Catholic University, although students might have emerged from that Catholic University without harm to their religious principles. A system must be judged by its logical and consistent consequences, and not by its accidental products. If the emasculated conditions of the mixed system were maintained, he cared not whether in Ireland, England, or Scotland, learning must deteriorate, and a future race would grow up unworthy of their forefathers, imbecile as scholars, and a peril to Christian society.
    Mr. PARNELLsaid, he was surprised that the Attorney General for Ireland should have put Trinity College on a level with the Queen's Colleges, which had notoriously failed as teaching institutions. Trinity College was, at the time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was studying there, a strictly denominational College, and it was as such it had been so successful. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had argued in favour of the mixed system on the ground that they got on so well with it in Scotland. But he denied that the Scotch system was really a mixed system. Scotch Presbyterians had a habit of assimilating themselves and their religion to the mixed system of education, and of converting a nominally undenominational and secular institution into a Presbyterian College or University. This was the case with the Colleges in the North of Ireland. He would like to know whether any Catholic filled a Chair in the University of Edinburgh? They were bound to respect the conscientious convictions of the Roman Catholics, and to legislate in accordance with their requirements. They might call the Irish system a mixed system, but it was decidedly opposed to the conscientious feelings of a vast majority of the people of that country. It was admitted that the state of Roman Catholic education in Ireland was deplorable, and Parliament was driven to this position—that they must give the Roman Catholics of Ireland a system that they could conscientiously take advantage of, or else give up the pretence of supplying Ireland with any system of University education at all. The system in Oxford and Cambridge was most sectarian, and he did not see how it was possible, with a great variety of branches of knowledge, that teaching could be conducted
    866
    from any other than a religious point of view. Were they going to have no history at all taught in their Universities? Were they going to have no theological or divinity schools, in order that they might carry out their peculiar ideas as to University education in Ireland? He said by all means let the Freethinkers', children be taught in accordance with the Freethinkers' wish, but that the children of Roman Catholic parents be taught in accordance with their wish, and the children of Protestant parents in accordance with their wish.
    MR. RIDLEYsaid, he profoundly objected to the proposition now before the House. He believed that the effect of the adoption of that proposition in the terms in which it had been expressed would be to strike a blow at almost everything which had been done for education in the country for many years past. He thought that the objection raised by hon. Members to the mixed educational system of Ireland might be traced rather to the way in which the inhabitants of that country regarded that system than to that system itself. In England, for many years past, a mixed system of education had existed without banishing religion from the schools. Why should not the same thing be done in the sister country? Why should it be impossible to teach history without rousing religious contention and stirring up questions which ought long ago to have been effaced from the minds of the people of Ireland, as they had already been from the minds of the Catholic inhabitants of this country? He wished to respect any man's convictions, be he Catholic or Protestant; but those convictions ought not to be wounded if they were founded on truth and a real knowledge of the religion a man professed, simply because he attended the lectures of a Professor of history. Since the University Tests Repeal Act was passed, nine years ago, the Universities of England had not lost their hold on the people of this country merely because no religious test of any kind was required of any person who took a degree. Yet there was no subject that was not introduced into the University curriculum, and nobody could fairly say that the Universities were irreligious. This debate seemed to him to be founded upon a false assumption—namely, that if Professors really taught their subjects, they

    867
    must give offence to some denominational student. He declared that to be entirely untrue, and that it was quite possible to have mixed education without injury to religious susceptibilities. Hon. Gentlemen who opposed that system were trying to turn back the hand of the dial. Catholics and Protestants ought to be able to face a University in which students of other creeds besides their own were taught; and if their faith was not strong enough to hold its ground against such association with students of other creeds, then the sooner they obtained more firmly rooted convictions the better. Of all Christian creeds, that of hon. Members opposite had the longest tradition, and, perhaps, the ablest writers; but, at the same time, they now lived in the nineteenth century, and Catholics, as well as Protestants, must be prepared to face the world of scientific professors and historians. If there was one thing for which the education of this country was famous, it was that every subject was being introduced into its curriculum. He did not venture to dispute with Irish Members on their particular views with regard to particular Colleges or Universities in Ireland; but he differed from them profoundly with respect to mixed education. They were confusing mixed education with the mariner in which it might be applied in a particular country. It might be so misapplied that the system might be bad; but he was convinced the system was the only means of teaching the rising generation the truth of the great principles which ought to be instilled into them from their youth.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked whether the hon. Member who had just spoken had ever found in his experience that educated Catholics were afraid of facing the intellectual issues of the present day? The hon. Member said Catholic youths should not be afraid to enter the arena with an army of Professors, and he asked, why should they not submit themselves to Protestant Professors? He trusted the hon. Member and the House would not forget the able arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and the declaration he made, speaking on behalf of the Catholic people of Ireland. It had been assumed that the mixed system of the Queen's Colleges was the same as the system which pre-
    868
    vailed in England and Scotland. No proof whatever had been given that it was. But even if it had been proved, it did not follow that the system which was suitable to England and Scotland was also suitable to Ireland. He held the Irish University Question would never be settled except on a denominational basis, and the Irish people could not follow the advice of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) to rest and be thankful. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had risen to prove that religion had nothing whatever to do with University education in Scotland; but he admitted that Professors had to subscribe a declaration that they would teach nothing subversive of the Westminster Confession of Faith. There was some laughter at this, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh got a little testy at it. This reminded him (Mr. O'Connor Power) of the opinion of a brilliant writer, that it required a surgical operation to get a joke into a Scotchman's head. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, when he made this admission about the Westminster Confession of Faith, really surrendered the whole case. The Irish people might have purchased peace long ago from England if they had been willing to sacrifice two things—the religion and the nationality of Ireland. But they refused to accept the bribe of the English Parliament at the expense of their religious or national convictions. Though the people of Ireland had had a long struggle to sustain education on Catholic principles against the richly endowed University of Dublin and the Queen's University, they had thought it right to make the sacrifice, and there were signs every day that parties were becoming convinced that no English Government could ever hope to settle the question of education in Ireland except upon a denominational basis, and one which would give Catholics the same advantages which Espiscopalian Protestants and Presbyterians enjoyed. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had borne testimony to the good intentions with which the system of the Queen's Colleges had been introduced. They had heard of a place paved with good intentions, but that did not make people anxious to go there. If an unjust and oppressive system was to be accepted because of the claim of good intentions on the part of its authors, the most

    869
    monstrous tyranny ever practised for the degradation of man might be justified. He was glad the hon. Member for Dungarvan had seized this opportunity of presenting the Irish view of the matter to the House; and he should lose no occasion of reminding the House and the Government of the day that the demand of the Catholic people of Ireland must be acceded to if they really meant to do equal justice. The Irish did not want any special favour, but they asked the House to look at the practical results of the present system, and they were convinced they would have to say what Lord Cairns and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had said, that University education in Ireland was scandalously bad, and that it was a scandal to Parliament and to Government that it should continue so.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, it was impossible for a Professor to teach properly under the mixed system. Hardly any question in Irish history had excited such controversy as the Great Rebellion of 1641, and on that subject Mr. Froude had been the accepted authority, until Mr. Leakie proved that the atrocities attributed to the Irish people were entirely false. There were a thousand matters in which conflicting views were taken, and he asked, how could history be discussed, and how could controverted points be worked out, if the Professors who taught it were not to touch upon points which might excite the religious susceptibilities of those to whom they lectured?
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYremarked that although the question had been brought before the House in an abstract form, it enabled hon. Members to understand one of the subjects which at the present moment gave so much uneasiness and anxiety to the Irish people. Lord Beaconsfield once described Ireland as an island surrounded by a melancholy ocean, in which the people were discontented because they were not amused. Education, however, was no matter of amusement, and it was because the Irish people were like other human beings that they reiterated their demand to be allowed the ordinary liberty of British subjects—to educate their children in the way which seemed best to them. They asked that those who desired secular education should have it, and that those who desired religious education should
    870
    have it; but the Irish people objected to Parliament giving them a system of a kind which did not exist in the rest of the three Kingdoms, and to compelling the Catholic people of Ireland to accept an education which some might call secular, but which was in reality denominational. Secularism and rationality were really religions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had felt the religious difficulty, and he proposed to eliminate from the teaching the whole of modern history, and everything connected with moral philosophy. And what was the reason why the proposal proved fatal to the right hon. Gentleman's Government? It was because he told a people fond of learning, such as the Irish were, that in order to concede what was requisite to their prejudices, he would eliminate two of the greatest subjects of education. He thus insulted, instead of conciliating them as he expected, and every man in Ireland felt that the English Government put upon him such an insult as had never been put upon an intellectual people before. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Ridley) was a promising young man, and it was not improbable that he might be sent to govern Ireland, he having the great advantage, which was generally looked for in a candidate for the post of Chief Secretary, of knowing nothing about the country which he was going to govern. As a Protestant he felt ashamed whenever this question was discussed in the House of Commons, because he felt that if the issue could be tried out before a Judge and jury, the verdict on the abstract justice of the case would be against the House of Commons. If there were a good sprinkling of Mahomedans in this country, the Government would do what they had done in India by providing for Mahomedan education, and not compel them to undergo the moral tortures of being educated in the atmosphere of a religion which was not their religion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had made a most inconsistent speech. Why, only the other day the University of Glasgow got a grant of money from the Government. For what purpose? To build a chapel in connection with their University where the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith could be taught to the students. They had been advised to rise above the

    871
    level of mere conversation; but he thought that no unprejudiced person who had listened to the speeches which had been delivered from that side of the House would deny that the question at issue was one of great importance, and that it had been advocated from their point of view with much ability. It was a noteworthy fact that two Members only on the other side of the House had taken part in the debate; and that fact might be accounted for in this way—that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not wish to advance arguments which they knew would be replied to effectively, and to have the debate thus stimulated. What the Irish people demanded in this matter was justice, and justice only. They required to be allowed to educate their children under a system of which they approved, and they would be satisfied with nothing less; and nothing could be fairer than such a demand. The subject had been introduced in a spirit of great forbearance, and no threats had been uttered or any disagreeable things said; but he trusted the House of Commons would remember this fact—that if it continued to violate the religious convictions of so large a portion of Her Majesty's subjects, it could not in fairness expect that there would be that union of hearts and minds which alone could make up a loving people.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not able to say anything new on this subject; but he would repeat some of the arguments used previously, as the greater part of the hon. Members then present had not heard the earlier part of the debate, and as, in addition, it was sometimes useful to repeat arguments which had been used before, for they then became more deeply engraven on the minds of hon. Gentlemen, and they were more likely to profit by the arguments which had been directed at them. He had not himself had the opportunity of hearing the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, who was also the Representative of the University of Dublin; but he believed that right hon. and learned Gentleman had devoted part of his remarks to dealing with the practical results of the teaching in the Queen's Colleges. If he had really made himself practically acquainted with this subject, he could not think that the result had been very flattering. The result was far better in the Catholic University, for there the
    872
    Professors did give really good teaching, but they had not power to grant degrees; and, as a consequence, the students lost the practical fruits of their labour. Now, in all walks of life they liked to have the prizes of their labour, and to have value for their work. But in the Queen's Colleges the result was very different. In Galway they had literally to bribe the students to attend the lectures, by offering a very large number of prizes, in proportion to the number of students; while the teaching given there was, he was informed, of the worst description. Yet students, who were practically uneducated, and were almost ignorant of the subjects taught, were competent to obtain valuable Scholarships, and were very likely to get them. If that was the result of mixed education, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any right to be proud of the practical result of the teaching in that College. In Cork, he understood, the case was not much better; while of Belfast he could speak more vigorously, because he knew the place from his personal knowledge. There was a pretty decent medical school there, and there was good teaching for the Presbyterians; but for the mass of the population—Roman Catholics or Episcopalians—it was an open failure. The Presbyterians, however, had utilized the College in a very judicious way, for they had built divinity schools immediately adjoining the College, in which they taught their students, and then sent them into the College for the rest of their classes, so far as the curriculum was suitable for their purpose. But there was no Episcopalian literary school in Belfast; and, in reality, the College was used almost entirely by the Presbyterians. Surely, then, the Queen's College of Belfast could not be said to be in a satisfactory state for the whole of the people of Ireland. It was of great value for a small sect in the North part of the country; but, so far as the nation generally was concerned, it was of no practical value whatever, and was a thorough failure. As to the teaching in Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) referred, he believed all the Professors at Edinburgh were bound to teach nothing contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But that was a creed which, he believed, no man living believed. Some 35 years ago he

    873
    was in the habit of going to a Presbyterian church, and there found out the way in which these affairs were managed. A number of elders were being ordained, and they had to make a declaration that they accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith. The clergyman who ordained them told them he only expected them to declare their belief in the Confession as at present understood. That must be the principle on which University education in Ireland was carried on. Again, although not universally so, he believed almost all the Professors were Presbyterians. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had, it was true, mentioned certain cases in which the Professors were not Presbyterians; but one of those was the case of the Professor of Mathematics. Surely there would be considerable difficulty in introducing anything of a theological character into the explanations of Euclid. In the teaching of mathematics, the religious views of the Professor surely might be made an open question, and it seemed that in Edinburgh that was done. On another occasion, on the election of a Professor of Greek, a Protestant Episcopalian was elected. If that was what denominational education meant in Scotland, they could put up with it very well in Ireland. If it were laid down in Ireland that nothing should be taught contrary to the Roman Catholic religion, nobody would object. Nothing would be said against it in Ireland. In these Queen's Colleges, however, so far from the Professors being Roman Catholies, they were, with very few exceptions, members of the different forms of the Protestant religion. Nobody could pretend that that was a satisfactory state of things in a Roman Catholic country, where the people wished their children educated in their own faith. Yet they could only have their wishes carried out where the Professors of debateable subjects were of their own faith, looking at all important matters of education from the same point of view. He did not intend to hold out any threats; but hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must not think it strange if this question was debated, not once or twice, but many times during the Session. In fact, they might make up their minds that they would hear a good deal on this subject until they settled it in a satisfactory manner. As to the Board
    874
    of Examiners, he had no authority to speak for the Roman Catholics, or to say what as regarded University education would be considered thoroughly satisfactory as a settlement; but he certainly thought he might say that the people would not pull down the flag if something unreasonably small were offered. An hon. Gentleman had said that he did not consider this Resolution was shaped in a very satisfactory form. If the hon. Gentleman who said that had heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), he would probably have thought differently; for, as it seemed to him, the case in support of the Resolution was put in a very conclusive and exhaustive manner. An hon. Gentleman should certainly hear a speech before he ventured to offer any criticisms upon it. If hon. Gentlemen took the trouble to listen to their speeches, they would probably then be able to form an opinion on a subject which was worth the attention of the House.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, no doubt the Members of the Government would be very much annoyed at the continuance of the debate; but they must not be surprised at it. The people of England had been both deceived and disappointed by the action of Ministers in regard to University education, and they had no right to be surprised that Irish Members should endeavour to force the subject upon the House. This was well known, and over and over again it should be repeated, in order to impress upon the Government how deeply the people were pained. The Government had undoubtedly deceived them. They had, to a certain extent, committed themselves; but in obedience to the advice of Orange Members from Ireland, and of some of their evangelical allies, they had endeavoured to ignore what they had partly promised, and had tried to set aside the wishes of the people of Ireland. This subject was of the greatest moment; it was, indeed, almost vital to Ireland. This question of mixed education was now being fought out, not merely in this country, but in every nation of the world. In the United States of America the common school system had been a bone of contention for several years past, and the Catholic Bishops of that country had called upon their flocks to come forward and sub-

    875
    scribe to schools that would give purely Catholic education, so deeply did they feel the necessity for it. In Switzerland and France the same thing was going on. The Conservatism of England—the spurious Conservatism of this country— would, no doubt, sympathize with revolution in France and with the Liberal majority in the Chambers there, so long as the revolution was not brought over to this country; but they must remember that that majority refused to give the education which the majority of the French people demanded. In Germany, also, the same struggle was going on. He thought, however, that the Government would hardly care to follow in Prince Bismarck's footsteps. It would not attempt to muzzle the minority, as Prince Bismarck had tried to muzzle the minority in the Reichstag. The Conservative Party in this country were pledged to denominational education, and had fought the Liberal Party year after year upon it. They were ready to cede to the Catholic minority in this country the right to denominational education in the primary schools and in the Universities, if necessary, and yet they would not give the same privilege to the Catholic people of Ireland. It was folly to suppose that the Catholic Irishmen would be satisfied so long as that right was denied them. The Catholic hierarchy recently proclaimed their wishes on the subject in the most formal manner, and University education would be made a vital question at the next General Election. The Liberals formerly held sway in Ireland, and the Irish votes year after year gave them a majority in that House. But a third Party had now grown up, which had broken their power; and was it wise, as a point of political tactics, for the Conservatives to force that third Party into the arms of the Liberals by refusing them the justice they demanded? They owed, besides, a debt of gratitude to the Irish Party, for during the present Parliament in every vote on education questions that Party had voted with the Conservatives. On this question of Irish education the people felt deeply; and during the Session their Representatives in Parliament would feel it their duty to force the question very strongly on the attention of the Government. The teaching in the Queen's Colleges was a mere farce; and if the Professors acted
    876
    honestly, must, by the nature of the terms under which they worked, be a mere nullity. In Belfast the College practically belonged to the Presbyterians; while in Cork and Galway the Catholic hierarchy had withdrawn the students from the Colleges. He believed the mixed system of education to be a most harmful one. Under Guizot it produced the Revolution of 1849, and later on its results were seen in the Commune of 1870. But the Irish were not a revolutionary people, and they held aloof from the troubles on the Continent. But though in England attacks on religion were allowed to go unchecked, and Atheism spread rapidly among their work-people, they did not want anything of that kind in their country, and would still endeavour to rear their children in the spirit of true religion, and in the spirit of true loyalty.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, though the Resolution was in an abstract form, there was no question which at the moment more deeply affected the Irish people than this one of University education; and, therefore, he was surprised that but one Member of the Government, and he not a Cabinet Minister, had risen to address the House. Yet, unless public rumour was a liar, for the last six or eight months there had been interviews, and conversations, and interchanges of views going on between various Members of the Government and representative Catholics upon this great question. When the Irish people read the report of that debate, they would ask why no Cabinet Minister addressed the House. Had the noble Duke, who at present occupied the post of Vice Regent, been communicated with? Had he represented to the Government the desirability—as a matter of prudence, of policy; above all, of justice—of considering the demand of the Irish people? Might not that noble Duke, who had now obtained considerable popularity in Ireland, have been able to come to some agreement on this subject? The Conservative Government had given the Irish Members a polite hearing on this subject; but it had done nothing else. No one had ventured to say that the Catholic hierarchy had demanded what was outrageous and could not be granted, because they knew such a statement would be incorrect. They

    877

    did not say that they were so overwhelmed with Irish Business that they could not attend to the matter. They could not say even that their attention was occupied by foreign affairs, for they all were assured the success of the Treaty of Berlin was great and manifest, and they now had the necessary time to turn their attention to domestic affairs. He did regret that the Government had not told them whether or no they had a policy, or whether they would be likely to have one before the end of the Session. There was yet time, however; and he did most respectfully beg to bring that question to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was afraid he could not enlighten his hon. Friend (Sir Patrick O'Brien) upon the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland. They were masters of their own secrets; and he supposed, for the present, they would have to wait to learn what was the proposition they were said to have made in Ireland—if it was not to remain for ever an undiscovered secret, like the history of the man in the Iron Mask, and the authorship of Junius. He had only risen to say that Irish Members must not think, if English Members did not take part in this debate, that it was due to any want of interest on their part in the subject. The reason was, that one of the first things English Members desired to know was exactly what Irish Members desired in this matter. That point, he was bound to say, was not so clear to them all as they would desire. They heard conflicting statements of what the Irish people did and did not desire; and, therefore, at present, they were somewhat in the dark as to what really was required. On the main question he thought it was practically admitted that this was not a fortunate proposition in its terms; because it did not refer alone to Irish University education, but was directed against mixed education everywhere. In England certainly they were not dissatisfied with mixed education. He admitted, of course, that because they were satisfied with it in England and Scotland that, therefore, it ought to be absolutely satisfactory and sufficient for the people of Ireland. But he was sorry that this question of University education in Ireland should be raised on this general Resolution; and he hoped
    878
    the subject would be brought up again during the Session in a more positive form. It was admitted that the Presbyterians were satisfied with the Queen's Colleges. If that were so, he did not see why they should be done away with. It was quite another question, however, whether they supplied what the Irish people—the Roman Catholic people— wanted. It would, therefore, be a very wise thing to provide some other scheme of education for them which they did not at present possess. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford had claimed the gratitude of the other side of the House for his Party for the way in which they had voted with them. He, and one or two others, it was true, had voted with the Government, and, therefore, had a very considerable claim upon its gratitude.
    MR. O'CLERYrose to explain. What he said was that in every question affecting education debated in the House during the last five years, the Irish Members had supported the Government.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member said that the Irish Members had merely voted in favour of denominational education, and he (Sir William Harcourt) had remarked that his support had gone far beyond that question; and that, therefore, he had a special claim upon the gratitude of the Government. There was, in fact, no Party question upon which they had not been sure of his support.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, he had not voted for the Government on the question of mixed education, but had walked out of the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would not discuss any longer the policy of the third Party, which was a policy he did not understand; but wished to say a few words on another matter. He thought the Irish Members ought not to suppose that the English Members upon either side of the House were at all indisposed to consider, and that with a view of arriving at a settlement, their desire for a system of education that would give more satisfaction to the Catholics of Ireland. His noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who had just left the House, had expressed the same sentiments in a statement made by him some months ago, when he said that there would be a desire to meet, in any fair way, the views of the Catholic

    879
    Members. An experiment had already been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone); but it had, unfortunately, failed, and other experiments had been talked of, but had not seen the light. It was an entire misconstruction of the intentions of English Members to suppose that there was any disinclination carefully to consider the question with a view to settlement. He had always been in favour of undenominational education; yet, as the majority in Parliament had established in England what was, practically speaking, a denominational system of education, he thought it would be unfair, on the part of a Protestant majority, to refuse to Irish Catholics denominational education. When the Irish Members brought forward clearly their views with reference to a system which could be established for meeting the requirements and demands of Irish Catholics upon University education, he could assure the House that it would receive from him the most careful and respectful consideration; because he did not think anyone could avoid seeing that the University education given at Dublin and in the Queen's Colleges, however well it might have been intended, had not met the requirements referred to, and that in one way or another some system must be discovered that would do so. At that hour he did not think that question could be advantageously entered upon. He had only risen for the purpose of saying, in answer to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that he must not suppose there existed the slightest unwillingness to consider, with the hope of arriving at a beneficial and satisfactory result, any positive proposition which might be brought forward by Irish Members.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to say a few words in reply to the hon. and learned Member (Sir William Harcourt), who had asked the Irish Members to state, if they could, what they desired with regard to Irish University education. He had, during the last six weeks, been in constant communication with all classes of Catholics in Ireland—amongst others, with three or four Bishops of the Catholic Church, and he could assure the House—speaking, of course, only for himself—that they desired nothing but an equitable settle-
    880
    ment. The form of that settlement he thought they were justified in leaving to the Government of the country, to whom the initiative belonged, as it was felt that no Bill introduced by a private Member would have any chance of success. He could assure the House that, as far as he was acquainted with the sentiments of the Irish Bishops, they desired nothing unreasonable, and were ready to accept any adjustment of the question by which equality should be secured.
    MR. CALLANcongratulated the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) on the change which had come over the spirit of his dream, when he found him expressing sentiments which were really encouraging to the Irish Members. As far as the experiment referred to by him as having been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was concerned, and which had, unfortunately, failed, he was of opinion that no speech made during the progress of that measure had tended more to bring that failure about than the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But what was the recommendation of the measure given by him? Was it that it gave satisfaction to the Irish Members? On the contrary, he had spoken of it as one which was equally unsatisfactory and distasteful to Irish Catholics and statesmen.
    DR. O'LEARYsaid, that whether Trinity College, Dublin, was denominational or not, it was largely permeated with the religious atmosphere; and he would mention the name of Professor Hoffman, of Trinity College, who had spent many years of his life in proving the consistency which existed between the Book of Genesis—that was to say, between religious and high scientific teaching. In that way Professor Hoffman had brought about a most healthy state of religious teaching within the walls of Trinity College, Dublin. There was an atmosphere about the College lecture-room which told the Professor that religion had not been divorced from science; and he (Dr. O'Leary) trusted the day would never arrive when that retrograde state would be reached.
    Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [Bill 88.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [Bill 88.]

    SECOND READING DEFERRED.
    MR. PARNELLreminded the Secretary of State for War that, with regard to a Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) in reference to that Bill, he had stated that he accepted the principle of the Motion, which declared that there existed a necessity for its careful consideration, on condition that no opposition was offered to the renewal of the present Mutiny Act. He also asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to recollect that hon. Members on his side of the House expected him to bring forward the Bill early, and afford opportunities, both on the second reading and in Committee, for working it into a practical measure. As the Bill contained many imperfections, and had not been satisfactorily considered, he hoped the Secretary of State for War would that evening give them some assurance that the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill would be brought forward for second reading as soon as possible, in order to enable hon. Members to consider it fully, and place Amendments upon the Paper.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick in the same sense as that in which it was offered—namely, with a wish to facilitate the Business of the House. He was very anxious that no time should be lost in the consideration of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. The time of year was advancing, and it was necessary that the Supplementary Estimates should be passed, in order to take the Vote for the money for the pay of the Army. He had arranged that the Bill should be brought in without delay.
    MAJOR NOLANinquired if it were correct to bring on the Bill before the men and money had been voted?
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied that the men had been already voted.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES ORDER (BLACKWATER, ESSEX) BILL.
  (Mr. J. G. Talbot, Viscount Sandon.)
  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES ORDER (BLACKWATER, ESSEX) BILL.

    [BILL 76.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Schedule.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT MR. J. G. TALBOT moved, in page 3, line 41, after "Colchester," to insert "Wyvenhoe," and after "respectively," to insert "at the Cinque Port and Board of Trade Warehouse at Brightlingsea."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MOTION.

    TEACHERS ORGANISATION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Bill for the Organisation and Registration of Teachers engaged in Intermediate Education in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Mr. ARTHUR MILLS, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, and Lord FRANCIS HERVEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]
    House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR SCOTLAND—Earl of Dundonald, v. Earl of Lauderdale, deceased (Certificate).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bankers' Books (Evidence)* (24); Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (25); Habitual Drunkards* (26); Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Army)* (27).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Considered—Third Reading—Exchequer Bonds (No. 1)*, and passed.
Committee—Bankruptcy Law Amendment (8).
Committee—Report—Debtors Act, 1869, Amendment* (9); Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment (11).
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*, and passed.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR SCOTLAND.
The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery delivered his certificate that the Earl of Dundonald had been elected a Representative Peer for Scotland in the room of the Earl of Lauderdale deceased.
SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— THE REINFORCEMENTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, it may be convenient I should state to your Lordships that a telegram has been received at the Colonial Office to-day from the Officer administering the Government of the Mauritius. It is dated March 3, and in these terms—
  "Tamar, from Ceylon, with reinforcements for Natal, arrived this morning. She leaves at
  790
  daylight to-morrow with two officers 60 men Royal Artillery and mountain guns from this garrison, in addition to troops brought from Ceylon."

EXCHEQUER BONDS (No. 1) BILL.
(The Earl of Beaconsfield.)
On the Motion of the Earl of BEACONSFIELD,
Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived: Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 8.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 8.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3, agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 4 (Interpretation of certain terms in the Act).
  THE EARL OF POWIS: I have given Notice to omit the words in the Interpretation Clause relating to resolutions passed without proxies as the simplest mode of raising the question whether proxies should or should not be abolished. I have had a communication with the Associated Chambers of Commerce sitting last week at London, and have received some pamphlets expressing their opinions against abolition, but equally in favour of regulation. I have also received communications from Manchester that the largest houses connected with the home trade there are in favour of their retention. Your Lordships will observe that the creditors in a bankruptcy are essentially a non-resident constituency. In one case, cited by the Chambers of Commerce, the bankruptcy in South Wales, where there were 78 creditors, was removed to Manchester at a meeting where two creditors holding proxies attended. In another, where the debts were £81,000 and the assets £42,000, and where consequently the estate was worth looking after, 46 were London creditors, and 48 country, including one in Switzerland and one in Australia. Then, again, as almost every County Court is a bankruptcy court, a large house may have to look after half-a-

  791
  dozen cases in as many counties at once. But this question not only affects commercial but agricultural interests. The farmer sells his corn to a corn dealer, the Suffolk farmer sells his malting barley to a large brewer at Burton. The Midland counties' farmer sells all his beasts to a salesman at Smithfield. The small Welsh farmer or local butcher sends the hind quarters of his Welsh mutton in the season to London, reserving the fore quarters for the local markets. If these are to leave their farms to look after their claims in a case of bankruptcy, it is obvious that they will be utterly disfranchised. The argument from abuse points to regulation, not to abolition. In your Lordships' House no Peer was allowed to hold more than two, and proxies were required to be entered a certain time before the debate. The picture of a Minister coming down to the House with a pocket full of proxies was nothing but a journalistic fiction. I have heard many vague statements as to abuse, but no instance except that of persons canvassing for votes for the appointment of trustees with a view to personal profit. Now, this abuse is much more effectually met by the clause which provides that a general meeting shall appoint a Committee of Inspection of five, who shall appoint the trustees. Again, when the interests are large, if proxies be abolished, it will be easy for those interested to pay the smaller creditors to go down and attend and vote as they are directed. The Bill does not state how far this exclusion of proxies is to be carried. It only mentions one question at one meeting in Section 21 where they are excluded. But it gives the Court an indefinite power under rules and orders of preventing their exclusion. This exclusion is a question not of detail for the Court, but of principle to be settled by the Bill. I trust your Lordships will decline to allow this disfranchisement at the discretion of the Court, and I beg to move the omission of the words of of which I have given Notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his noble Friend mistook those provisions of the Bill which referred to proxies. The Bill did not abolish proxies, but regulated their use so as to prevent the abuse of them which was now complained of. The object was to prevent the discharge of a bankrupt without the
  792
  mind of the creditors being expressly directed to that purpose; and this it was thought would be effected by the signature of a special resolution signed by a majority of creditors present at a meeting representing three-fourths in number and value. It would be in the discretion of the Court to allow or disallow voting by proxy for a special resolution.
  LORD SELBORNE, agreeing in the object, thought the clause required amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Extension of companies and large partnerships) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Petition and Acts of Bankruptcy).
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he objected to this clause, on the ground he had stated on the second reading, that it afforded great facilities to a man to have himself made a bankrupt. Since 1869 that had not been allowed; and it was not good policy to allow a person to put an end in that way to his full liability towards his creditors. The sounder principle was to allow his creditors to avail themselves of their power to make him a bankrupt.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the proposal had been for a considerable time before the public, and that he had not heard from any quarter an objection to it, while he was aware that in many quarters it was highly recommended. It was quite true that under the existing law a person could not be declared bankrupt on his own petition; but, practically, he could do so by availing himself of the liquidation clauses of the Act of 1869, and so enjoy the sweets—if there were such—without tasting the bitters of bankruptcy. Why should not a man who could not pay his debts be able to tell that to his creditors in Court as well as at a meeting? It must be distinctly understood that under this Bill a petitioner could not obtain his discharge without the consent of a large majority of his creditors or the order of the Court. It would be much better to allow a man who could no longer go on with a fair prospect of paying his debts to make himself a bankrupt by direct means than force him to

  793
  go from bad to worse in business, or to avail himself of such side means as those which were open to him under the existing law.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that it appeared to him that under the operation of this clause a bankrupt would be absolutely entitled to his discharge—that, in fact, that would be his right from the Court.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Regulations as to first general meeting).
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, it seemed to him that under the power given to the Court by this and Clause 18 to make rules, proxies might be abolished altogether.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would move an Amendment in the clause, which he thought would have the effect of preventing such a result.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Second general meeting).
  (The clause provides that the Court may summon a second general meeting of the creditors, at which a report shall be made upon the affairs of the debtor; that the meeting may thereon determine that an adjudication in bankruptcy shall be made against the debtor, or the proceedings in bankruptcy be stayed and the estate wound up under a deed of arrangement; the creditors might also at this second meeting, by a special resolution made without proxies, determine that the affairs of the debtor had been sufficiently investigated, and that he might be discharged by the Court. If no such resolution should be passed, and it should appear to the Court that there was no reasonable probability of the confirmation of a deed of arrangement, the Court was to make an absolute order for bankruptcy against the debtor).
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that this clause of the Bill required the most mature deliberation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to say that this clause should
  794
  be further considered before the next stage of the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

DEBTORS ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 9.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
House in Committee (according to Order).
Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 11.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 11.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, it would be well to insert a provision to enable the Lord Chancellor to appoint one Judge to take the place of another in the case of sickness or the like emergency. He thought such a provision very desirable, for, otherwise, very important business might be delayed by some sudden sickness or accident befalling one of the Judges. What had happened recently to a Judge of the Chancery Division showed the necessity of something being done.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that between the present time and the next stage of the Bill he would consider the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
(The Earl of Beaconsfield.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.