Sitting of 14 March 1884

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—AFGHAN WAR (GRANT IN AID), SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1883–4; CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1883–4). Resolutions [March 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Orders* [137].
Third Reading—National Debt* [128]; Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment* [108], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PARLIAMENT—PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.

    AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDER NO. 149.
    Standing Order No. 149 read.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he rose to move an alteration in Standing Order 149, relating to the proceedings of Committees on Private Bills, of which he had given Notice. He proposed to add to the Standing Order, inline 3, the following words:—
    "Together with a judgment upon the case stating the reasons and facts upon which their decisions are based."
    It would, perhaps, make the alteration more intelligible if he were to read the Standing Order as it now stood. It was as follows:—
    "The Chairman of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House whether the Committee shall or shall not have agreed to the Preamble or gone through the several clauses or any of them; or where the parties shall have acquainted the Committee that it is not their intention to proceed with the Bill; and when any alteration shall have been made in the Preamble of the Bill, such alteration, together with the ground of making it, shall be specially stated in the Report."
    He proposed to insert his alteration after the words "any of them." There could be no doubt as to the importance

    1521
    of the subject to which his Amendment related. The extent of capital invested in the various public works of the country rendered it a matter of the utmost importance that in dealing with Private Bill legislation, which was a great cause of expense, the uncertainty which now existed should be removed. It was most desirable that the decisions of the House should be uniform, and that those who were engaged in the prosecution of Private Bills should know the grounds upon which the decisions of the Committees were arrived at. He might state that in one item alone, that of railways, there had been invested up to the present year an amount of capital reaching £800,000,000, and there was an annual increment upon that one class of works amounting to about £20,000,000 annually. In addition to that, if the House would consider the sum invested in canals, for navigation purposes, gas and water, and in various other public works, they would find that the amount was as much or rather more than that which was invested in railways; so that they had £1,600,000,000 of money invested in great public works with an annual increment of more than £40,000,000—all of it invested out of the savings of the people of the country. Under those circumstances, he did not think there was any subject more deserving the attention of the House than the best way of improving the practice of Parliament in regard to Private Bill legislation. No doubt, all of them felt a personal interest in protecting the Constitution and their political rights; and most of the questions which affected the construction of the public works of the country went home to them personally quite as strongly as political questions. The present mode of conducting the Private Business of the House was admitted on all hands not to be satisfactory, and Resolutions had been passed at different times with the view of bringing about a beneficial change. He thought it was the late Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes) who stated, in a discussion which took place last year, that the course of proceedings in reference to Private Bills was not only dilatory, but costly and uncertain. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was quite right; and the question was, how was it possible to remedy that uncertainty which he (Mr.
    1522
    Robertson) believed to be the great cause of the expense? No doubt the practice had improved of late years since they gave up the plan of having very large Committees. He happened to be engaged before one of those very large Committees more than 15 years ago, when the Committee was composed of about 120 Members, and when the greater part of them never used to hear the case at all, but were whipped in by the action of the agents of the parties interested, and at the end a decision was arrived at quite irrespective of the evidence which had been given. Their practice had been much changed in that respect since; they had reduced the number of the Committee first to five, and then to four; but, unfortunately, they had not changed the mode of decision. It still was "Preamble proved," or "Preamble not proved," and there was no reason given to the parties who were suitors before a Committee to show how it was they had failed, or why they had succeeded. Now, if he had a case before one of the Law Courts he got a judgment with reasons assigned for it, whether they were satisfactory reasons or not. He was able to know, if he happened to fail, on what ground he had failed, and it became a precedent to guide future action. But if he spent hundreds and thousands of pounds in endeavouring to obtain the decision of a Private Bill Committee on an important case, affecting property to the value of millions of money, he was simply told "Preamble proved," or "not proved." There was no law, and there was no precedent, and all the labour which was brought to bear upon the proceedings of the Committee failed to establish any law to guide a future decision upon the same subject, however important it might be. It was to meet such a case that he proposed an alteration of the Standing Order. It was a very simple and small change, and would interfere in no way with the custom and practice of the House, except so far as making provision for a judgment to be given. He was aware that many plans had been tried and proposed, even to the extent of taking the decision out of the House altogether and altering the constitution of the Court which would have to give the decision. He agreed, however, that that was a very difficult matter, and he

    1523
    doubted very much whether it would he attended by any saving of expense if it were carried out. Probably they would hear his hon. Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Craig-Sellar) upon that point by-and-bye; therefore he would say nothing about it, further than that he believed the simple change he (Mr. Robertson) proposed would effect a valuable improvement in the conduct of their Private Business, whatever might he thought as to the propriety of constituting some other tribunal. There was one remarkable point which ought to be considered. If hon. Members would look at the Instructions given by the House to Select Committees they would find that they were upon very minute points. If it was the railway system that was affected the Committee were required to report upon such small matters as a level-crossing, and the alteration of an inclination of a road by which the gradient was made steeper; and in such cases, according to Standing Order No. 54, they had to give their reasons and the facts upon which their opinion was founded. Indeed, in a great number of comparatively small matters it would be found that Parliament did ask a Committee to assign a reason for its course of proceeding; but with reference to the Preamble of a Bill affecting property to the extent of millions of money and the interests of a large class of people, Parliament simply asked the Committee to say whether the Preamble was proved or not. Now, he did not believe that it was possible for gentlemen of higher position and culture to be interested with the duty of deciding these questions than the Chairman and Members of a Select Committee of that House. No doubt they devoted the utmost care and attention to the case laid before them, and heard with great patience everything that could be said on behalf of the different interests concerned; but if the public could have the result of that labour and care in a practical decision, stating the facts and reasons upon which the decision was founded, he thought the conclusions of a Committee would have very much more weight. Of course, he took a great deal of interest in this question, as he had been engaged in matters affecting the conduct of Private Bills before Committees of the House long before he had the honour of being a Member of it; and during that time
    1524
    he was able to speak from long personal experience, not only on what had been done inside the House in regard to these matters, but also out of it; and he was satisfied that if those who had charge of these Private Bills—namely, the solicitors, Parliamentary agents, and counsel—could have the labours of the Committee followed by a decision stating why the promoters of a Bill had failed, or why they had succeeded, they would be able to have their proceedings much better conducted and much more care taken in regard to them than, unfortunately, was the case under the present system of dark decisions. He also believed that if there were a decision with reasons accompanying each case, they would have young solicitors and counsel who would carefully follow all the cases together with the result of each, and a Parliamentary Committee would not be so close a tribunal as it was now. Much had been said about the extravagant fees paid to Parliamentary counsel. He believed that the counsel engaged in Private Bill Committees were men of the highest position and character, and that they were well entitled to be paid high fees; but still, at the same time, the infusion of a greater amount of competition into the same line of business would do no harm to the House or to the suitors in the Courts of the House. He quite admitted that, as far as he had been able to take the opinion of old friends who were counsel and Parliamentary agents, it was not altogether in accordance with the scheme he now proposed; but he was inclined to believe that they would rarely, if ever, get any approval of any change in the mode of legislation, or in the law, or in the practice of the law, from those who were engaged in it. He believed they would have to go rather to those who suffered from the results of the present practice than to those whose experience only induced them to resent any invasion of their interests in the present system. It was assigned also as a reason against the change that it would be very difficult to get a good Chairman to sit on a Committee hereafter upon questions of this kind. He did not admit that that would be so. Prom what he had seen of the Chairmen who presided over Private Bill Committees, and the patience and ability which they brought to bear upon the particular

    1525
    cases placed before them, he believed they would rather feel pleased and honoured by having their names connected with standard cases which might have been heard before them for weeks upon evidence of the most costly character, and with the mostdistinguished counsel to be found anywhere, taking part in the inquiry. He believed that the Chairman and Members of a Committee would be perfectly able to discharge their duty; to sum up every case submitted to them as judges, and to establish precedents for future legislation in regard to Private Bills. He was quite aware that there were many cases in which it would be difficult to find all the instances precisely analogous. No doubt that was true as regarded many of the facts; but there was a great similarity in most cases of the same class; and, whatever the facts might be, the principles that guided the decision ought to be the same, and the House ought to have such principles clearly stated, together with the reasons upon which the decision was given. He might add other reasons, but would not longer trespass upon the attention of the House. He was very much obliged to the House for having heard him so patiently, and he trusted that he might have directed their attention to a subject which was of very considerable importance to a large number of persons. He believed the change he suggested would be moat advantageous to the conduct of the Private Business of the country; and he would appeal not only to the judgment, but to the sense of justice of the House, whether, after having spent thousands upon thousands of pounds in bringing a case before a Committee and endeavouring to obtain a decision that would guide similar cases in the future, it was not desirable that there should be something to enable the promoters of a Bill to learn why it was they had failed, or why they had succeeded. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "them," to insert the words "Together with a Judgment on the case stating the reasons and facts upon which their decision is founded."—(Mr. Robertson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he thought it was almost to be regretted that his hon. Friend had not reserved his speech for the Motion of the hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Craig-Sellar), which was coming on somewhat later that evening. He was unable to assent to the conclusions contained in the Motion of his hon. Friend, any more than to some of the observations he had made. His hon. Friend stated, in the beginning of his remarks, that what he desired was that the decisions of the House should be of a character that would give general satisfaction. In that he (Sir Arthur Otway) entirely agreed; but his hon. Friend's complaint did not seem to be so much against the decisions of the tribunals of the House which now conducted its Private Business, as to the absence of reasons for those decisions. He thought he could show his hon. Friend, in a few words, that if his proposition was to have the effect he desired, it would be extremely inconvenient, because, under the present system, there was ample opportunity for ascertaining the opinions upon which the decisions of Private Bill Committees were founded. Those whose duty brought them to the House at an early hour must have observed the growing difficulty of conducting the Public and Private Business of the House. It was now the custom of the House to spend a considerable amount of time upon Private Bills; and the course proposed by his hon. Friend would so greatly extend the difficulty, that he felt certain the House, when they heard one or two of the observations he proposed to make, would hardly think the Standing Order should be amended as proposed. His hon. Friend did not concur in the wisdom of giving a judgment without assigning the grounds of that judgment. But it was not always good to give a reason. Reference had been made by his hon. Friend to the course taken by the Judges; but it must be remembered that the Judges pronounced an opinion upon matters of law, whereas the opinions of the Members of a Committee were entirely opinions as to matters of fact. At present, all such matters of fact were stated in the Preamble of a Bill—in that Preamble which his hon. Friend so much decried. The Preamble was, in point of fact, merely a statement of the facts on which the Committee

    1527
    were to form an opinion according to the evidence; and when the Preamble was proved, the facts so stated were adopted and verified by the Committee. His hon. Friend went further. Not content with desiring the reasons upon which the Committee might have come to a decision of which he disapproved, he was so greedy of knowledge that he actually desired to know the reasons of those who agreed with him. That he (Sir Arthur Otway) thought a most unwise desire; and he was not at all sure, if his hon. Friend heard the reasons of those who agreed with him, that he would be inclined to agree with the conclusion itself. He would point out to his hon. Friend that no harm whatever happened from the fact that there was not a statement of reasons laid before the House in regard to the decisions come to by a Committee. He would take a case in which his hon. Friend himself had been very much concerned—the case of the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Bill. That was a case in point. His hon. Friend was, no doubt, highly dissatisfied with the decision come to by the Committee in that House, and probably regretted very much that he had not the reasons of the Chairman in order that he might have criticized them. But when the Bill went up to the other House of Parliament, there was ample opportunity afforded for hearing what those reasons were, and for considering the decision of the Committee; and, if he remembered rightly, the decision of the House of Lords was that the Bill, when it came before them, should be re-committed.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, his right hon. Friend was not quite accurate in regard to the facts of the case. The Bill commenced in the House of Lords, and it was re-committed to that House from the Commons. The decision was in favour of the Bill.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, that was what he wanted to point out, or rather that certain statements were made which caused the Bill to be re-committed, showing that the parties were not entirely shut out from all opportunity of ascertaining what the reasons had been. That, however, was only one case among many others, as his hon. Friend would be perfectly well aware. At present, it was competent for any hon. Member to move that a Bill be re-
    1528
    committed; and when that course was taken, it was customary for the Chairman to get up and explain the reasons of the Committee, although he was bound to say that the House generally confirmed the decision of the Committee. His hon. Friend, however, in such a case would learn the reasons which had induced a Committee to arrive at a particular decision. But that was not all. Supposing that his hon. Friend was not satisfied and wished to go still further, it was open for him, or for any other Member, to question the Bill upon the third reading; and although it was an unusual thing for a Bill to be thrown out on the third reading, still it was an occurrence that was not altogether impossible. He would mention a case in point. A Bill was brought in some time ago which was very important as far as the Corporation of Birmingham were concerned. That Bill passed through Committee; but on the third reading the House reversed the decision, and, on the Motion of the present Sir Robert Peel, throw out the Bill. Therefore, ample opportunity was afforded by the present system for discussing a Private Bill, and ascertaining the reasons which had guided the action of the Committee. If the proposition of his hon. Friend were carried out the conduct of Private Business would be almost impossible. It would be met with endless obstruction. Anyone who felt wronged in any way by the decision of the Chairman of a Committee would criticize the reasons assigned, would collect his friends together, and the very thing his hon. Friend had very properly deprecated—namely, Lobbying and bringing up Members at the last moment to vote for a measure, would be greatly increased. That practice, which his hon. Friend justly condemned, would only be intensified and made more mischievous. He was satisfied himself that if the proposition of his hon. Friend was adopted it would be quite impossible to conduct the Private Business of the House in a satisfactory manner. At present, there was no real grievance whatever. The House was well acquainted with the way in which Private Business was carried out, and he thought they would see that his hon. Friend was raising a grievance which did not really exist. Certainly, the way in which he proposed to remedy it was positively mischievous.

    1529
    It would lead to endless discussion upon all Private Bills, the time of the House would be wasted, and no conceiveable advantage would be obtained by altering the Standing Order. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Motion. On the other hand, he thought a great deal of benefit might be derived by the House if his hon. Friend would enlarge his observations from his own personal knowledge, and give the House the advantage of his experience in connection with the management of the Private Business of the House.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not force the House to go into a discussion of this question, because it only touched a small portion of a large question, which could only be dealt with by a Government measure—namely, the larger question of how the Private Business of the House was to be dealt with. He would advise the hon. Gentleman to repeat his observations later on, as he thought it would be a pity to take up the time of the House now, especially in the absence of the Members of the Government, and considering the small attendance of Members in the House generally.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would be glad to be allowed to withdraw his Motion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (PARK RAILWAY AND PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT BILL).

  INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to move the Instruction which he had put upon the Paper with reference to the Committee upon the Park Railway and Parliament Street Improvement Bill—namely,
  "That it be an. Instruction to the Committee to provide for a junction of the proposed Railway with the Line of the Metropolitan District Railway between Westminster and Charing Cross, either by means of a physical junction or by an interchange station."
  As the House had a long discussion a few days ago upon this railway, it was not necessary that he should explain what the railway was. The House knew perfectly well the nature of the
  1530
  proposed scheme. On the Northern side there was to be a junction with the Metropolitan Railway; but on the Southern side the railway only ran just behind Parliament Street, and there was no connection with the Metropolitan District Railway. He thought the House would agree with him that if they could make some arrangement by which they could have this connection it would be of great advantage to the travelling public. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), when the discussion was on the other day, said it would be a great advantage to a considerable number of working people who would use the railway, and especially those who wanted to get to the Strand and to the City by way of the Embankment. They would find it very disagreeable, under the present circumstances, to get out and walk 100 or 120 yards from one station to the other. Perhaps it was necessary that he should explain the meaning of the words of the Instruction which referred to a "physical junction "and an" interchange station." He understood from the promoters that it would be difficult to have a physical junction at present. That was to say, a junction of rails that would allow of an interchange of traffic. Therefore, on the assumption that an interchange, by means of a physical junction, would be inconvenient he suggested in the Instruction the alternative of an interchange station. The House would know perfectly well what that meant. It would be necessary for passengers arriving by one train to get out of the train and go to another train upon another platform; and he left it to the Committee to say whether the junction should be a physical junction or by means of an interchange station. It had been suggested to him by one or two hon. Gentlemen that perhaps this Instruction might violate some of the Standing Orders of the House; but he had found on inquiry that such was not the case. The action of the Committee, assuming that the House adopted this Instruction, would be to obtain a pledge from the promoters of this railway that they would next year introduce a Bill to make this junction between the railways that would be necessary to connect the two stations. He understood that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Dickson), speaking on

  1531
  behalf of the Metropolitan District Railway, objected to the words "between "Westminster and Charing Cross," and wished the Instruction to say "between St. James' Park Station and Charing Cross." If his hon. and gallant Friend would move that as an Amendment, he was quite willing to accept it. He was told that there would be no opposition to the Instruction on the part of the promoters of the railway, and he therefore hoped that the House would assent to it. He could not conceive a proposal of a more reasonable character.
  MR. O'SHEAseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to provide for a junction of the proposed Railway with the Line of the Metropolitan District Railway between Westminster and Charing Cross, cither by means of a physical junction or by an interchange station."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MAJOR DICKSONsaid, that if the new railway was to be of any service at all to the public, it was absolutely necessary that there should be a physical connection. He therefore wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out, after the word "between," the word "Westminster," and to insert "St. James' Park Station." His hon. Friend said he had no objection to that Amendment, and therefore he (Major Dickson) would simply move it.
  Question, "That the word 'Westminster' stand part of the proposed Instruction," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'St. James' Park Station' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he had next to move the omission, after the words "Charing Cross," of the word "either," in order to insert, after the words "physical junction," the words "if practicable."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to provide for a junction of the proposed Railway with the Line of the Metropolitan District Railway between St. James' Park Station and Charing Cross, by means of a physical junction, if practicable, or by an interchange station.
  MR. CUBITTsaid, he rose to move the Instruction which stood in his name—
  1532
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to inquire to what extent the present block of traffic at Albert Gate will be affected by the proposed station there, and to make such recommendations as they may deem necessary."
  He did not think there would be any opposition to it. It referred to a matter which was not considered by the House the other night. It would be in the recollection of the House that it was proposed by this Bill to have a station on the East side of Albert Gate, between Albert Gate and Hyde Park Corner. The House would be aware that the block in the traffic at that part of the West End was very great, and the locality was constantly under the supervision of the police, in order to relieve the block as much as possible. Every afternoon in the summer it was necessary to station at least four policemen at that point. It was quite clear that a railway of this kind could not have a station at Albert Gate without very much increasing the block; and he was told that the residents of the neighbourhood were greatly alarmed at the serious inconvenience they were likely to be subjected to, unless something was done to relieve it. The House was aware that certain improvements which had been made recently had widened Hyde Park Corner; but at Albert Gate the roadway was still contracted like the neck of a bottle, and there was much obstruction in regard to vehicles proceeding up the Knightsbridge Road. In moving this Instruction, his Motion was not made in a hostile spirit, but in order to guard against the inconvenience which might arise if additional traffic was thrown upon a locality already congested.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire to what extent the present block of traffic at Albert Grate will be affected by the proposed station there, and to make such recommendations as they may deem necessary.—(Mr. Cubitt.)

QUESTIONS.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—THE TENANTRY NEAR GWEE-DORE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1533
  Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the last Donegal Quarter Sessions, when proceedings were taken by the local landlords against a large number of the Gweedore and other tenants by ejectment for non-payment of one year's rent; whether it is the fact that, under the existing County Court Rules, the costs on the tenants in these cases will be nearly equal to the amount of rent due, owing to the smallness of the holdings; whether he is aware that, though the County Court has jurisdiction in all such cases where the rent does not exceed £100 a year, and no matter how many years rent is due, the costs against the tenants are the same, no matter how small the rent, the minimum cost of a decree being £2 10 s. 10 d.; whether it is the fact that the fixing of the scale of costs in such cases is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and any five County Court Judges, and that the Lord Chancellor has lately had the scale of costs in County Courts under consideration with a view to its revision; and, whether it is proposed, having regard to cases such as those of the Gweedore tenants, to reduce the costs of decrees in ejectment for non-payment of rent where the rent due is trifling in amount?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Proceedings were taken against a number of tenants in this district, and from the records of the Court it appears that the amount due in each case was two years' rent. Decrees were granted in 40 cases, but on condition that there should be a stay of execution on payment into Court of one year's rent. Thirty-four out of the 40 tenants decreed made this payment and secured the stay of execution. With regard to the amount of costs in such cases, they are fixed by the Lord Chancellor and any five County Court Judges. I am advised that they cover the whole proceeding from beginning to end, and seem to be fixed with great regard to economy. The trouble in a small case is just as much as in a large one, and the amount of the rent is no test of the work to be done. The question of the revision of the civil bill costs has not been before the present Lord Chancellor; but his Lordship informs me that he will be happy to confer with the Chairmen to see if any revision may be proper or practicable.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ACTING MAIL GUARDS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, If he has received a Memorial, dated 30th November 1883, from the throe Mail Messengers who belonged to the late class of Acting Mail Guards in Ireland; and, if so, when may they expect his reply; and, if he is unable to grant their prayer by giving them even a promise of promotion to positions of nearly equal remuneration to those conferred upon their senior comrades, will he allow them to resign on compensation, or grant them the amount of emoluments which they can show to have forfeited while employed as Acting Mail Guards?
  MR. FAWCETT: The Memorial referred to has been for some time under my consideration. I believe in a week or 10 days I shall be in a position to arrive at a decision, and I shall communicate the result to the hon. Member for Monaghan.

  IRELAND—THE INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD—THE STAFF.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table Copies of the documents relating to the establishment of a permanent staff in the office of the Intermediate Education Board, including the recommendations made from time to time by the Board, the Report of the Committee recently appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and the Correspondence which has taken place on the subject since the formation of the office between the Board, the Irish Government, and Her Majesty's Treasury?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is not usual to lay on the Table Reports of Departmental Committees of Inquiry, or Correspondence of the nature referred to. I cannot undertake to make any exception to the usual practice in this case.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY-STOPPAGES.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Under what authority did the police authorities stop two and a-half per cent. from the payment of the Royal Irish Constabulary from 1836 to 1883;

  1535
  when was it discovered that this was illegal; what became of this money; if the stoppage was illegal are the Government prepared to refund the money with interest to the men who earned it, and in case of death to the next of kin; what fund was created by this money and is it still in existence; is it a fact that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are entitled to one-third of all fines imposed on persons under the Summary Jurisdiction Act in which they are prosecutors; was this third taken from them about 1838–9; was this money put into the same fund with the two and a-half per cent. deducted from their pay; what became of it and to what purpose is it appropriated; and, is it a fact that all fines imposed on members of the Royal Irish Constabulary from the formation of the force for breaches of regulation, &o. was put into the same fund as the two former items; and, if not, to what purpose was it applied, and what is the amount up to the present date?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The stoppages made from the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary on account of superannuation and the Police Reward Fund between 1836 and 1883 were in strict accordance with the Acts of Parliament in force at the time. They were, therefore, never illegal. There never was any accumulation on account of the superannuation deduction. On the contrary, the sum was always insufficient, and was supplemented by Parliament. Since 1866 there has been an accumulation arising from the deduction on account of the Police Reward Fund, supplemented by portions of fines in certain cases in which the police are prosecutors, and by any fines imposed on members of the Force for breach of regulations. The sum thus accumulated is about £105,000, and it is available for the purpose indicated by the Statute regulating it (29 & 30 Vict. c. 103, s. 9). It is liable for rewards to deserving members of the Force, and for gratuities to the widows and children of about 4,000 pensioners on their decease, and of men who may die in the Service. Men who joined after the passing of the Constabulary Act of last Session are not liable to any deduction on account of this Fund, nor are they or their families entitled to benefit from it. As regards the appropriation of fines to this Fund, the facts are that no member of the
  1536
  Force, as constituted in 1836, has, or ever had, any personal interest in, or right to, any portion of a fine imposed in a case prosecuted by him; nor is the Force as a body entitled as of right to portions of fines, except in certain cases of conviction for drunkenness in towns. Portions of fines may be awarded to the police by magistrates, and all portions of fines, however arising, have from the first been payable to the Police Reward Fund, pursuant to 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 13, s. 9.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—POLICE HUTS IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a police hut, removed about six months since from Kilmoon, Lisdoonvarna, county Clare, has been, or is in process of being re-erected; if this is for the protection of a man named Gardner; if he can state how many threatening letters Gardner has received; if he will state how many policemen are to be stationed at this hut, and upon what district the extra charge is to be levied; and, if he will state the distance, as the crow flies, from the police barrack at Lisdoonvarna to Kilmoon?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A hut is in process of being erected, and will be occupied by five men. They are intended mainly for the protection of a man named Gardner. Within the last 12 months this man has received two threatening letters, and a calf, his property, was maliciously killed. Early in last year his house was fired into. No district will be charged with the cost of the police. The distance from Kilmoon to Lisdoonvarna is about two miles as the crow flies.

  ARMY—THE NORMAL MILITARY SCHOOL.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether neither the head master of the Normal School nor the "upper" (head) master of the Model School is, or has been, an Army schoolmaster; whether the head master at the Hibernian School has filled his present post for thirty-eight and a-half years, has 158 boys to look after, and a fixed salary of £270, while the head master at Chelsea with eight and a-half years' service as head, and a total of

  1537
  twenty-seven years' service, has a salary progressing from a minimum of £270 to a maximum of £350 with only 100 boys in his own immediate charge; and, whether he will reconsider the advisability of removing the inequalities existing in this matter as between the two institutions and the two countries?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Normal School is a training school for Army schoolmasters, and the head master's duties are quite distinct from those of the upper masters of the Royal Military Asylum and Royal Hibernian Military School. He is a civilian, and has nothing to do with either of those schools. The upper master of the model school is not an Army schoolmaster; but all the under masters are. The other particulars in the hon. Member's Question are accurate. As regards the inequalities in the salaries of the respective head masters, it must be remarked that the principal duty of a head master is the charge of the whole school under him. I will cause further inquiry to be made, whether, judging by this standard, there is a case for increasing the salary of the head master of the Hibernian School.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—ANTRIM ARTILLERY—MAJOR JOHNSTON.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the communication of Major Johnston, Antrim Artillery, in March 1883, to the Adjutant General in Dublin, with regard to his conduct on the night the hotel at Carrickfergus was entered by a party of Officers, is substantially the same as his statement to the right honourable Gentleman?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he was not aware of any statement made by Major Johnston with regard to this occurrence, which took place 10 years ago.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—CASES LISTED AT NAVAN.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether cases listed for hearing before the Sub-Commission of the Land Court at Navan in April 1882 are still unheard, while many cases listed since then have been disposed of; if so, why?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners inform me that if there are any cases which were listed for hearing at Navan in 1882, and are still undisposed of, they must be cases for the adjournment of which there were special reasons. If any cases can be named by the hon. Member that were listed so long ago as April, 1882, the cause of their being still undisposed of can be explained.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—PARTY PROCESSIONS—OMAGH PETTY SESSIONS CLERK.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the statement that Angus Hannan, lately convicted by the Omagh Bench of Magistrates of carrying a loaded revolver in a proclaimed district, and of threatening a sentry with it, is not an Orangeman, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that it appears by the published Reports of the Grand Orange Lodge of Tyrone that Hannan has been for years a member of that body; whether one of the magistrates who tried the case, Major Auchinleck, had marched with Hannan in an Orange procession to disturb the meetings at Omagh and Dromore; whether the magistrates of the Omagh Petty Sessions Bench allow their clerk, Captain Rowley A. Miller, to be absent from his office for some days every week in contravention of the Law, and his duties to be performed by Angus Hannan, convicted as above mentioned; and, whether this state of things will be permitted to continue?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not quite know what the hon. Member alludes to in his statement that Angus Hannan is not an Orangeman. I did not make such a statement. I said the charge against Hannan was not a Party one, and likewise that the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates informed me he did not know he was an Orangeman. However, as a matter of fact, he marched in an Orange procession in which Major Auchinleck was concerned. I have seen no published Report of the Grand Orange Lodge of Tyrone, nor do I know that any such Reports are published. With regard to the duties of the Clerk of Petty Sessions at Omagh, I find the facts to be as follows:—Nine years ago the magistrates made regulations requiring Cap-

  1539
  tain Miller to be in his office at certain hours on certain days. They did not thereby release him from responsibility for duty that might arise on other days; and he has been warned by the present Registrar that permission from the Justices would be no excuse for absence if it led to substantial difficulty in public business. The Clerk has been in the habit, with the sanction of the Justices, of sometimes employing Hannan to act in his absence. This has not been permitted since the latter was convicted of carrying arms without licence in a proclaimed district.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CORONERS' EXPENSES.
  COLONEL NOLANasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If Coroners, when obliged by Law to attend at assizes during the trial of prisoners committed by them on the verdict of the Coroner's jury, are entitled to the expenses caused by such attendance, or are they bound to defrav such expenses out of their own pockets?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER), in reply, said, that Coroners, when obliged by law to attend at Assizes during the trial of prisoners committed by them, were not entitled to expenses: but if they were summoned by the Crown Solicitor their expenses were paid by the Crown.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS-FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE—COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER—IRISH PRIVY COUNCIL ORDERS.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the uncertainty entertained by certain public bodies in Ireland as to the scope of the Irish Privy Council Order, No. 961; and, if so, whether he would explain the Order in question to the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware that any uncertainty exists with regard to the Order referred to, the object of which is to give powers of compulsory slaughter to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease to such Local Authorities as wish to have such powers. A similar Order was passed in England a fortnight ago. Happily, there is not much reason to apprehend that many Local Authorities in Ireland will require
  1540
  to exercise the powers given by this Order, as foot-and-mouth disease exists now in only one place in the country—Dunshanghlin, in the county of Meath. It may, therefore, be of great importance, in the event of the disease reappearing, that Local Authorities should have the power of stamping it out at once.

  WEST INDIES (JAMAICA)—FOOD TAXES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Secretary of State intends to give effect to those parts of the Report of the recent Royal Commission in reference to Jamaica which propose to retain the greater part of the taxes on food; to place an increased and differentiated tax on land without reference to its use or quality, but only to the size of the holdings, small properties paying 1s. per acre, and large properties 1½d. per acre; and, after abolishing the District Courts, to throw a greater share of the minor judicial work into the hands of unpaid magistrates?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Secretary of State is waiting to receive the views of the Colonial Government and Colonial Legislature on all the recommendations of the Royal Commission; but in the despatch of the 1st of December, which has been laid before Parliament with the Report, a qualified concurrence has been expressed on the subject of District Courts, and with the proposal to utilize to a greater extent than heretofore the services of the unpaid magistrates,

  MALTA—FOOD TAXES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether anything has been done to relieve the poorer classes in Malta of the unequal taxes on food, as recommended by Her Majesty's Commissioner, Mr. Rowsell, some years ago?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Proposals for the diminution of the wheat tax have been brought before the Colonial Legislature; but they have been invariably opposed by the elected Members. In view of the declarations made by successive Secretaries of State, that the official majority shall not be used to override the elected Members in matters

  1541
  purely financial, and of mere local concern, Her Majesty's Government do not think it right to carry these proposals by that majority. The matter must now rest with the people of Malta themselves.

  ARMY (INDIA)—MAJOR HUTCHINSON.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Major Hutchinson, late of the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, was, on August 16th, 1880, ordered out to India at a few days' notice, being thus put to the expense of an Indian outfit, &c, although it was known at the time that he would be compulsorily retired in a short space of time; whether it is usual in such cases to send such officers to the depôt; whether, having landed in India on 12th September, 1880, he was compulsorily retired on December 31st of the same year, in accordance with Royal Warrant; whether he at once applied for a passage home but, through no fault of his own, was unable to receive one till January 25th, 1881; whether he was struck off Indian pay and allowances from December 31st, 1880, and had to revert to the ordinary English half-pay; whether by G.G.O., No. 482, of 1877, paragraph 6, he was entitled to Indian pay and allowance till the date of his leaving the station; and, whether it is the intention of the War Office in any way to compensate this officer?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The rule is that if a battalion is ordered out on active service all its available officers go with it; but if it proceeds on ordinary relief, officers about to be retired are detained in this country. The battalion was ordered on active service in August, 1880, when a continuation of operations in Afghanistan was expected. Major Hutchinson was placed on retired pay under the provisions of the Royal Warrant from the 1st of January, 1881. He applied at once for a passage home; but was unavoidably detained for 24 days at the port of embarkation. He received Indian pay and allowances up to the date of quitting his station, and British half-pay from that date. This was entirely under, and in accordance with, Indian pay regulations, over which the War Office has no control. I am not prepared to say that the case was not a hard one; but as Major Hutchinson was treated strictly in accordance with
  1542
  the Regulations applicable to all officers, I do not see how he can be granted exceptional advantage in the way of compensation.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVER PRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS—CASE OF WILLIAM HAYWARD.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Birmingham Daily Mail, of March 8th, to the effect that a child named William H. Hayward, aged seven, has died from over-pressure of work at St. Mary's School, Wolverhampton; and, if there is any truth in the report?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My attention was called to the paragraph in question, and I sent it down to Her Majesty's Inspector for his Report thereon. It appears there was no inquest, and no evidence taken as to the cause of death. The doctor who was called in expressed his opinion that the child died from brain fever—the exciting cause being school work. Her Majesty's Inspector doubts both these conclusions, and asks for a post-mortem examination; but the child is buried, and I have no power to make such an order. He says the child complained chiefly of sore throat; that he was a delicate boy of seven years of age in September last; that he had no home lessons; and that although he lived near the school and the teacher frequently passed the house no complaint was ever made by the parents. The boy had recently passed the first Standard. It seems impossible that this child can have been over-pressed.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether the Inspector who had controverted the doctor's opinion had himself received a medical education?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am unable to say that.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA OFFICERS—STATISTICS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing, by ranks and by years, the number of persons who have been appointed as Officers to the Militia during the last five years, and also the number of Officers, specifying their rank, who have left the Militia during

  1543
  the same fire years; with a gross total of appointments and a gross total of retirements for the five years?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. and gallant Member can have the Return if he will move for it.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)-THE POLAND STREET WORKHOUSE INQUIRY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether Mr. J. D. Bliss, the master of the Poland street Workhouse of the Westminster Union, sent up twelve ounces of suet pudding, about midday on the 22nd of December last, for the dinner of an inmate named Henry Gorman, who died two hours afterwards; whether it was reported to the master, the previous day, that Henry Gorman was in a dying condition; whether it is the duty of the master to visit, every night, the male wards of the workhouse, and whether, on the night of Friday the 21st of December last, the ward in which Henry Gorman was located was so visited by the master; and, whether it was the duty of the master to have seen that Gorman was not left unattended, either during the day or night, after notice was received of his being in a dying condition?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: As I stated yesterday, the medical officer not having ordered special diet for this unfortunate man Gorman, though I think he ought to have done so, the ordinary diet was supplied. The master ought to visit the male wards before 9 o'clock every night; but on the night in question he did not do so, as he was at a meeting of the Guardians. The master was informed that the man was very ill, but not that he was dying. Two out of the eight beds in the wards were occupied by wardsmen, and during the day the man had a paid attendant.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (PATRONAGE)—OFFICIAL RECEIVERS.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is compatible with the duties of an official Receiver in Bankruptcy to act as an election agent; and, if such is the case, whether the performance of electioneering functions by a salaried official is in contravention of the provisions of the
  1544
  Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act of last Session?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, there was nothing in the Bankruptcy Act prohibiting a Receiver in Bankruptcy from acting as an election agent, nor would his doing so be in contravention of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act. There was, in fact, nothing but the good feeling which controlled the extent to which such an officer might take part in an election which could supply any rule on the subject.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE—GENERAL GRAHAM'S INSTRUCTIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the instructions which this House was informed had been sent to General Graham, to confine all offensive Military operations to those necessary for the defence of Suakin, have been modified or supplemented?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Since my hon. Friend gave Notice of the Question which he has put, I have looked through all the telegrams which have been received from or despatched to General Graham; and I think it might be productive of some harm if I were to refer in detail to those telegrams before receiving from General Graham a reply to the message which, as I said yesterday, I had sent to that gallant Officer. I may say, however, that the instructions sent to General Graham in the first instance have not been modified in any material respect; but I do not wish the House to accept my own opinions as to those instructions until they are in the hands of hon. Members. The only telegram I have received from General Graham in the course of to-day is the following:—From Major General Sir G. Graham to the Secretary of State for War (despatched Suakin, 14th March, 3.20 P.M., received 3 P.M.)—
  "Sheik Mahmoud Ali believes that when news of Osman's defeat yesterday has spread among tribes they will become peaceful, and the Berber road will become clear in about 10 days."
  I have telegraphed again, asking the General to send further details as to his movements, and asking for lists of killed and wounded.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask the noble Marquess whether General Graham is free to go to Berber?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think I had better defer any answer until I have received the further Report of General Graham.

  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT—REGIMENTAL PAYMASTERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there are at present six Cavalry Regiments, one West India Regiment, and twenty-nine Line Battalions, in which the pay duties are administered by Acting Paymasters or Committees; if he will state the number of Officers of the Army Pay Department who have retired from the Service, but, in consequence of the small number of probationers for the Department, are still employed by the War Office; whether the duties of Chief Paymaster, in the Woolwich and North British Districts, are entrusted to Officers who have so retired; and, whether the Commissariat Department, on its formation, was granted higher rank and pay on account of the great responsibility involved in the charge of the Treasury Chest; and, if so, why the same privileges are not accorded to Officers of the Army Pay Department, to whom are entrusted now these same duties?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: The Army List will show that there are six Cavalry regiments and 29 battalions which have not Paymasters attached to them; to 13 of these, however, Paymasters have been detailed; but the fact of their having joined has not yet been notified in The Army List. The West India Regiments are allowed one Paymaster only. There are seven officers on the Retired List of the Army Pay Department, who are temporarily employed in consequence of the Department being under its establishment. It may be here mentioned that since the beginning of this year 12 officers have applied to become candidates for the Department. The duties of Chief Paymaster in the Woolwich and North British District are being performed by officers on the Retired List temporarily, only until the arrival home of Chief Paymasters from foreign service. The rank given to the Commissariat Department was not granted with reference to Treasury Chest
  1546
  duties only, but mainly on account of the other duties for which that Department is responsible. When the Pay Department was formed in 1878, the highest rank in it was that of Major. Since then the ranks of Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel have been given to the officers in charge of the principal stations, and abroad these are the officers who have custody of the Treasury Chest. At the few stations abroad, where an officer of this rank is not serving, the officer in charge is always granted additional pay for the responsibility of the Chest duties.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—ETIQUETTE OF THE BAR.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General, If there is a rule or understanding in force at the English Bar by reason of which a member of that Bar does not practise in any Court in which his father presides as Judge?
  MR. WARTON: I rise to Order. I wish to ask, Sir, whether it is in Order to put this Question on the Paper because the hon. Member may have a personal animosity to some County Court Judge?
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. and learned Member is in Order in imputing feelings of personal animosity to an hon. Member?
  MR. SPEAKER: I see nothing irregular in the Question of the hon. Member for Sligo.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): There is no such rule or understanding that I know of. In practice, there are a great many instances to the contrary.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that at a convenient opportunity I will move that such a rule or understanding be established, especially with regard to Ireland.

  CATTLE IMPORTATION—LOSSES OF CATTLE AT SEA.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of the losses of live cattle, sheep, and pigs, destined for British ports, which have been thrown overboard at sea, through stress of weather, during the past year?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, he would furnish as full a Return as was possible.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (for Mr. CHAPLIN)asked, with reference to the progress of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, Whether the Government will proceed with the Second Beading of that measure at the earliest possible opportunity after the present necessities of Supply have been disposed of; and, whether they will take the Committee on that Bill before the next stage of the Representation of the People Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the first part of the Question, I have to say that the Government propose, with the concurrence of the House, to proceed more expeditiously than the hon. and gallant Member asks. The Government would ask the House to agree to take a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next for the purpose of proceeding with the second reading of this Bill. With regard to the last Question, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that it is impossible for the Government, and I believe it would be absolutely without precedent, to make any announcement as to their intention in regard to a stage of the Bill subsequent to the one which has not already been reached. I am, therefore, quite unable to say what would be the course of the Government in regard to this Bill until the second reading has been disposed of.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to know whether the Government would postpone the sitting of Committees on Private Bills on Tuesday next if the second reading of the Bill relating to contagious diseases of animals was to be taken at a Morning Sitting on that day, inasmuch as many hon. Members who took a great interest in the question, and would probably wish to speak upon it, were Members of Committees which would be sitting at the time?
  MR. HEALYasked if there would be any advantage gained by taking the Bill at a Morning Sitting, because it would probably be talked out?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think it is impossible to assume the
  1548
  second reading of a Bill of this kind would be talked out at a Morning Sitting until we hear more opinions in regard to it. With regard to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I conceive that inconvenience, whatever it may be, must occasionally occur in connection with Committees whenever Morning Sittings are taken. I am afraid this is the only arrangement that it is in the power of the Government to propose for the purpose of facilitating the progress of this Bill.

PARLIAMENT—SELECT COMMITTEES—DISCLOSURE OF PROCEEDINGS.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. ONSLOW: I wish to call the attention of the House to a matter which is personal to myself, and to put a Question to you, Sir, as I consider the matter to be one of importance in a public point of view. I am a Member of the Select Committee on Indian Railways, and that Committee met, according to the usual notice, at 3 o'clock on Wednesday last. I deemed it my duty then to raise a protest to which I will not further refer, as I am under the impression that everything stated in the Committee Room is strictly private and confidential. When I went into the room I think there were three Gentlemen present, one reporter for the Press, and two gentlemen connected with the India Office. Some Member of the Committee remarked that the proceedings were private, and we had the room cleared of all except the Members of the Committee. It was then that I made my protest; and to-day a friend of mine remarked that he had seen that I, as a Member of the Committee, had objected to a certain Gentleman as Chairman. I immediately said to him—"How do you know anything about that? Everything said there was strictly private and confidential, and there was no reporter present." My friend replied—" I think I saw an account in The Times or The Standard." I looked into those papers, but found no reference to the matter. Unfortunately, I did not see The Daily News of yesterday, but I have obtained a copy since; and I will read to the House the paragraph which appears in that paper—
  "A remarkable incident took place yesterday at the meeting of the Committee on East India Railways. Mr. J. K. Cross proposed Mr. Baxter

  1549
  as Chairman. Mr. Onslow, protesting that such an appointment would be unpopular in India, proposed Mr. W. H. Smith. Mr. Smith declining to he nominated, and Mr. Onslow's proposition finding no Seconder, it fell to the ground, and Mr. Baxter was elected Chairman."
  I may say that that is an entirely garbled and grossly untrue statement of what took place, and I do not feel it my duty to state exactly what did take place; because, as I said before, the proceedings were of a private and confidential character. But if these garbled statements are to appear of what takes place on confidential matters in a Committee Room, I fail to see of what use Committees will be. Hon. Members know very well that, time after time, a Committee Room is cleared when the Committee are engaged in discussing matters in private; but if these private conversations are to get into the newspapers in a way that is grossly untrue, the whole object of appointing Committees of this nature will, in my opinion, be defeated. I do not bring the question before the House as exactly a matter of Privilege; but I have deemed it my duty to say these few words, because the same thing has happened time after time, and may be constantly repeated. There can be no doubt that, when a Committee Room is cleared, what afterwards takes place in the Committee should not be allowed to appear in the newspapers. If nothing is done to check the system, I am afraid the wretched habit we have of lobbying in the House of Commons, by members of the Press, will go on increasing more and more every day. I am sorry that the paragraph should have appeared in a newspaper, because there is a semblance of truth in it; and, as far as I am concerned, I can honestly say that I should have been the last person in the world to have said a word outside the Committee Room of any of the transactions which took place in the Committee Room itself. I wish to give the House an assurance that I have had no part whatever in circulating the report which I have read.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Member for Guildford, I have to say that no doubt the hon. Member has rightly stated the Rule which applies to the proceedings of Select Committees of the House of the nature to which he has referred. They are of a strictly
  1550
  private and confidential nature; and it is a circumstance very much to be regretted, and highly irregular, that the details of what passed in the Committee, after the room was cleared of strangers, should have been made public, especially as I understand an erroneous version has been published.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POSTPONEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Before the Orders of the Day are reached, I should like, if I may be allowed to do so, to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) and to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Rendel). If they were present in the House at an early hour this morning they will recollect the statement that was made as to the position of the House in regard to the Business of Supply, and especially the Supplementary Estimates. It was explained by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unless those Supplementary Estimates were disposed of this evening it would be necessary to do what the House was always unwilling to do—resort to a Sitting on Saturday. I am very unwilling to make such an appeal at so early a period of the Session; but those hon. Members who have on the Paper Motions on going into Committee of Supply this evening would be rendering very great service to the House, and taking a course which would be very much to the convenience, and, I believe, to the satisfaction of the House, if they could be prevailed upon to postpone those Motions, and enable the Committee to resume Business on the further consideration of the Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, the appeal of the noble Marquess placed him in an embarrassing and delicate position. He had, with great difficulty and with some good fortune, succeeded in getting the first place to-night for raising a discussion on a matter of very considerable interest to the House and of importance to the country; and he might say that he had received communications with regard to it from England, Scotland, and Ireland, urging him to proceed with his Motion. At the same time, he felt that on a question of this kind he was

  1551
  in the hands of the House. If it were I the wish of the House that he should give way on this occasion, he should not stand in the way of the remainder of the Supplementary Estimates being proceeded with. He was well aware that the threat of a Saturday Sitting was a serious affair; but he saw that there were several other Motions upon the Paper, and he did not see the use of his giving way unless the hon. Members having Motions upon the Paper agreed to give way also. Several of those Motions were of great importance; and the one which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Rendel), with reference to Aberystwith College, was of even greater importance than the one which he hoped to have the honour of submitting to the House. He did not know whether the other hon. Members intended to give way. ["No!"] He was entirely in the hands of the House. If other hon. Members gave way he would not press his Motion.
  MR. RENDELsaid, he felt himself to be somewhat in the same position as the hon. Member who had just sat down. He should greatly regret to stand in the way of Public Business; but his Motion involved a subject of deep interest to a large body of persons, seeing that recently no fewer than 130 public meetings had been held with regard to it. It would be with great reluctance that he should forego the advantage he had obtained for his Motion; but he also should place himself in the hands of the House in the matter. He should have an opportunity of calling attention to the subject on the Estimates.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that in reply to the very modest request of the noble Marquess that private Members should practically give up all their rights, he also placed himself entirely in the hands of the House. If, in the opinion of the Leaders of his Party, he should be furthering Public Business by so doing, he would withdraw his Motion (respecting the Government of Jamaica). He had given way last Session at the request of Her Majesty's Government, and he now appealed to their sense of fairness to allow his Motion to be brought on.
  MR. WARTONwas of opinion that the position in which the House was placed was the result of the mismanagement of the Government, who had deliberately chosen, knowing the require- 1552
  ments of the law with regard to the Estimates, to waste the time of the House, first of all, on the first night of the Session, by having present a Minister who was not to speak, and absent a Minister who was to speak; then by wasting a day on their pet subject—Grand Committees—and two other days on the Reform Bill. For his part, he did not feel inclined to give way.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he did not think that the concessions made by hon. Members opposite would tend to the advancement of Public Business, seeing that there were 14 Notices of Motion upon the Paper; and, therefore, he hoped that hon. Members opposite would not give way.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he ought to have explained that he could not possibly have asked his hon. Friends the Members for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) and Montgomeryshire (Mr. Rendel) to give up the positions they had obtained, unless there was a general agreement among those who had Notices on the Paper that they would postpone their Motions. With regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), he understood the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had obtained a place on the Paper for a discussion on the same subject, and the hon. and gallant Member would have then an opportunity of making any statement.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if Her Majesty's Government would give him a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the death of Michael Watters in Mountjoy Prison he would give way.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, his Motion (a Motion calling for the dismissal of Captain Plunkett, P.M.) was of considerable importance, and affected a large district, and he could not forego any opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that with regard to the request of the hon. Member (Mr. Healy), he might say that all the Papers relating to the case of Watters were before the Royal Commission on Prisons; and the Commission, he presumed, had the confidence of all shades of politics in Ireland. The matter involved by the Motion of the hon. Member for Mallow had been gone into thoroughly in the discussion on

  1553
  Vote 31. He earnestly trusted that the hon. Members would not stand between the House and the discussion of the remaining Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. HEALYremarked, that in August last he had called the attention of the Government to the fact that Michael Watters was dying; but instead of releasing him they had released another man, under the pretence that he was dying. Michael Watters was now dead, and he wished that the circumstances should be inquired into.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked whether, in the event of an arrangement being come to, the Government would take the Report of Supply on Monday?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that Supply would be the first Order of the Day on Monday, when the Army Estimates would be taken. The Report of Supply would be taken afterwards.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he did not know whether he had anything particular to say upon this subject; but from what he had read in the public journals he certainly understood that it was contemplated last night to hold a Sitting of the House on Saturday. That was not a very popular proposal to make; but, doubtless, it had been made for the sake of getting the Votes passed within the necessary period. He must confess that, looking at the number and character of the Notices upon the Paper for this evening, he did not think it was likely they would be cleared off in time to take the rest of the Supplementary Estimates; and, therefore, he was scarcely surprised at the appeal which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had made to those hon. Members who had Motions standing upon the Paper in their name. Of course, if those hon. Members would waive their rights they might hope to be able to avoid a Sitting on Saturday; although, if it were necessary that such a Sitting should be held, many hon. Members were prepared to sacrifice their personal convenience for the public good. With regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), to which the noble Marquess had referred, the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was down for Tuesday in Easter week,
  1554
  and therefore it was not very likely to be taken.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that his Motion stood for the Tuesday preceding Easter week.
  MR. HEALYsaid, if the hon. Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) did not bring on his Motion he would bring his.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILL LEGIS. LATION.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLAR, in rising to call attention to the system of Private Bill Legislation; and to move—
  "That this House adheres to the Resolution of March 22nd 1872, that the system of Private Bill Legislation calls for the attention of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government, and requires reform; that this House, while maintaining the ultimate control of Parliament over Private Bill Legislation, is of opinion that a Tribunal, to take the place of Private Bill Committees, should be created which should investigate the facts and deal with the evidence relating to Private Bills, and, so far as possible, in the locality affected by such Bills, whether in England, or in Scotland, or in Ireland, and report thereon to Parliament,"
  said, that, in bringing this Motion before the House, the best thing he could do was to recall to the House the position in which it stood with regard to this Resolution, and also with regard to the general circumstances which surround the question of Private Bill legislation. For 50 years there had been continual dissatisfaction and grumbling with regard to the manner in which Private Bill legislation was carried on. The matter had frequently been brought before the House. Committee after Committee had sat to consider what was the best means of amending the present state of things. The Library was full of material and valuable information, for nearly all the information which could be obtained had been already secured. But they were no further on than they were 50 years ago. In 1872 the question came nearer solution than it had done before or since. In that year the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-

  1555
  cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster brought forward a Resolution in almost identical terms with the first part of the present Motion. The right hon. Gentleman brought the matter before the House in a speech which had been practically the text-book of the subject ever since. The Resolution was carried, and it was declared to be the opinion of the House that the system of Private Bill legislation called for the attention of Parliament and Her Majesty's Government, and required reform. Twelve years had passed since then, and something like £9,000,000 had been spent on Parliamentary litigation. They had had a series of haphazard and unsatisfactory decisions, and small towns and centres of industry had been prevented from carrying out useful projects owing to the expense of Parliamentary contests. Great monopolist Railway Companies had crushed out their humbler rivals, and all that time the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman had remained a dead letter. Last year the matter was revived. The old arguments were brought up, and the familiar figures were again quoted. The discussion was an interesting one, but the Resolution proved abortive. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking on behalf of the Government, had practically accepted the first Resolution which was on the Paper, and the Speaker was on the point of putting the Question, when, by the interposition of an hon. Member, whom he was glad not to see in his place on the present occasion, the House was counted out, and so another year was lost, nearly another £1,000,000 was spent, more doubtful decisions were given, and they were no further on than they were before.
  But though no direct results ensued from the discussion of last year, he could say with confidence that there had been very material indirect results. He had received communications from many parts of England, from Ireland, and from Scotland, calling attention to the unsatisfactory arrangements that existed at present, and pressing him to bring the matter before the House, and not to rest until the Government had taken it up with the intention of dealing with it in a thorough manner. In Ireland the grievance was one of old standing, and it was a real and very serious grievance. A few years ago many Bills were intro- 1556
  duced by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland; but these Bills came to nothing. The same excuse was always given, that it was impossible to legislate for one part of the Kingdom alone. The grievance still remained. Only last year the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) stated that the present system of Private Bill legislation was fatal to the industrial resources of Ireland. He did not think the hon. Member said a word too much in making that statement. On February 21st, at a great meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, a Resolution brought with much force before the meeting by a well-known gentleman from the Sister Kingdom was carried in favour of such a proposal as he now submitted to the House. In his own country—Scotland—and he thought every Scotch Member would agree with him—the grievance had been long and seriously felt. Prom the great distance that Scotland was from the Metropolis, the grievance was felt there even more keenly than it was in this country. From the large burghs—Edinburgh, Greenock, Dundee, and other places—he had received urgent requests to go on with this Resolution. At a great national meeting upon a cognate subject, the magistrates of all the principal towns in Scotland brought forward this matter, and urged it upon the meeting. From the smaller burghs the complaint was universal. The complaint was not that the expense of Private Bill legislation was excessive, but that it was absolutely prohibitory to anything like industrial enterprize. In one burgh which he knew intimately there was a demand for a new water supply. The drinking water was not sufficient, and summer visitors who would come to that town were prevented from coming because the water was so scant. That was a small burgh, with a modest income; it could not face a Parliamentary contest; it would be bankrupt if it did. Another burgh wanted to get a better means of lighting; but the authorities were afraid of the expense. In another flourishing burgh, which had been isolated for many years because it stood apart from the main stream of enterprize, the inhabitants had, with great difficulty and trouble, succeeded in raising sufficient capital to start a branch railway connected with the main line; but if any landlord, through whose land this rail-

  1557
  way would pass, should oppose the scheme, the result would be that the whole of the capital that had been subscribed for the construction of the railway would be eaten up by a Parliamentary contest. The consequence was that that burgh, which was eager to be connected with the centres of industry, and to keep itself abreast of the increasing prosperity of Scotland, was condemned to isolation, perhaps to decay, not owing to a want of energy or enterprize on the part of the inhabitants of the burgh, but owing to an old-fashioned system of legislation, without a parallel in any civilized country, which so taxed the enterprize and industry of the town that they could not push any matter in that direction for fear of bankruptcy. Hence it was that he had received many letters urging him to bring this matter before the House; and these letters must be his excuse for obtruding the subject again on the attention of the House.
  Last year the House treated him with kind indulgence, and he took that opportunity of expressing his thanks to the House for its courtesy on that occasion. He knew he must not again trespass at any length on the indulgence of the House. His object that night would be not to repeat what he had said before, but only to state such new facts as had come to his knowledge and were before the House and the country since last year.
  The objections to the present system were threefold—that the expense was ruinous; that the decisions of the Committees were uncertain and unsatisfactory; and, above all, that the public time of Members of Parliament was occupied and engrossed by matters which they were not specially fitted to inquire into, and they were thus deprived of the opportunity of attending to matters which they were much better able to understand. Last year many instances were cited of the extravagance of the present system. These arguments were not gainsaid, and they could not be gainsaid. What was said was that this extravagant and expensive procedure belonged to the old time—to the bad old days of railway speculation and railway legislation. But was this so? Last year they had no official data of recent date on this matter. There were some isolated cases adduced; but they were brushed aside as being excep-
  1558
  tional. Since last year one or two remarkable cases had been before the Committees, and the House had got a series of official Returns which gave very valuable and useful information upon that point. Of the isolated cases he should only mention one, and that was the scheme of the Manchester Ship Canal. That Bill occupied much time, and proved abortive. It was thrown out in "another place" without any reason assigned for it. The Committee of the House of Commons found that "the Canal would afford valuable facilities for the trade of Lancashire, and ought to be sanctioned." The Committee of the House of Lords found, according to the usual formula, that "it was not expedient to proceed with the Bill in the present Session of Parliament." No spark of light or guidance, no reason assigned why it was not expedient; but it was merely stated that it was not expedient, and no kind of assistance was given to the promoters to help them in bringing forward a more satisfactory scheme. The Bill was 39 days in Committee of the House of Commons, and 10 days in Committee of the House of Lords. The cost of the scheme was not included in the Returns before the House, because the Returns only came down to the end of 1882. But hon. Members would see that in the case of a Bill that had been 49 days in Committee, attended by most of the talent and experience of the Parliamentary Bar, the expenses could not have been trifling. But they were not altogether without guidance. Evidence was given only yesterday, by the promoter of the scheme, to the effect that the costs of the Canal Bill to the promoters amounted to over £60,000, and they proposed to raise an additional sum this year, which would bring the expenses of the two years' contest up to something like £100,000 for the promoters alone. And when it was remembered that the scheme was opposed by all the great Bail-way Companies in the North of England, he did not think that he exaggerated when he said that the whole cost of the two Bills would be between £150,000 and £200,000. There was an-other scheme before a Committee last year—namely, the Barry Dock scheme. That Bill was 27 days in the Committee of the House of Commons, and the Preamble was found proved unanimously,

  1559
  without calling upon counsel for the promoters to reply. It then went to the Committee of the House of Lords; it remained there 16 days, and it was thrown out without any reason assigned. They did not know whether that Committee was unanimous or not. There was no record. The consultations were held, as was usual, with closed doors, and we were left in darkness whether there was division of opinion or not. If the Bill had been before a Court of Law, they would have known how the opinions of the Judges had gone. In Committees we did not know. We were left behind a thick veil, which it was impossible to penetrate—even if it were decorous to attempt to do so. That Bill, he was informed, cost the promoters over £30,000; but he did not know the cost to the opponents. He thought be had shown that the expenses of modern legislation were not less costly than in the bad old days of railway legislation.
  But there was a stronger argument to be gathered from the Returns before the House. The first of these Returns was a Return of the expenses incurred by Railway, Gas, and Water Companies in promoting Bills in Parliament from 1872 to 1882. There was a similar Return from Canal, Tramway, and Dock authorities; and a further Return from Town Councils, Local Boards, and other local authorities. These Returns, he was bound to say, were not entirely satisfactory. Some of them were redundant, and some of them were defective. They were redundant inasmuch as they gave in several instances the expenses, comparatively trifling, of Provisional Orders, which had not been asked for; and they were defective inasmuch as several Railway, Tramway, and Dock Companies had sent in no Returns at all. But, as they stood, they showed the following figures, which were to his mind somewhat startling. During the years from 1872 to 1882 Railway Companies had spent on Parliamentary litigation £3,900,000; Gas Companies, £356,000; Water Companies, £380,000; Canals, the modest sum of £40,000; Tramways, £375,000; Harbours and Docks, £360,000; Municipal Boroughs, as far as they had got Returns, and Local Boards, £1,300,000; making a total in 11 years, as returned, of £6,700,000 spent in promoting Bills in Committees of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords. But
  1560
  this did not represent the whole, as there was no Return from landowners and others who must have spent large sums in defending their interests. Taking an average of £28,000 a-year for these unknown quantities, which was a low average, they would be well within the mark if they said that there was a total in those years of £7,000,000 spent in Parliamentary litigation, and they would not be much above the mark if the annual expenses were put at £750,000 a-year. He found that in the old years, from 1856 to 1861, the average spent by Railways was £250,000; but in the 11 years since then they had spent £350,000, or £100,000 a-year more. Gas Companies had spent in the old time £13,000 a-year; in the new time they had spent more than double, £32,000. Water Companies in the old times spent £14,000 a-year; in the new time £34,000. The leading Railway Companies—excepting the London and North-Western Company, which gave a defective Return—had an average expenditure, from 1856 to 1861, of £82,000 a-year; in the second period it was £128,000 a-year. Those figures hardly bore out the view that those great expenses were only incurred in the old time. He thought they might say, with the old adage, that these expenses had increased, were increasing, and they ought to be diminished. He had found that in those 11 years 14 Railway Companies had spent among them £2,500,000; six English boroughs, and not the most important, spent £200,000; and two Scottish boroughs (Glasgow and Greenock) no less a sum than £138,000 in this species of legislation. Attention had been directed to these Returns in some of the leading organs of public opinion; and the leading organ, which had always been a true friend to any attempt to remedy this serious grievance, had pronounced these expenses to be "stupendous;" and he did not think hon. Members would consider that epithet too strong. During the last 50 years, from £35,000,000 to £40,000,000 had been spent in the Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in litigation. The money had been paid to procure Parliamentary sanction for useful industrial enterprizes, and it was the public who paid this money, through shareholders of the various Companies concerned. Of

  1561
  course, the shareholders paid the money in the first instance; but the Directors did not wipe off those sums as bad debts. They recouped themselves by charging heavy freights and heavy tariffs. They were constantly hearing in the House of exorbitant railway charges. Those who represented the agricultural interests in this House were continually calling for some legislative enactments to compel Railway Companies to charge more moderate rates. But there was no use in asking the House to pass compulsory tariffs. They should ask the House to relieve them, and to relieve itself at the same time, by going to the root of the matter, and by changing this expensive Parliamentary tribunal. The House and the public could be relieved by the establishment of another tribunal that would do the work at half the money and with twice the efficiency.
  He would not dwell upon the second count of the indictment—namely, that the decisions of the Committees were sometimes injurious and unsatisfactory. That was proved in 1872, and it was proved last year, and nothing had occurred to disprove it. It was admitted that Committees of this and the other House brought great industry, great zeal, and the highest sense of honour to bear upon their inquiries. But they were a fluctuating Body, and therefore must have less experience than would be the case with a permanent Body. They were also, for the most part, unfamiliar with the rules of evidence, and they were unable to hold their own against the strongest Bar in existence. It could not be said that the Committees, either of this or the other House, were a thoroughly satisfactory Body to give a decision on difficult and delicate questions involving large pecuniary interests. But he would not press that point further.
  The first and second objections that he had alluded to were crying evils—namely, the heavy expenditure and the unsatisfactory decisions. But there was another difficulty, and that came nearer home to them—the Parliamentary difficulty. The difficulty of manning these Private Bill Committees existed in both Houses. Twenty years ago Lord Redes-dale had practically admitted the difficulty, because he stated in Committee that he was only able to take a fraction of the Bills for initiation in the House
  1562
  of Lords, owing to the impossibility of manning the Committees in that House. The difficulty still continued. The average number of Bills which the House of Lords could undertake was only about one-third of the whole. The other two-thirds were therefore left for initiation in this House. In this House they were in no better position. It was admitted, on all hands, that the work of the House was excessive, and was more than they could undertake or carry out satisfactorily. The recent Autumn Session was an admission of the fact that they could not go on as they were doing. They had passed Rules which were more or less efficacious; but the important result arising from the Autumn Session was the establishment, as an experiment, of the machinery of the Grand Committees. They had now had a discussion as to the re-establishment of those Grand Committees; and, as far as he could judge, the universal opinion of the House was that those Committees were important institutions, and that in all probability, if they were successful this year, for the future they should have not two, but several Grand Committees. The question therefore was, how were the Grand Committees and the Private Bill Committees to go on together without clashing? Last Session there was a very serious case of clashing between those Committees. The hon. Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget) was appointed Chairman of a Railway Committee. He was also an invaluable Member of the Standing Committee on Law. On one occasion, it so happened that the hon. Member had to preside at the Railway Committee upstairs at the same time that he had to move certain Amendments in the Law Committee downstairs. He had to do one thing or the other, and he adjourned the Railway Committee. That adjournment was at great public cost. The witnesses and counsel were there, and the machinery and paraphernalia of the Committee were there. The matter ended in the only way in which it could end—namely, in the hon. Gentleman being discharged from the Chairmanship of the Railway Committee, and the Railway Committee being deprived of the services of an able and experienced Chairman. If he might be allowed to give an instance from his own experience, he might state that he had served on a Private Bill Committee

  1563
  last year, ably presided over by the right hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay). His hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) was also a Member of that Committee; and it so happened that when the Committee was sitting the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill was under discussion in the House of Commons. In this Bill all the Scotch Representatives and the whole Scotch nation were much interested. There happened to be a number of Divisions on that Bill in Committee, in which they, the three Scotch Members sitting on the Private Bill Committee, considered it their duty to take part. There was the difficulty experienced by the hon. Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget) of being in two places at once. Their duty to the House called them to attend to the Private Bill Committee upstairs; their duty to their constituents called them to take part in the Divisions downstairs. They were torn in pieces by this conflict of duty, and he feared that both the Committee and the constituents suffered in consequence. Asking pardon of the House for this digression from the subject, he would express the hope that they might have an expression of opinion from the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Sir John Mowbray). So far they had not been favoured with the right hon. Gentleman's opinion; but they had the opinion of an active Member of the Committee of Selection on this subject—the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff)—that the existence of the Grand Committees had the effect of doubling the work of the Members. That was a very important admission, and he did not think it was too much to say; because he believed it would come to be a question, not whether they were to abolish the Private Bill Committees, but whether, owing to the difficulty of manning them, they would be able to continue them. There was another question which he wished to ask the House, and that was, had the public the same confidence in the decisions of the Private Bill Committees that it was at one time supposed to have? And in this connection he would cite the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who last year admitted his apprehension that
  1564
  the present practice was losing the prestige and the confidence that used to attach to it in the eyes of the public. He thought there were few hon. Members who did not share that apprehension. They were told that the Committees of the House of Lords inspired more confidence than the Committees of the House of Commons, because they were a more stable Body. That might be so—he did not know; but if they considered the number of Bills that of recent years, and especially the last two years, had gone through this House and been thrown out in "another place," it would seem that the increase was remarkably greater. Prom 1870 to 1881 there were only two Bills on an average each year which had passed the House of Commons, and which were thrown out in "another place;" but in 1882 no less than eight Bills were thrown out, and last year six were thrown out, by the House of Lords after passing this House. He did not know whether this or the other House was right; but it looked as if this wholesale destruction of Bills tended to show that the confidence in "another place" of the wisdom of the Committees of this House might not be quite so strong as it used to be. And he did not feel quite certain that they, in this House, had absolute confidence in their own Committees. Everyone was aware how debates in the House on the second reading of Private Bills had multiplied. And what still more showed that the House had not the same confidence its Committees it once had was, that they had now continual Instructions to Committees which, though not unheard of at one time, were unusual. If the public and Parliament were losing confidence in these Private Bill Committees, what defence remained for them? If the question came to be whether the Private Bill Committees or Grand Committees should give way, there could be little doubt how the verdict would go. The verdict would be in favour of devolving the work of this overtaxed Assembly on the Grand Committees. It would not be in favour of continuing a system which entailed stupendous expenditure, which was unsatisfactory and uncertain, which wasted the precious time of the Members of Parliament, and which had apparently lost the confidence of Parliament and of the public.

  1565
  Before concluding, he wished to make a few observations in reference to the Resolution he submitted to the House, because it differed in some material respects from those of last year. Then he submitted three Resolutions. The first was in general terms, and was the same as the beginning of the present Resolution, and that was carried at the instance of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1872. The second Resolution proposed three Commissions—one for England, one for Scotland, and one for Ireland; and the third Resolution proposed an appeal from these Commissions. The scheme formulated by these Resolutions was subjected to severe criticism, and it was then obvious to him that the opinion of more experienced Members was not favourable to it. He had, therefore, this year withdrawn the second and third Resolutions, and proposed to substitute one general Resolution. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster objected to the three Commissions, on the ground that there would not be work for them. His (Mr. Craig-Sellar's) present proposal was that there should be only one Commission to deal with this work, and that there ought to be a Scotch and Irish branch of this tribunal for dealing with Scotch and Irish Business. He did not know if his idea would meet with the approval of his Colleagues from Scotland. They had in Scotland 13 Judges of the Supreme Court. Their work, no doubt, was considerable; but, as compared with the work of the Judges in England, or even in Ireland, it was not excessive. It seemed to him that one of these Judges might very well be detailed to act as the permanent element in the Scottish branch of the tribunal, and he might be assisted by two assessors, either mercantile or engineering, or men of high position in other Professions. His idea, further, was that this Scotch branch should take evidence and deal with the facts in the locality, assisted by the local Bar, and in some small cases by local solicitors. He felt certain that that would be a satisfactory tribunal in Scotland, and he had very little doubt a similar tribunal would be successful in Ireland. In England his idea would be the extension of the Railway Commission, or something in the fashion of the Railway Commission might very well be appointed. They ought to be men highly
  1566
  paid, so that they would be above any sort of suspicion. There was no difficulty upon that score, as far as funds went, because, according to the Returns which had been presented to the House of the fees paid to the House of Commons and the House of Lords, there was a sum of £70,000 a-year which was available for the purpose of paying this tribunal and all its staff and branches. The plan would work in this way—Bills would of course come before this House as at present, they would go before the Examiners, would be read a first and second time, and, instead of being sent to Committees upstairs, they would be sent to this tribunal, which would report to Parliament, and the Bills would then go through the other stages of Parliamentary procedure. He had not mentioned the question of appeal, because he did not want to cumber the Resolution; but if such an appeal as was suggested last year should be thought necessary, a Joint Committee of both Houses might be appointed. By this scheme the time of 100 to 150 Members of Parliament would be saved, objections to Private Bill legislation would disappear, and the public would regain confidence in the decisions of Parliament in these matters. He had no doubt that this scheme, like that of last year, was an imperfect one. The main objection, however, which was urged last year he had met as far as he could; and as to the other objection, concerning the preliminary work, he had not attempted to deal with that. This House was jealous of any attempt to curtail its jurisdiction. He did not propose to do that. He proposed to relieve it of troublesome and vexatious work, which it did in a clumsy and unsatisfactory way, and with a vast expenditure of time and money. If the Government were to propose a more unceremonious and sweeping method of dealing with this private legislation, he should give them his hearty support. He believed public opinion was ripe for its being taken in hand and dealt with thoroughly; but a private Member could not do it. A private Member could only call attention to a real grievance when it existed. He could ask the House to change an old-fashioned system, which interfered with enterprize in small and not over wealthy communities, and tended in these communities to stagnation and decay, and he could invite the House

  1567
  to relieve itself of work which it did in an unsatisfactory way. But no private Member could formulate a scheme of reform of the internal machinery of this House which would be approved in all its details. That was a work which could be done only by a responsible Government, and the present Government was just such a Government as could deal with this matter in a thorough and satisfactory manner. He trusted the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who had long taken such a deep interest in this matter, would be able to accept the Resolution, and that he would give the House an undertaking that the Government would really deal vigorously and seriously with the question, so that ere long they might see this long-standing grievance swept away; that they might see the old system, with all its deadening influence on industry and on enterprize in small communities, disappear; and that they might have in its place a new and better system, inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman himself, which would command the confidence of Parliament and of the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he cordially seconded the Resolution, without committing himself to all the details of his hon. Friend's speech. He had been reproached for taking up this subject on account of his lack of practical experience, but that was to some extent a qualification; for if he had been a more regular attendant upon Private Bill Committees it might have been said that he was selfishly seeking his own relief at the expense of his public duties. He believed there was a very general feeling in all parts of the House that some reform was necessary. With regard to the solution of the problem as to what would be the best line in which reform in this matter could be best and most usefully carried out, it appeared to him that it rested between a proposal for legislation by means of Provisional Orders and a proposal to transfer the inquiries to an external Body of Commissioners. He owned that he was in favour of the second of those two modes; in the first place, because it would involve very much less change than the other; and, in the second place, because he could not think that legislation by
  1568
  means of Provisional Orders would be satisfactory, either to the House or to the country. It must be remembered that the House exercised extraordinarily little control over these Provisional Orders, and in his experience there was very rarely any discussion or debate upon them. The inquiries upon which they were based were all conducted before they came to the House, and there was no opportunity of giving instructions, or laying down any principles on which the inquiry should be conducted. Then, again, Private Bill legislation would become more and more a matter of routine in the Department in which it was conducted; and considerable jealousy might be felt, both in the House and in the country, if that great and most important part of the duties of Parliament were handed over to a Public Department. He did not say, however, that there would be any grounds for any such jealousy. That being so, he would feel more confidence in the inquiry being conducted after a Bill had been brought into the House. The first great requisite which, in his opinion, ought to be aimed at, was to maintain the control of the House over Private Bill legislation. He thought it most important that the House should keep in its hands the guidance and control of the general policy which was to be followed in dealing with the subjects with which Private Bills dealt, and that there should be free scope for the expression of local opinions by the Constitutional means of the voice of the Representatives of the localities in question. What the nature of the proposed external Body should be, how its Members should be chosen, and what their numbers should be, were all matters of detail, though they were most important. Speaking for himself, he thought that inquiry by a single good Commissioner would be better than inquiry by two or three, for this reason—that one competent Gentleman would give his undivided attention to the inquiry, instead of dividing the responsibility and attention with two or three others. As to the qualifications of this Commissioner, he should think he ought to be a Gentleman with a practical acquaintance with the conduct of inquiries of the kind, and with the elementary rules of evidence at least, and also with engineering and financial questions. As to the question of local

  1569
  inquiries, that seemed to him entirely a matter of comparative convenience and comparative expense. Where it would be necessary to retain the most eminent engineers and counsel it would probably prove less expensive to conduct the inquiry in London. On the other hand, he could conceive other cases where questions of fact, upon which the evidence of local witnesses might be required, would occur, and where it would be less expensive and more convenient to conduct the inquiry in a particular locality. The House should, however, remember that in proposing this Resolution it was not intended to put forward any matters of detail. The only object was to submit to the House some general principles upon which that reform, which he believed the majority of the House desired and regarded as necessary and expedient, should be conducted. He begged to second the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House adheres to the Resolution of March 22nd 1872, that the system of Private Bill Legislation calls for the attention of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government, and requires reform; that this House, while maintaining the ultimate control of Parliament over Private Bill Legislation, is of opinion that a Tribunal, to take the place of Private Bill Committees, should he created which should investigate the facts and deal with the evidence relating to Private Bills, and, so far as possible, in the locality affected by such Bills, whether in England, or in Scotland, or in Ireland, and report thereon to Parliament,"—(Mr. Craig-Sellar,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he thought that the hon. Member who introduced this Resolution could scarcely have considered how vast was the change they were asked to inaugurate. That change was not so simple a matter as the hon. Member appeared to imagine. The difficulties which attended Private Bill legislation arose, in a great measure, from the inherent character of such legislation, and not from the character of the present tribunal. The hon. Member condemned the existing system on the ground that it was uncertain and expensive. It seemed to him, however,
  1570
  that the result of a demand for legislation in connection with which a question for consideration was how far public policy sanctioned interference with private property must inevitably be to a great extent uncertain. As to the question of expense, he would ask whether the costs incurred in cases like that of the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, or the Barry Docks Bill, were out of proportion to the interests involved? Whatever tribunals might be set up in lieu of the present Committees, great Companies would always employ the best counsel to represent them, and would not hesitate to incur great expenditure in the prosecution of their aims. The necessity for a great expenditure was in some degree a guarantee of the bona fides of the promoters of new schemes. Bogus schemes were not brought forward when large sums must necessarily be spent. As to the demand made upon the time of Members by Private Bill legislation, he might point out that while, 20 years ago, the average number of Private Bills, opposed and unopposed, which were introduced, was 600, the average for the last few years was only 300. In 1882 there were 159 opposed Bills, there being 145 Members on the Committees appointed to consider them, the average of their service being six days each; and in 1883 the number of Bills was 131, the number of Members 112, and the average of service nine days each. The hon. Member who had brought the Resolution forward expressed the opinion that the Private Bill Committees did not now command the confidence which was formerly placed in them. He feared that this loss of confidence, if there were such loss, not only attached to the Committees in question, but also to the discussions and decisions of Parliament itself. The hon. Member had cited eases in which discussions had been raised in that House on the Motion for the second reading of certain Bills approved by Committees; but that such discussions were raised did not show a want of confidence in the decisions of the Committees, but rather that the House was desirous of undertaking all the work which it could possibly get through, and disliked parting with any of its powers. It should be borne in mind, also, that the questions which had been mentioned as having been discussed in the House last Tuesday were exceptionally im-

  1571
  portant. Surely the Parks Bill and the Ennerdale Railway Bill were fit measures for discussion in the House? He quite agreed that useful schemes ought not to be rendered abortive in consequence of the expense attaching to proceedings before Committees; but it was a matter for consideration whether the new tribunal proposed by the hon. Member would have the effect of lessening the present expenditure. It was very doubtful whether it would have that effect. Local inquiries were anything but cheap, as was shown by the costs of Election Petitions, which used to he heard in London. Counsel who would be content with a refresher of 10 guineas in London expected 50 guineas in the country. If the House should consent to delegate its powers in the manner proposed, it would be necessary to lay down a scheme of policy for the guidance of the Commission. Such a Body would have to adopt either the American system, which allowed one railway to be made by the side of another, or to follow the practice of guarding against undue competition capital laid out with Parliamentary sanction. Before Parliament parted with its present powers, it ought to be clearly shown that the Body to whom those powers would be committed would give by its decisions as much satisfaction as had hitherto been given by the Committees. He trusted that the House would, at any rate, only part with its powers by way of experiment.
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, as one of the oldest Members of this House, and a close observer for 30 years of the working of the Parliamentary machine, I wish in a sentence to express a deep feeling of obligation to my hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) for having devoted so much time and attention to this subject; and also to express my cordial and complete concurrence in the Resolution which he has moved to-night. That Resolution falls naturally into three parts—first, it states that the system of Private Bill legislation requires reform; then it proposes the establishment of a tribunal, not to act altogether independently of Parliament, but to do the bulk of the work, which, I submit, is perfunctorily performed by the Private Bill Committees; and, in the third place, it proposes that Parliament should lay down a rule that it is not necessary
  1572
  in all eases that the evidence should be taken in London, but may, when circumstances permit of it, be taken on the spot. I was very glad to hear the speech delivered by the hon. Member who has just sat down (Sir John Kennaway), because he has not ventured to oppose the Resolution of my hon. Friend; but, on the contrary, has accepted the fact that the present system of conducting the Private Business of this House has been condemned by the public, and all he has done is to interpose cautions and objections which, I hope, will be listened to when, at a time not far distant, this system is changed. We are supposed here to be an Imperial Parliament, and yet a very large portion of the time of the House of Commons is devoted to objects not only of a quite local character, but of comparatively trifling importance. There might be some principle involved in the Ennerdale Railway, or the railway across the parks; but these were not questions to which a couple of evenings of the House of Commons ought to have been devoted. We met last year and altered our form of procedure in a very mild manner, as I humbly think and said at the time; and allow me to say now what I said then—that unless we are prepared to go a great deal further in that direction, we shall have an irresistible cry for Home Rule, not only from Ireland, but from Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend stated that the principal thing done in that Session was to create Grand Committees. Well, I look forward not only to these Committees being appointed year by year, but to the gradual extension of their work; and I put it to the House, if we are to continue the system of Grand Committees, how will it be possible to get Members to attend Private Bill Committees, and decide upon Railway and Gas Companies? I am sure that statement will be borne out by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, who is very much put about to get Members at the present time. A tribunal, no doubt, will have to be extremely carefully appointed. My hon. Friend does not lay before the House any definite scheme, but says it is for the Government to bring forward legislation upon this subject. I am unable to see that there is very much difficulty. I am quite per-

  1573
  suaded that a Committee of Gentlemen appointed by the Committee of Selection, or by this House—Members who have devoted for many years a great deal of attention to Private Bill Business—would be able to prepare a scheme which would be entirely acceptable to the House and satisfactory to the country. My hon. Friend has laid a good deal of stress upon inquiries being made occasionally or frequently in the localities interested, instead of in London. It is not proposed that in all cases evidence should be taken in the country; but in some cases it would be an enormous advantage. I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs that be will encounter a good deal of opposition to his proposal, not only from gentlemen in London who have vested interests in having all the evidence taken here, but from many gentlemen from all parts of the United Kingdom who have been in the habit, year by year, of coming up to London at the public expense, and who seem, if you talk to them about this matter, to consider that as one of the rights of citizenship. This proposal of my hon. Friend, I warn him, will not be so popular in the country as he supposes. Nevertheless, I think it is a perfectly proper one. The expense of Private Bill Committees—you may defend it if you choose—is discreditable to us as a nation. I am quite sure that on the ground both of efficiency and economy it would be very desirable to hold local inquiries on the spot. A great deal of expenditure might be saved, and very useless and unnecessary journeys. The House, on former occasions, has declared its condemnation of the present system; and I earnestly hope that the Government and the House will pluck up a little courage to-night, and, by accepting the business-like Resolution of my hon. Friend, secure the desired change.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman, in his desire to call attention to a matter of the greatest importance and a real grievance, had used very strong language, because he spoke of the deadening influence of those Committees. But when he looked at the railways which had been created under the system, the hon. Gentleman would see that he had rather exaggerated. The hon. Gentleman had, however, done well to call attention to a
  1574
  subject which twelve years ago, in the opinion of the House, required attention. He himself looked at the matter in the same light as Lord Winmarleigh, then Colonel Wilson Patten, when, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, he occupied the post which he (Sir John Mowbray) now held. Colonel Wilson Patten, speaking on Private Bill legislation on the 22nd of March, 1872, said that great difficulty was experienced owing to the small number of Members from which the Committees were selected, that none of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches could be selected at all, and that there were sometimes as many as 21 or 22 Members on one Select Committee. There was an increasing indisposition on the part of new Members to serve on Private Bill Committees. One said he was sent to the House to attend to Imperial questions, another that he was between 50 and 60, and was approaching the time when he should be entitled to exemption. But there was no such rule now about exemption. Some 40 years ago Sir Robert Peel said that private Members were to learn their business in Parliament by attending Private Bill Committees. There were, however, every year increasing difficulties on the part of the Committee of Selection to find Members willing to serve. It was vain to tell him that the number of Private Bills was less last year than in former years, for there was every year an immense mass of work to be got through, and an increasing indisposition on the part of Members to do the work. The number of Select Committees was increasing. There was hardly a subject which it was not proposed to refer to a Select Committee. Then there were the Grand Committees. His hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir John Kennaway) had said that the Grand Committees might not be so active this year. That might be so.; but the House had resolved that there should be these Grand Committees, and 163 able and competent Members had been told off to sit on them, and they naturally said they could not be in two places at once. Then there was another matter—the number of Royal Commissions. There was a Royal Commission for improving the dwellings of the labouring classes—in fact, there were Royal Commissions of all sorts, upon

  1575
  which the most active Members of the House and of the Front Benches pat. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), who for many years had been Chairman of Ways and Means, had, he believed, prepared a scheme, some 12 years ago, for dealing with this subject; and as there was no one who had greater experience in this matter than that right hon. Gentleman, the Government would be very well able to propose a plan. Let the House have a small Committee to deal with the question, and let them say that it was the duty of the Government to come before the Committee with a definite scheme. He hoped the hon. Member for Haddington Burghs would be satisfied with having brought the subject forward, and that he would not think it necessary to pledge the House to any particular principle on that occasion.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he thought that the experience he had had as a Member of the Railway Commission, as a barrister practising at the Parliamentary Bar, as a Member of many Committees of that House, and lastly as Chairman of a Railway Company, constantly involved in contests before Parliamentary Committees, would enable him to point out the real difficulty there was in adopting the proposal of delegation to a new tribunal outside Parliament. If all Private Bill legislation consisted of local and comparatively trivial matter, and of mere questions of facts or evidence, no doubt that delegation might be adopted with considerable advantage; but by far the larger portion of such legislation dealt with matters which really involved public policy a great deal more than mere facts or evidence. Railway legislation was, no doubt, the most important class of Private Bill legislation. It was one of the largest questions of public policy it was possible to conceive. The amount of capital involved in railways, according to the last Return, was £740,000,000 sterling, and the passengers numbered 624,000,000, of whom 533,000,000 were third-class passengers. There were probably not less than 1,000,000 shareholders in the railways of the United Kingdom, and the amount of public travelling was about equal to 20 journeys a-year for every man, woman, and child in the United Kingdom. It was necessary to provide the cheapest travelling con-
  1576
  sistent with public safety and a fair return to investors, and that question clearly turned upon matters of principle and policy, and not upon matters of detail. Supposing we had a revival of trade in the next few years, with an increased prosperity of railways, and a scheme were brought forward for a rival scheme to the London and North-Western going from London to Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, close alongside the existing line, could anybody conceive of that scheme, involving property to the value of a very great many millions sterling, being referred to the Railway Commissioners? He could not conceive a question in which the public were more largely interested, or with regard to which, if a mistake were made in legislation, they would suffer more in future years. That was a question which almost equalled in magnitude the Budget of the year, or a good many municipal reforms. He was not sure if a Representation of the People Bill involved much larger issues. On such questions as the creation of a new and large line of railway, no tribunal would have any weight or authority, unless it was represented by a Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons. Many years ago, when he was at the Board of Trade, an attempt was made to create a tribunal by which the Board of Trade should make Reports to the Committees, pointing out the bearings of the Bills on public interests. That tribunal was as good a one as was likely to be created; but it broke down, because the parties interested had not confidence in the decisions, which were not given by Parliament, or by Committees representing Parliament. He did not say that the present system was perfect, or anything like it; and he thought the great defect was that the public interest was not sufficiently represented. The contests before Committees were contests between two opposing parties, fighting for their own interests, and with no one to represent the public. But, at the same time, and he spoke in the hearing of many Railway Directors, who would concur with him in saying that, on the whole, the decisions of these Committees had been very fair as between the contending parties, and that the questions brought before them had been very thoroughly thrashed out. Still, it was necessary in some way to strengthen

  1577
  the system, so that questions of public policy should be kept better in view. Therefore, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this was a large and complicated question, which required to be taken up by the Government, and referred to a Select Committee or a Grand Committee. The one suggestion he would make was that the question might be considered, whether it might not be possible to amalgamate the Committees of the two Houses, and have in each case one Joint Committee, and so reduce the labours of Members of the two Houses by one-half. He did not think the House could pass the Resolution now proposed while the matter remained in its present state; and while considering that the House was much indebted to the hon. Member for bringing the matter forward, he thought it would be well if the Government could, in another Session, when they would, perhaps, have more time, endeavour to prepare a scheme which would be more practical than that of his hon. Friend, which he was afraid could only be called a pious aspiration.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was afraid his acquaintance with Parliamentary Committees was of quite as ancient a date as that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Laing). It commenced in 1840, and only terminated at the period when he had the honour of entering the House as a Member. Of course, during that period considerable changes—and he might say considerable improvements—had taken place in the tribunals before which he had formerly to practise. Parliament also, during that time, was relieved of a considerable amount of that Business which before that relief took place it was compelled to deal with, because the system of Provisional Orders was introduced; and that met the objection which had been urged that, to a considerable extent, Parliament was called on to deal with matters of local or trivial interest and importance. This was, to a great extent, dealt with by Provisional Orders issued by the Board of Trade, and confirmed by the House. Another thing his experience before Committees led him to mention, and that was that Parliamentary Committee contests had not repressed trade and enter-prize, as was stated by the Mover of this Motion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Craig-Sellar) particularly referred to Ireland,
  1578
  which country, he said, had suffered so very much from the withdrawal of capital, and failure in the development of her resources in consequence of the great expense of conducting a Bill through Committee. Now, he (Mr. Gregory) remembered, during the period he was in practice, that he was engaged on Irish Bills over and over again, and certainly the Parliamentary contest did not prevent the introduction of capital and enterprize into Ireland. Railway Bills, Gas Bills, Water Bills, Improvement Bills of various kinds, were brought into the House, because there was confidence in the future of Ireland. It was not the true reason to give that the investment of capital in Ireland had been checked by the expense of obtaining powers from Parliament; but the check had come from the want of confidence in the country itself. As regarded England, they knew there had been no great check to enterprize in consequence of promoters having to approach Parliament for the necessary powers; but, on the contrary, the Bills had increased both in number and in the magnitude of the capital involved. According to his experience, the tribunal to whom these Bills were submitted was not, on the whole, unsatisfactory. There was the Panel of Chairmen, for which competent Chairmen were selected year after year, with their traditions and experience to guide them, and precedents upon which they could act; and associated with the Chairmen were three or four Gentlemen selected from the House. He would not say there was not a growing difficulty in obtaining Members to sit; but he was sure that difficulty could be met by the suggestion thrown out that they should not rely on a single Committee, but have a Joint Committee of both Houses. When this proposal was made some years ago he entertained some doubt of it; but experience had altered his opinion in favour of such an arrangement. Some years ago a Committee was selected from the two Houses for the purpose of considering some large schemes for the amalgamation of some of the large Railway Companies, three Members being selected from the House of Lords and three from the Commons. Of the latter he happened to be one, why he did not know; but happily those who sat beside him were Members very well versed in their Busi-

  1579
  ness, and formed a somewhat strong tribunal. That Committee sat on these schemes, and heard the evidence fairly and fully; but he remembered in one case an attempt was made to get the scheme passed as an unopposed one, the opposition being withdrawn. That, however, did not satisfy the Committee, or in any way affect their decision. They considered they represented public interests, and were determined to have the case fully discussed, and on the showing of the promoters the Committee threw out the scheme, and several others were dealt with in the same way. Now, if that Committee had been unsatisfactory having regard to the large interests concerned, some appeal would have been made to Parliament; but the finding of the Committee was never contested, and not a word was said about it in either House. Experience, then, was in favour of the proposal for an amalgamated Committee of the two Houses. By that means material relief would be given to the Committee of Selection in nominating Member's to serve. But what was suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Craig-Sellar)? He suggested that the Railway Commission should deal with certain Bills, a sort of roving Commission to deal with others, and special Commissions to deal with Scotch and Irish Business. Now, the Railway Commission would certainly not be a satisfactory tribunal for England. And would there be much lessening of expense by this reference to special tribunals, even if they sat locally? He very much doubted it. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman's scheme would not touch the preliminary expenses, the surveys, the notices, and general getting up of the scheme. Those would be common to both systems, whether an inquiry took place before a Commission or before a Committee of the House. And where were the great expenses subsequently? It would be said the fees to counsel and witnesses. If they had undertakings with large capital they would have heavy fees to counsel, for the promoters would have the very best in their Profession, and their labours must be remunerated at the highest rates. The same observation applied to the evidence of experts, the expense of which had increased materially of late years. Engineers, chemists, and analysts were paid higher than they were years ago, and they would not reduce their
  1580
  charges by the experiment of a country Commission. Indeed, if the inquiry were held in the country he was inclined to think the expenses would be heavier. Counsel and experts would require higher fees for travelling. There would be all the hotel and travelling expenses, and possibly these gentlemen would be detained in the county town many days before they could give evidence. He would not say the present system could not be improved, and was very much of the opinion of his right hon. Friend (Sir John Mowbray), that a proposal in reference to the subject should emanate from the Government, and be fairly considered by a Committee composed of experienced Members. Such an investigation would be valuable, and might lead to a result which would remove all the difficulties complained of; but he did not believe the proposal the House now had before it would lead to more efficiency or to a reduction of expense. Expenses might be lessened in other ways. Fees to experts were, perhaps, too high, and even to counsel. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] Well, that was a matter upon which he could entertain his own opinion. At all events, if he was right, it was a matter that could be dealt with. He did not wish to press this at all; but he would support his right hon. Friend (Sir John Mowbray) in pressing the importance of the subject on the consideration of the Government, without pledging themselves to the particular scheme now before them.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that, as one who had served for many years on Committees of the House, he thought they should pause before they adopted this proposal. He had some experience in the active Business of the House. Twenty years ago, an attempt was made to lighten the labours of Select Committees by substituting separate inquiries through Referees to be then first established. He sat on the Commission then appointed, together with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. They worked like slaves, gave reasons for their decisions, and laboured every day in the week through a whole Session upon preliminary inquiries; but they found in the end that those inquiries did not shorten the labours of the Committees one jot. They were, therefore, discontinued. He

  1581
  mentioned this to show that mere preliminary inquiries did not give any guarantee that they would in any way shorten the labours of Parliament. As to the question of defects in the present system, he agreed largely with the hon. Member (Mr. Craig-Sellar), and the public were of opinion that the system was liable to great defects. From the first time he had been in Parliament the public mind had been agitated in order to find a substitute for the present system; but no person had yet proposed any scheme to remedy the evils complained of, or provide anything better for the system which now prevailed. There had, however, been some advantages in the system, and he did not agree with the hon. Member as to these Select Committees being so weak. He had sat on Bills in which a dozen counsel were engaged, and had had to face them all; but he had not found them so very troublesome. On the contrary, he had always found them ready to give assistance to the Committee. There were some people who gave a great deal of trouble—namely, the agents who flooded them with evidence, which it was difficult to check; but he thought this was an evil that would arise even more largely if Private Bills were sent before a tribunal of the country. After all, the Select Committee was an elastic tribunal, and the decisions of the Committees one year were often quite the opposite of decisions of Committees in the following year; but there were advantages in that, for great questions of public policy often arose, and the policy of the country frequently varied. The greatest of all the difficulties in this matter was that of getting Members who could work consistently with the other duties of Parliament, and it might become necessary for Parliament to introduce some changes in view of that. He did not believe that it would be found possible to constitute a satisfactory tribunal outside of Parliament. Even the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject hesitated at suggesting this, because his proposal was in favour of an intermediate course. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the question of principle must be decided in both Houses. Questions like the water supply of the Metropolis involved matters of principle as well as details, and Parliament would never consent to delegate its power of deciding on them.
  1582
  All these Bills, therefore, would require to be considered by Parliament as a preliminary to their being referred to the new tribunal; and the result, as it appeared to him, would be to increase debates in both Houses. Then he did not see how the new tribunal could overtake all the Private Bills in one Session. Thereafter they would have them brought in one Session, be considered by the new tribunal in the course of the year, and then brought on again in the next Session. Neither labour nor expense would be saved so far. The hon. Member spoke of a nice little inquiry conducted in a town with a local Bar; but the great interests would not be satisfied with the local Bar. They had had some experience of this in connection with Election Petitions; and they found, as the result of introducing the local tribunals, that the expense was doubled and even trebled. Then there must be an appeal, so what the public were to gain he was quite at a loss to know. The hon. Member modestly said that he did not intend his proposition as final, and that he hoped the Government would come forward with a solution of the difficulty. Why, the Government had been invited to do so for the last 10 years. If the hon. Member would bring in a Bill, and see what scheme he could arrange in concert with the Government, he would be glad to suspend his opinion, and he believed the House would do the same; but he must say that it was rather a lame conclusion to arrive at to say—"Here is a difficulty, but we cannot trust ourselves to devise a remedy, and must leave it to the Government." He could only express a negative opinion in regard to the proposition of the hon. Member, and express the hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would be able to throw some light on the subject.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, be objected, on public grounds, to the proposal to refer Private Bills to. any tribunal outside that House. Reference had been made to the waste of public time occupied in the discussion by the House of such questions as the Ennerdale Railway and the Southampton Cemetery. He fully endorsed the view that the House was not the proper place in which the details of a purely private or of a local matter could be conveniently discussed. At the same time, there were often raised in Private Bills,

  1583
  as there happened to be in the eases alluded to, questions of principle—questions of general importance—which he should be very sorry to see relegated to an outside Body in the nature of a Commission. The question of balancing public rights with private interest involved all sorts of conflicting principles; and to impose on a delegated authority the duty of reconciling these principles, and of administering powers at once so tremendous in their relation to the State and to the individual, would be to lay upon it an almost insuperable tax. He admitted there were faults in our present system. For instance, no rules of evidence were imposed upon the Parliamentary lawyers, and the cost of our present procedure was excessive. No doubt there were many defects, and he believed some might be met by appointing Joint Committees of the two Houses on Private Bills; but until a definite scheme were proposed likely to commend itself to the House and the country it would be premature to adopt the Resolution.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he considered that the present system was in many respects unsatisfactory, and if the Mover and Seconder had propounded to the House any feasible scheme in substitution of that which existed at the present time, he would have been very happy to have voted with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Davey) had suggested the appointment of a Commission comprised of an engineer, a financier, and a gentleman of the Long Robe, to go down to the country to inquire into the different private schemes which were from time to time promoted. But how many of such Commissions would be required to inquire into the two or two hundred Private Bills which were introduced into Parliament in the course of a Session? If there could be established local tribunals, such as were suggested, he should be glad; but he doubted their feasibility. The trial of Election Petitions was a very different matter. Usually, 19 out of the 20 witnesses resided in the immediate locality; but that was not the case with Private Bills. The great majority of the witnesses who were called before Select Committees were skilled witnesses, who, for the most part, resided in London, and who could not be got to go into the country except at great expense. It had occurred to him that there was one plan which might be adopted with ad-
  1584
  vantage. From time to time, as in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill of last year, and in other cases, Joint Committees of the two Houses of Parliament had been appointed to inquire into the merits of private schemes. He could not understand why the same principle should not be adopted in the case of all the Private Bills introduced into Parliament. He trusted that his suggestion would receive the serious consideration of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that the Motion only dealt with a part of the much larger question—the question—namely, of the whole Business of the House. It seemed to him that the Government might very well take into consideration the system adopted at Washington, in the United States Congress, in which every Bill was relegated to a Committee. They had a Standing Committee appointed by the Speaker on almost every subject, every Member of Congress being on one or more of those Committees.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had observed very truly in his speech that the chief opposition against such a measure as that proposed by his hon. Friend would be on the part of persons who had vested interests in the present system, such as Parliamentary solicitors and barristers, the officials of the great railways, the experts who gave evidence before those Committees, and people of that kind; and they had seen some indication of that already in the speeches that bad been delivered. They had seen the barristers and Railway Directors arrayed in opposition to the proposal. It was quite easy to understand why such persons should prefer the existing system; but the matter was one that ought to be settled by the public, and he was satisfied that the public, especially the public of Scotland, were strongly in favour of a material change. The further a place was from London the more keenly it felt the necessity for a change. In Scotland, for instance, they could not come to Parliament for a Private Bill without bringing up lawyers, experts, and local witnesses an average distance of 500 miles. The consequence was that in many cases people had to forego their Bills altogether, on account of the cost which must attend obtaining them. He could add many cases of the same

  1585
  kind as had been mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Craig-Sellar), in which localities had to do without much-needed improvements. Several hon. Members opposite had endeavoured to show that there was no foundation for the complaint by referring to the great amount of legislation that was done, and the great development of railway enter-prize throughout the country. But it was not in connection with great public measures that the hardship was felt so much as in regard to small improvements in small localities, which were of great importance to those localities, though not of general interest, and which could not be carried out in Scotland without incurring an expenditure equal to two or three years' rates of the district. In the interest of justice and sound policy, it was the duty of the House to attend to the interests of smaller bodies and remote localities as much as to those of wealthy Corporations and central communities. Last year the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in opposing the Motion brought forward by his hon. Friend, especially that part of it referring to local tribunals, had pointed out the small number of Bills that came from Scotland as a reason why no such Body should be appointed for that country. But the smallness of the number of Bills was due to the present system. It was the expense and the difficulties to be encountered which prevented such improvements. He had no doubt that they would have many more Bills submitted to any tribunal they might set up, before which schemes involving no great amount of money could be disposed of without incurring great expense. One argument in favour of change had not been mentioned—namely, that the present system gave a great influence, a preponderating power, to large Companies and Corporations. The purse of a large railway or a large Corporation was practically exhaustless. It could meet the expense and carry on the proceedings for many days without inconveniencing itself; but an unfortunate private person was in a very different position. He had known cases where private persons whose interests were seriously affected by proposed public works, and who might have set up a strong case why those works should not be carried out, had been prevented by the heavy expense from
  1586
  giving effect to their objections. In justice to that class of persons and to the small burghs, they required some very material change. His hon. Friend had referred to public opinion in Scotland on the subject. At the great national meeting held not long ago in Edinburgh on the subject of Scottish legislation generally, the feeling was unanimously expressed that some change of this kind ought to be made in justice to distant places. The only answer that they had heard to-day to that demand was on the part of Gentlemen who had more or less remote connection with the law, to the effect that the expense of investigations conducted there would not be less than they were at present. They founded that argument on the assumption that it would be necessary to send down first-rate counsel and first-rate experts from London. Well, there were first-rate counsel elsewhere than in London; and if a tribunal of this kind were set up in Scotland, the Scottish Bar could afford men quite as able to carry on the work as any London counsel. He believed the same was true in regard to Ireland. So, likewise, in the matter of experts. Indeed, he thought it would be a positive advantage that some difficulty would be placed in the way of the employment of the very highest men except in the most important cases. For all ordinary purposes there was plenty of talent in the country to deal with these inquiries; and, conducted in that way, they would not cost 10 per cent of what they cost at present.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he cordially joined with those who had bestowed praise on his hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) for having again brought this very important subject under the attention of the House, and for the very able, lucid, and interesting manner in which he had done so. Notwithstanding the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he thought anyone who had sat with him (Mr. Dodson) in that House for some years must know that if there was one man in that House who had shown more anxiety than another to effect root-and-branch reform in the system of private legislation, it was himself, and he thought he was hardly open to the rebuke which the hon. Member had passed upon him in that respect. It was quite true that he

  1587
  had not been able to support in its integrity the proposition made last year by his hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs. But as to the first part of the hon. Member's last Resolution—that the system of private legislation called for the attention of the Government and of Parliament, and required reform—he had cordially concurred in that part of it, and concurred in it still. The present system of private legislation was open to the objections that had been brought against it—namely, that it was costly, lengthy, and haphazard in its character; and if it was not more so than it really was, it was owing to the ability, the industry, and the self-devotion of the Members of that House, and especially of the Chairmen, who served upon those Committees. There was another matter that had not been spoken of to-night, and that was that every Bill had to go through the ordeal of a Committee of each House. Usually, when a case was tried before two tribunals, the second tribunal was in the nature of an Appellate Court, and there was an appeal from the first to the second, on the ground that the facts had not all been brought to light, or on the ground of some error on the part of the first Court. But in the case of the Committees of the two Houses, it was in no sense an appeal. One of those Courts was in no way superior to the other. They were co-ordinate tribunals; and the case was tried before the second, not by way of appeal, but simply by way of the dissatisfied party who had failed with the first insisting, if his purse was long enough, on taking his chance with the second. It had been said—"Why should you not have recourse to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and let every Bill be settled once for all by one Committee? "The objection to this was that it would in no way provide for that which ought to be provided for—namely, the means of obtaining an appeal should there be grounds for it. Another reason given for dealing with this subject was the desirability of relieving Members from a class of work for which most of them were not especially suited, and setting them free for other and more important matters that were more truly the work of Members of Parliament. It must be remembered in connection with this that the proper Parliamentary work of Members was constantly growing year by
  1588
  year. Parliamentary questions necessarily increased with the growth of the country and with their closer political and commercial relations with other parts of the world; it, therefore, became more difficult year by year to find an adequate number of Members able to devote themselves to the task of private legislation. Those were reasons which appeared to him, amongst others that had been urged, to constitute grounds for a reform of private legislation. With regard to the Amendment which had been submitted by his hon. Friend, they must remember that if they agreed to this Resolution they would be bound, not by the speech of his hon. Friend, but by the terms of the Resolution; and he must say that the second part of the Resolution, whether his hon. Friend so intended it or not, appeared to him to point too much in the direction of that which they had had experience of already, and not very satisfactory experience—namely, preliminary inquiries. They had had a system of preliminary local inquiries established by Lord Dalhousie. It was supposed that that would relieve the Committees of this House of a very great deal of work; but it had simply added the expense and labour of a preliminary inquiry to the double trial before the two Committees of the Houses. The experience of the Referees, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), had been in the same direction, and that attempt had had to be abandoned after a trial of one or two years. He would not go into the scheme that he had himself proposed many years ago for the reform of private legislation; but he would simply say that it appeared to him the main points to be aimed at in relieving Parliament of this labour, and giving the public a cheaper and more efficient system than it had at present, was to establish an external tribunal which should in the first instance hear all parties and settle the schemes, and that the schemes so settled should be subject to an appeal to the strongest Parliamentary tribunal that could be found. It appeared to him that that was the key-stone of any real amendment in the present system. As to the course which he, speaking on behalf of the Government, felt constrained to propose to the House in reference to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington

  1589
  Burghs, he very much agreed with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Sir John Mowbray) in respect to one very important point. He had always thought that if any effectual amendment was to be made in the Rules of the House as to the conduct of either Public or Private Business it must be submitted to the House on the responsibility of a Government. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that if private legislation was to be substantially amended, it must be when the Government had time and leisure, and determination, to take the initiative and make the subject its own. He need not say that it was out of the question that the Government should undertake to do anything of the kind in the present Session. That was not saying that the Government ought not to do it when it could find time and opportunity to give the subject the consideration it deserved, and the House had the time and opportunity to entertain it. He would not be seduced into committing himself to the proposals of his hon. Friend; but, while declining to accept those proposals, he would not be understood to preclude them from future consideration, or to pass any condemnation upon them whatever. Technically, no doubt, the question before the House was the Amendment of his hon. Friend; but, practically, as they all knew, the question to be decided was whether they should to-night proceed with the Business of Supply. Therefore, in saying "No" to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he was simply hoping that the Government Business for to-night, which was Supply, might be proceeded with with the least possible delay.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  INTERMEDIATE AND HIGHER EDUCATION (WALES)—ABERYSTWITH COLLEGE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. RENDEL, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the present position of Aberystwith College; and to move—
  "That the College of Aberystwith having, notwithstanding the Report of the Departmental Committee, been left out of the scheme for higher education in Wales, this House is of opinion that the injury to the cause of education
  1590
  in the Principality, and discouragement to a great portion of the Welsh people, will result, unless measures are taken to place that College, in respect of State recognition and support, on an equal footing with the Colleges at Cardiff and Bangor,"
  said: Mr. Speaker, my first desire, and indeed my first duty, in regard to the Motion standing in my name, is to express the gratitude which, in common, I believe, with every one of the Welsh Members, I bear to Her Majesty's Government for the action they have taken in the promotion of the cause of education in the Principality. We do not forget the significant utterance of the Prime Minister on the last occasion when the subject of higher education in Wales was under discussion in this House. It was during the debate so happily brought about in the last Parliament by the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian), and so unhappily fruitless at the time. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that for two centuries past nothing Welsh had received any consideration at the hands of Parliament. That is no longer true. Welsh affairs are now become matters of interest to Her Majesty's Government, and may be brought under the notice of this House with every chance of a fair and a kindly hearing. One of the earliest acts of the present Administration was the appointment of a Departmental Committee to examine and report upon the whole subject of education. Not only is Wales indebted to the Government for the appointment of that Committee—it is even more deeply indebted to the Committee itself. Never was an inquiry more thorough and exhaustive, and I doubt whether it would be possible for any country to show an Educational Report more admirable and complete. Again, Sir, the Principality is also deeply indebted to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (Mr. Mundella) for the generous alacrity and sympathy with which he threw himself into the work of giving prompt effect to every recommendation of the Committee to which effect could be given without previous legislation, and in particular for securing to Wales at once the handsome grant of £8,000 a-year in aid of higher education. I do not stand here, Sir, to air any grievance, or to make any complaint. If anything I may say seems to bear that

  1591
  complexion, it is the fault of my expression, and certainly not of my intention. My case is simply this: that the University College at Aberystwith, as a result of the kind intentions of the Government and the operation of their scheme for higher education, somehow or other has fallen through; and my hope is that I may be able to present sufficient reasons to the Government and to this House to induce the Government to amplify their scheme to such an extent as to enable Aberystwith College to maintain its existence and success. That Institution, Sir, has an almost touching history. From time immemorial the Welsh people have been devoted to learning. I do not know that that devotion has ever been signalized in a manner more remarkable and pathetic than when by long, by strenuous, and unassisted efforts, the people established for themselves the College at Aberystwith. Sir, the College might almost be said to have been built with the pence of the poor. It was the noble work of a noble Welshman and a valued public servant now gone from us: and for ten years it has done its work in a field which, if not the most fertile that might have been chosen for it, was, at any rate, the field that seemed the most suitable and the fairest for the then single University College of Wales. Sir, there is abundant evidence to show the peculiar and enduring affection of Wales for the Aberystwith College. It was founded in the year 1872, and by the year 1875 so much was the national sentiment centred upon it that no less than 256 public Bodies—that is, Town Councils, Local Boards, and so forth, representing, it is computed, more than two-thirds of the population of Wales, memorialized the then Government in its behalf, and yet without effect. The debate, to which I have already alluded, in 1879, though wisely directed to larger issues, turned very much upon the claims and destinies of Aberystwith. Almost every person entitled to speak for Wales in that discussion pleaded the cause of Aberystwith, yet still without result. Accordingly the case of the College was fully considered by the Departmental Committee. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? But for the College, the Committee would probably never have come into being. The President of the College was the President of the Com-
  1592
  mittee; and one of the Members of the Committee, whose presence on it gave the greatest satisfaction to Wales, was my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), who was one of the first friends of the College, and who has made for himself an almost patriarchal position amongst his countrymen. It is needless to say that the Departmental Committee not only considered the claims, but took care to protect the interests of Aberystwith College. In their Report on the higher education branch of the question, they approved the principle of Provincial Colleges such as Aberystwith, for they saw the necessity in Wales of bringing the teacher to the pupil. They recommended that a second one should be established, and that it should be placed in Glamorganshire, where a highly concentrated population afforded the best scope for it. And this they called the College for South Wales. They went on to declare that the College at Aberystwith, whether retained on its present site or removed to Carnarvon or Bangor, must be accepted as the College for North Wales. And they advised that £4,000 a-year should be given to each College. To all these recommendations my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on Education proceeded to give immediate effect. The question of the site for the College of South Wales was happily settled, and the £4,000 a-year duly granted. The choice also of site for the North Wales College was determined. But what then happened? An entirely new Institution was created there, to which the other £4,000 a-year was promised in due course; and thus Aberystwith College, which has enjoyed the £4,000 a-year in the meanwhile, must now lose it, and will apparently be left out in the cold. Sir, the result of this misadventure has been a spontaneous movement from end to end of Wales, and a warm awakening of the unfailing attachment of Wales to the national and popular Institution. Within the short space of time since the danger was realized I have record of no less than 133 public meetings, at which resolutions have been unanimously passed, calling upon the Government for aid and recognition for Aberystwith. At least 100 public Bodies have passed similar resolutions, and petitions are coming in with increasing

  1593
  volume. Among those that I have myself presented is one signed by over 1,000 workmen of Festiniog, always found true to the cause of education in every part of Wales. Sir, I can assure the House that these Resolutions and Petitions and Memorials might easily have been multiplied to almost any extent; but I would ask leave to observe that when the honour was done me of being asked to move Parliament in the interest of Aberystwith, I made it a point to take no part whatever in relation to any of these meetings or Memorials, lest I should give them the least appearance of a factitious character. No doubt, a little more lapse of time would have led to the strengthening of my hands here, and even fuller evidence of the opinion of Wales on this matter. But the House is well aware of the exigencies under which any private Member labours in bringing questions before Parliament, and I took the day I could obtain, not that which I myself might have chosen. Sir, I can see now that we are all in somewhat of a dilemma. The Government has provided a liberal grant, but it has expended it. The Committee provided for the retention of Aberystwith University, but it has somehow been displaced. Thus there is no money available; and the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more must be made under peculiar difficulties. Sir, no wonder that in these circumstances excellent arguments are to be found for doing nothing. I hope the House will bear with me while I touch briefly upon some of them, seeing that the Rules of Debate give me no opportunity of reply. It is said, Sir, that this is somewhat of a sectarian movement. I am not about to enter upon the thorny ground of local sectarian feeling; but, speaking generally, I will confess the surprise and regret with which I hear Englishmen sometimes assume that because Wales is Nonconformist she must be, therefore, what is called sectarian. Why, Sir, to take a broad illustration which will come home to this House. In Wales the Nonconformists are to the Churchmen in the ratio of four or five to one. [Au hon. MEMBER: Ten to one.] [Mr. DILLWYN: Twelve to one.] But, nevertheless, Wales sends to this House her Representatives whose creeds are in an almost inverse ratio. Compare this with
  1594
  the action of England and Scotland. The Roman Catholic population of Great Britain is larger than the whole population of Wales. Judging by mere numbers, it has a right to some 25 Members in this House. Nevertheless, neither England nor Scotland returns a single Roman Catholic Member to this House. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Yes; one.] No, indeed, that is left to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Another argument is that if you assist Aberystwith in this matter you will be doing an injury to Bangor. Sir, I am satisfied that this is an argument which has not been used and will not be used in this House by any real friend of Bangor. I say that there is no jealousy between Bangor and Aberystwith. It is not difficult to find evidence to support this assertion. In the first place, you have the fact that many gentlemen are common to the Governing Bodies of both Colleges, and to the satisfaction of each. In the next place, I may appeal to a remarkable and most able document forming the Memorial of the Council of Aberystwith College to the Prime Minister, and just submitted to him. That Memorial conveys a striking statement of the case for Aberystwith; and its prayer, if not in terms, is in effect in harmony with my Motion. Well, Sir, 10 out of the 12 Members for North Wales have endorsed their approval upon that Memorial; and if they do not represent the opinion of North Wales, I do not know who is to do so. In the face of such evidence it would be impossible to urge, in this House at least, for a moment that North Wales has any anxiety in behalf of Bangor, or any desire that Aberystwith should suffer in the supposed interests of Bangor. A third argument that has been used against Aberystwith is that two Colleges are sufficient for Wales. It is difficult to deal with an argument of this kind, because it is founded on opinion only, and opinion which is necessarily arbitrary. Of course, its force depends upon the source of the opinion and the experience or knowledge on which it is founded. I give no opinion; but I may observe that opinions on this point of apparently equal authority are conflicting. Some say one College would be better than two, others insist on a third College for Mid Wales; and, again, others think Wales is not ripe for Colleges at all, and that we ought to turn

  1595
  our whole attention to intermediate education. Sir, where opinion at the best is arbitrary, and is, in fact, conflicting, it would be strange if Wales was, on the strength of it alone, to consent to the extinction of valuable and honoured existing and working appliances. It is true that the Report of the Committee may be cited in support of this opinion; but I urge that the Committee's Report, while recommending Provincial Colleges, and for the present two only, contemplated expressly the utilization of Aberystwith, and I infer from that Report that bad the case been presented to them which has in effect occurred, of Aberystwith College being in danger of falling through, the Committee would have saved Aberystwith even as a third College for Wales. And if so at the date of their Report, still more so now, when the decision of the eight Theological Colleges to send their students to the new Colleges for their Arts courses is likely to largely reinforce those Colleges, when we are three years nearer to an Intermediate Education Bill, and when the movement in favour of higher education has, through the generous action of the Government, on their recommendations, been stimulated beyond all expectation. The last argument for doing nothing which I will notice, Sir, is this—that a present demand for more money would injure our prospects of obtaining an adequate grant for intermediate education. I never hear an argument of this kind without regret. Why are we to mix up what is to follow with what we have got in hand? It is a blind business to try to make a better bargain for the future by giving up something in the present. The cases of higher and intermediate education must obviously stand and be treated each upon its own merits, and in any case we have the interests of an existing institution to consider, which you are asking us to suffer to die in the interests of an unborn one. Sir, such an argument is a kind of scarecrow argument by which Wales will refuse to be frightened from the corn; and if it be used as a threat, Wales will be tempted to rejoin that she remembers how and whence Ireland obtained £1,000,000 for intermediate education, and that she, too, can look to a Church Fund Surplus for such purposes. Sir, it is evident that something must be done for Aberystwith, and it seems to me that
  1596
  the only course left open is to place the College upon an equality with the other Colleges in respect of State recognition and aid. What else can you do? Some say you should transform it—that is, devote it to the education of women. It is true that the educational destitution of Wales is as grave in respect of women as of men, and I trust that Aberystwith may in time have grafted upon it ancillary appliances for the education of women. But it is as a men's College that we have to deal with it now, and I am sure that Wales will not hear of its total transformation. After all, the men are the breadwinners, and must have the prior consideration. Another course proposed is to transfer Aberystwith—that is, I presume, to Bangor. But it is obviously too late to take that step. Such a course would not mean a combination of the two Colleges, and a migration of the Institution would mean simply the liquidation of Aberystwith, its extinction as an Institution, and the handing over to Bangor of the balance of the material assets. The only course open to the Government is then to endow Aberystwith—even though that means to increase the grant of £8,000. Now, Sir, I am not about to cavil at that amount, or to question how far it is in precise proportion to those which Scotland and Ireland enjoy, beyond saying this—that obviously it is not up to the just proportion, taking population alone into account. I prefer to urge that Wales is entitled, at the hands of this House and of Great Britain, to special favour and indulgence in this matter. In the first place, Wales is a poor country, and I presume that the only principle on which a grant for higher education can be made out of public funds is based upon the advantage to the nation of helping a poor country to help itself. If you take the Income Tax Returns of Parliamentary Boroughs in England and in Wales, you will find that the middle classes of England are, by their own showing, nearly twice as well off as those in Wales. The Returns show an average of £24 a-head in England as against £13 a-head in Wales. Poor as Wales is in many or most parts by the dispensation of Providence, she is made poorer by the act—I might say the spoliation—of England. Her total endowments are, as compared with those of England, but one to five. The

  1597
  average endowments of an English county are £55,575 a-year, and of a Welsh county not £1,700. Per head of population the endowment comes to 1s. 9½d. in England and 4¼d. in Wales. In educational endowment the contrast is almost as great. It is 6¼d. per head in England and scarcely over 2d. in Wales. As an Oxford Graduate, I am ashamed to reflect that the Colleges of Christ Church, All Souls, and University, which do nothing special for Wales, draw from the county which I have the honour to represent (Montgomeryshire) no less than £4,000 a-year; while that county, with 67,000 people, has but one Grammar School endowed with £120 a-year, and some 30 boys, and a total educational endowment, much frittered away, of only £750. Being thus denuded in favour of England of her endowments, Wales suffers further from exceptional burdens. One of these is her language, which, to say the least of it, she is entitled to retain; but which everyone will admit is and must be a heavy additional educational tax upon her. Again, she has to support her own religion, and without speaking of the vast sums she has expended in the creation of a vast religious machinery, she has the annually-recurring necessity to raise from her middle and poorer classes from £300,000 to £400,000 a-year for the maintenance of religious ministrations. Undoubtedly, these are burdens of which Wales does not complain. She bears them cheerfully and with pride, and would not have them taken from her. But they unquestionably limit her capacity to provide for other national needs, and increase her claim upon the State. Sir Hugh Owen once said that the average reward of talent and learning in Wales, whether in the pulpit or at the desk, did not exceed £200 a-year, and it certainly cannot be said that in Wales a career is open to talent. Take the service of the country, whether naval and military, or civil, into consideration; they are entered only by competitive examination early in life, and with educational tests. It is plain that Wales has an equal claim to this, perhaps the largestopening to merit which the country affords. Yet is it not clear that she is heavily handicapped in the race? But, Sir, I must come to closer and more practical issues, and upon practical grounds I urge the retention of Aberyst- 1598
  with. It may not have attracted in the past a great body of students, and it has not the population necessary to furnish night students in any number; but at least it has supplied the wants of the neighbourhood in a great degree, and done excellent work there. Three-fourths of the 459 students who have already passed through it have come from Mid Wales—one-sixth only from the farther North Wales. So local, so clannish are as yet the habits of the Welsh people, so difficult are they to move about, that it is safe to assert that should you deprive Mid Wales of Aberystwith you will put back for a full generation the higher education of at hast three counties. But, Sir, there is a sentimental argument on which I am not afraid to rest. Sentiment in this matter is neither to be slighted nor disregarded. The present enthusiasm of the Welsh for education is the animating spirit necessary to give life to any Government action. You may provide the most perfect appliances and machinery, but without the life and breath of that enthusiasm they will prove barren and dead. Of that enthusiasm Aberystwith College was the first-fruits. It is, indeed, for all Wales its living expression and embodiment. To extinguish Aberystwith could not quench it, but would certainly chill it; and it is upon this ground in particular that I bespeak the favourable consideration of the House and the Government for the Resolution, which I will now read.
  SIR. ROBERT CUNLIFFE: Sir, in supporting the appeal made to Her Majesty's Government on behalf of Aberystwith College, I also would bear testimony to the gratitude of the people of Wales to Her Majesty's Government, and especially to the Vice President of the Council on Education, for what they have done in respect of education in the Principality. And it is precisely because they appreciate that action of Her Majesty's Government that the people of Wales now make a special appeal on behalf of Aberystwith College. I think it will be admitted that my hon. Friend has stated the case on its behalf both temperately and forcibly; and I do not believe I could add anything to the presentment which he has made of it. I will turn, therefore, to the objections which may be urged against this Resolution. Now, Sir, there are two main

  1599
  objections which may be advanced against it. First, that inasmuch as the Government has already made a liberal contribution in aid of higher education in Wales, they can hardly be expected to give more. Secondly, that the establishment of a third College, so far from aiding, might be injurious to higher education, because experience might show that there would be a sufficient supply of students for two Colleges, but not for three and that, in consequence, all three would suffer. I will take, first, the question of an increased grant. Sir, we all know it is a matter of difficulty, and properly so, to obtain money from the Treasury. It is, of course, the duty of the Government to be vigilant guardians of the public purse; but if an appeal may ever be made for a liberal, and even a generous consideration of an educational question, I hope I am not too sanguine in thinking it may be made for a portion of the country which is very poor, which has made most honourable exertions to help itself, and which, above all, has long been neglected in the matter of higher education. I need not repeat what has been said by my hon. Friend with regard to the sum of £71,000 and odd pounds, which, exclusive of the Government grant of £3,000, was the amount raised in Wales for Aberystwith College up to June, 1883, and the greater part of which was drawn from persons in the middle and humbler classes. That shows, at least, that Wales was in earnest in its desire for greater educational advantages. I would ask the House to bear in mind what has been done for Scotland and Ireland. Scotland, with a population not three times greater than Wales, receives for its Universities annually £18,992, and the Scottish Universities Bill proposes to raise that amount to £40,000. The Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh have received between them for building purposes £220,000. Ireland, with a population not quite four times greater, receives for its Colleges £22,783 annually. In addition to this the House will remember that £1,000,000 was appropriated out of the Irish Church Fund for intermediate education; and though, of course, this is not directly applied in aid of the Colleges, yet by fostering the intermediate schools it must largely help to produce the class of students they desire. And there is another considera-
  1600
  tion that deserves to be borne in mind in endeavouring to provide for the educational requirements of Wales—namely, the relative deficiency of its endowments as compared with England. Upon this point I would only quote these very few words from the Report of the Departmental Committee—
  "The educational endowments of Wales to those of England relatively to the population has been stated to us in evidence to he 1 to 3, and this appears to be an approximately correct estimate."
  Without dwelling longer on this point, I venture to submit that Wales has some claim for further consideration from Her Majesty's Government. The other objection to which I have referred—that a third College might be injurious to the cause of higher education, because it might not attract sufficient students to justify its own existence, and yet draw enough from the other two to prejudice their success, is, I admit, one of much force if it can be sustained. But I think it can be shown that we need not fear this result. As regards Cardiff, I believe no one doubts of its success. It has, at this moment, 150 students; and the large population of Glamorganshire, amounting to over 500,000, might alone furnish a considerable supply. As regards Bangor—speaking as a member of its Council—we have good hope that our numbers will be sufficient; and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) can have no doubt that the men of his county, who have so warmly and liberally supported the College, will not fail to avail themselves of it to the utmost of their power. But we have some figures to guide us upon this point. The number of students from the various counties in Wales since the opening of the Aberystwith College, in October, 1872, up to Lent term, 1884, shows a total of 459. Of these Northern Wales—that is, Anglesea, Carnarvon, Denbigh, and Flint—have supplied 70; Glamorgan and Monmouth, 44; England, 49; but Central Wales—that is, the counties from which Aberystwith is more easily reached—have sent no less than 296, and of these 183 have come from Cardiganshire alone. Now, Sir, it must be remembered that the population of Cardiganshire and the adjoining counties is the poorest in Wales; the figures show that these populations are

  1601
  most eager for education, and yet if Aberystwith is to be extinguished it is more than probable that a very large proportion of these poor and remote districts will remain outside the benefits which these now Colleges are intended to confer. I think, Sir, we may fairly conclude from the experience of the past that whilst Cardiff and Bangor will each draw their supply from those districts which lie most convenient to them, there will still remain an ample field for the usefulness of Aberystwith. And lot me remind the House that, in judging of the degree of success that Aberystwith has had in the past, it is only fair to bear in mind that the College has laboured under the two great disadvantages of poverty and uncertainty as to its future; but give it the stability which will come from Government recognition, and the assistance of a Government grant, and I think we might confidently hope that it would take a very different position. The Memorial to the Prime Minister states that in—
  "The three years which elapsed between 1879 and 1882 it was only possible to set aside an average sum of £160 a-year for distribution in scholarships and prizes among a set of students as poor as any in the United Kingdom."
  And to this there should be added that some portion of the income and assets of the College are conditional on its being retained at Aberystwith and attracting a certain Government grant. The hon. Member for the Cardigan Boroughs (Mr. D. Davies) has, on such conditions, offered £4,000 to the College, and £500 yearly for the next six years, if Government should give a competent grant; and his generous example will, no doubt, induce others to follow in his footsteps when they see that Aberystwith has the likelihood of a permanent position. Let me remind the House that the certainty of a Government grant has elicited £35,000 in subscriptions for Cardiff, and an almost equal amount for Bangor, and we may feel sure that similar results will follow in the case of Aberystwith. In spite of the disadvantages which it has had to contend against, the College has at this moment 95 students. There is no medical school, and no female students; and if, therefore, we exclude these two classes we find that it compares favourably with Liverpool, which in 1882 had 54; with Bristol, which had 74; and with Firth
  1602
  College, Sheffield, which had 83 male students. Sir, I need only say further on this point that the Memorial of the Governors of the College distinctly states that they would be willing to be judged by the result; and to accept a grant from the Government, which would be determinable if, after a fair trial and sufficient time, it should appear that the cause of higher education would not be advanced by the further continuance of the College. There is one other point well worth the consideration of the House. There is a disposition among the eight Theological Colleges of Wales to give the Arts education at a secular College, and this is a movement which I think the House would wish to encourage. Now, it appears that the Independent College at Brecon had almost decided to send its students to Aberystwith; but the doubt as to its future has led to the opening of negotiations with Cardiff. If, however, this doubt were removed, the central situation of Aberystwith would tend to increase so desirable and salutary a movement. In conclusion, I think the Government and my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education will feel, if they had ever any doubt upon this point, that the Resolution of my hon. Friend represents a deep and widespread desire in Wales for the retention of Aberystwith College. Out of 30 Members of Parliament who represent the Principality in this House, 26 have signed, and not one, I believe, is hostile to it. It cannot, therefore, be said that the feeling, of which this is a proof, belongs only to a Party or a section. We earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will make a favourable response to this appeal, and we can assure them that it would be gratefully accepted as a generous recognition of the just claims of the Welsh people.
  MR. RICHARD: Sir, there can be no doubt that my hon. Friends who would have moved and seconded the Resolution on the Paper, if the Rules of the House had allowed them, represent a large body of opinion in Wales in favour of a continued grant to Aberystwith College. And this is no wonder, because Aberystwith was the creation of popular enthusiasm for education in Wales. The fact stated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down is a very significant fact to those who know the

  1603
  class of people from whom, for the most part, the money was got, that upwards of £70,000 has been contributed by the people of Wales towards this Institution. The College has an excellent and commodious building, with laboratories, class rooms, museum, and a library. It has a staff of most competent and efficient Professors, and a considerable number of students, who are increasing year by year. I had the honour and pleasure of being present and bearing some part in the inauguration of this College in 1872, and ever since, as a member of the Council, have watched its interests with great anxiety. Like many young Institutions, it has had to pass through somewhat fluctuating fortunes; but, on the whole, its progress has been steady and satisfactory. It may be said, and has been said, that we have not in Wales enough of what I may call the raw material for three Colleges—that is, a sufficient number of young persons of that class likely to avail themselves of the advantages of Collegiate education. That I frankly admit is a matter open to question, and I do not know how it can be solved except by making the experiment. But there are two or three considerations which I shall venture to submit to the House in favour of the affirmative view, which it is the more necessary to state as serving to correct certain grave misapprehensions which exist in England as to the state of things in Wales. There is a notion still widely prevalent that Wales is, for the most part, a pastoral and agricultural country, with a sparse, scattered, and poor population. And here I must differ a little from my hon. Friend who would have moved the Resolution about Wales being a very poor country. A hundred years ago, or even later, it might have been truly said that Wales was a thinly inhabited and poor country; but within the last 50 or 60 years there has been an immense increase of wealth and population. My noble Friend (Lord Aberdare), whose services to the cause of Welsh education have been inestimable, wrote a very able letter to The Times last year, combating objections of this nature against establishing any Colleges in Wales. Among those who urged such objections there were two distinguished Scotchmen, one of them being my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). In reply to them
  1604
  Lord Aberdare showed that Glamorgan-shire had a larger population and rental than any county in Scotland except Lanarkshire, and that probably the population of Wales and Monmouthshire in 1881 was twice as great as was that of Scotland when its earlier Universities were founded. He showed also that Monmouthshire, Carmarthenshire, Breconshire, Denbighshire, and Flintshire had large mining and manufacturing industries, that Carnarvonshire and Merionethshire had in their slate quarries a singularly intelligent body of workmen, who had shown their appreciation of the value of education by the great sacrifices they had made, and that in other counties of Wales there is a considerable urban population. As a proof that the raw material is not wanting, I may refer to the marked success of what I may call the Infant College at Cardiff, which was opened only in October last. I have received a letter from the Principal within a few days, stating that it has already 150 day students, and that there are between 600 and 700 young persons who attend the evening classes in Cardiff and adjacent towns. But there is another fact to which I should like to call the attention of the House in support of my argument, and that is that there exists already a large amount of intellectual life and activity in Wales. I believe that Englishmen generally look very kindly upon my countrymen. They regard them as a good, quiet, orderly people, but also as comparatively ignorant, illiterate, and uncultivated. A short time ago The Times told its myriad readers that the Welsh read nothing but the Bible and sermons. With regard to the former part of the indictment, I plead guilty on their behalf. They do read the Bible very largely, and I think a nation may do a worse thing than be familiar with that Book. But as for the other, the fact is that there are comparatively few sermons printed in Welsh, as the Welsh prefer hearing sermons to reading them. But what I want to convey to the House is this—that there is a large living literature in Wales, which proves that its people are a reading people to a remarkable extent. In 1879, the Church Congress was held at Swansea, and a clergyman, the Rev. David Williams, read a very able and exhaustive paper

  1605
  mainly on the periodical literature of Wales, in which he showed that Wales had 84 newspapers and periodicals (32 in Welsh and 52 in English), and that, if we exclude London, this is a larger number than is found in England in proportion to the population. As for periodicals, he said that Wales stood higher than any part of the Kingdom, London again excepted. Scotland has 41 periodicals, Ireland 29, England 148, Wales 22. Thus, in proportion to population, Wales has twice as many as England, one and a-half time as many as Scotland, and four times as many as Ireland. But there is a large living literature not only in periodicals, but in books. There are works in the Welsh language not only on Theology and Biblical literature, of which there is great abundance, but on History, Biography, Science, Natural History, Fiction, Poetry and Music. One of the witnesses before the Departmental Committee, a large publisher at Wrexham, stated that he had made a calculation that the Welsh spent some £100,000 a-year on literature. I say this not by way of vaunting, but because I really think there is great ignorance and misconception among Englishmen as to the condition of Wales, and because, also, what I say is strictly ad rem in reference to this discussion, as showing that the mind of the people of Wales is alive, and that they are, therefore, prepared to appreciate higher education. It may be said that we ought to wait for the development of the intermediate system of education promised by Government; that it is more logical to begin with secondary schools rather than with Colleges. There is, no doubt, much force in this. But it is a curious fact that in Scotland and Ireland, and, I believe, to some extent also in England, Collegiate Institutions have preceded intermediate and even elementary schools. The system of parochial schools established by John Knox was posterior to the three Universities of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, which were founded respectively in 1410, 1450, and 1495. The Queen's Colleges in Ireland were founded in 1849; but the system of intermediate education only in 1879; and yet the Queen's Colleges did good service in giving to many young Irishmen an excellent education. My right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of
  1606
  Council on Education may think me a little inconsistent, after having signed a Report recommending two Colleges, to be now asking for help for a third. I might answer my right hon. Friend in the language of the poet, that—
  "The thoughts of men are widened With the process of the suns."
  But, Sir, the fact is that since the Report of the Departmental Committee, and very much in consequence of that Report and the kind and generous feeling shown by the Government to the recommendations of that Committee, a great stimulus has been given to the cause of education in Wales, so that we may expect a large rush to the Institutions that are provided. I join my hon. Friends in expressing gratitude to the Government for the manner in which they have taken up this matter. Certain recommendations were made in the Report of the Departmental Committee, every one of which the Government have shown their willingness to adopt. The Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education has approached the question of Welsh education in a spirit of earnestness and sincerity which has been of very great benefit to the cause, and, having helped Welshmen to establish two Colleges, I hope my right hon. Friend will add to the obligations he has already imposed upon us by lending a favourable ear to the prayer of so many thousands of the Welsh people, and not allowing the College at Aberystwith to be left without succour.
  MR. D. DAVIESfelt confident that the appeal now made to the Government would not be made in vain, because as Welshmen they had, in his opinion, a large claim upon the Government. Amongst other things, they had put the country to no expense for soldiers, and to very little expense for policemen. But, at the same time, he felt that they had no right to call upon the Government for more money unless they could show something for it. All they asked the Government to do was to give them something which would enable them to go on now, and if in the course of five or six years it was found they were not worthy of it, the grant now given might be withdrawn. The richer classes in Wales could afford to send their sons to the Colleges in England; but the farmers could not afford to do so. He, therefore, earnestly appealed to the Go-

  1607
  vernment to consider the case of Aberystwith College, and hoped they would look favourably upon it.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDjoined with his hon. Friends who had spoken in thanking the Government for what they had already done. Welshmen felt grateful to the Government, especially because they felt that they were the only Government which, during the last 300 years, had done anything for the Welsh people. At the same time, they felt that what had been already promised was not all that was required. This matter had been brought before the House in 1879 by the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian), and it was while that discussion was going on that he, at all events, and he believed many other Welsh Members, felt that there was really hope for the Welsh people; and that hope was brought about by the expressions made use of by the Prime Minister in the course of that debate. The College at Aberystwith was the outcome of a movement commenced in the year 1863, with the object of establishing Colleges and a University for Wales. He had been connected with that movement from the first, and had, therefore, every opportunity of knowing what the original programme was, and what difficulties the promoters had to contend with. Many years were spent in raising money and holding meetings to arouse public sympathy; and the Welsh people responded liberally to the appeal made to them, though many from whom better things might have been expected held aloof, or even showed hostility to the movement. At last, in the year 1872. a College was established at Aberystwith, which had proved a great success, and at which the attendance of students had increased from year to year. Whatever might be the success of the Colleges to be established at Cardiff and Bangor, the College at Aberystwith was the parent Institution, and ought to be supported. The College at Aberystwith was the only one that would supply the educational wants of the people of Mid Wales. In these circumstances, he trusted that the grant to the College would be raised from £8,000 to £12,000 a-year. It must be remembered that Wales was the most inexpensive part of the United Kingdom to govern, and that, except as a part of
  1608
  the highway between England and Ireland, no public money had been spent upon it. In conclusion, he ventured to appeal to the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education to assist in bringing Aberystwith College into such a state of efficiency as would render it capable of supplying the higher educational wants of the people of Mid Wales.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, there could be but one opinion, among those who heard it, as to the admirable speech of the hon. Member who had placed this Resolution on the Paper. He did not rise on behalf of the Government to respond to the appeals of hon. Members on behalf of this College, because that task would devolve upon his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. For his own part, he yielded to no man in the House as regarded sympathy with the question which the hon. Member had so much at heart, because he himself had been one of the pioneers of the movement which had led to the foundation of Aberystwith College. As far back as 1853 he had been associated with the movement which had for its object the promotion of higher education in Wales, and very uphill work it had been to bring about the present state of things in that respect. Notwithstanding the passionate desire for higher education prevalent among the Welsh people, no part of Her Majesty's Dominions had been so miserably provided with educational endowments. Such as there were had been given by Churchmen; and it had, therefore, been almost impossible for the Nonconformists to avail themselves of them. The Aberystwith College, which had been established, in a large degree, through the exertions of Sir Hugh Owen, had been founded and had been supported for a long time by the pence of the poor, which had been obtained by a house-to-house collection, and by collections made at the doors of the churches and chapels; and the fact that 100,000 people had each subscribed 2s. 6d., or a less sum, towards its endowment, was sufficient to establish its claim to being a people's College. He desired to call the attention of the House to the fact that of 16 scholars sent from Aberystwith to Oxford four gained the first-class and 10 obtained honours; while of 12 sent to Cambridge two ob-

  1609
  tained first-class honours and one became a Wrangler. He very much, doubted whether the best of English public schools—whether Eton or Harrow, for instance—could show such a record. It was a pity that the Departmental Committee which had expressed definite opinions concerning the Cardiff and Bangor Colleges had left that of Aberystwith an open question. The physical barriers which separated one part of Wales from another made communication between them very difficult. There were really three districts in Wales—North Wales, South Wales, and Mid Wales. Two Colleges were established at the extreme North-West and South-West ends of the country; but the people of Aberystwith might just as well send their sons to Oxford or Cambridge as to Bangor or Cardiff. He entirely agreed with the Report of the Departmental Committee that if we wanted to educate the people we must take education to their doors. Welsh Members ought to feel very grateful to the Government for what they had done for Bangor and Cardiff; and he could not but remember that when a similar appeal was made to right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power it was received with deaf ears. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, received their request with a stubborn non possumus. He hoped that the liberal spirit which had induced the Government to give £8,000 a-year to Bangor and Cardiff would now induce them to give something—not necessarily so large a sum—to Aberystwith. He had no doubt of the ability of the people of Wales to support three Colleges, and there was no reason in the world to fear that Aberystwith would do any damage to Cardiff or Bangor. Cardiff was already thoroughly established, and he was delighted to hear that it was achieving a success not surpassed by Liverpool, or Manchester, or Sheffield. There were 150 day scholars and 700 night scholars already at work. No such great results could, of course, be expected of Aberystwith; but he was sure it would justify by results the action of the Government if a substantial grant were made to it. Nothing could be more fair and moderate than the speech of his hon. Friend who introduced the subject, and he thought they
  1610
  would all be content to leave the question in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, who had shown a greater interest in Welsh education than any of his Predecessors.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that in 1879 he, at the request of his brother Welsh Members, had brought the matter before the House, when his Motion did not meet with the acceptance of the Government. He was deeply grateful to the Government for what they had done, and he was sure that his feelings were shared by all the Welsh people. The College at Aberystwith was in a different position from any other Welsh College. It had been established, as had already been stated, by a national movement; and it would be a great pity if it were allowed to die, as it certainly would, if it were not aided by the State. The students of the College came almost altogether from Mid Wales, and there was no danger of its interfering with Cardiff. There were young men enough for all the Colleges. Sir Hugh Owen had said that of young men between 15 and 26, who might avail themselves of College education, there were 50,000 in Wales. All Welshmen would look with deep regret at the abandonment of the College, and he thought it was fairly entitled to some measure of assistance from the Government.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the House had had a most interesting debate, and the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who opened the discussion were all that could be desired in tone, manner, and most effective advocacy. It was impossible for anyone acquainted with Aberystwith College—supported, he might almost say, by the pence of the people—to over-estimate the good work which it had done. The objects for which the College was founded had practically been obtained. He did not say it had not work still before it; but if its doors were closed to-morrow it would have done a successful work for the cause of education. It was not that the number of its students had been great, for in any year they had not reached 100, and they had often fallen lower. Nor was the site a good one. That was admitted by all the witnesses who came before the Committee. It had been stated that it drew three-fourths of its students from Mid Wales,

  1611
  But the testimony was distinct that the success of the students at Oxford and Cambridge had been most remarkable, which testified to the good work done in the College, and still more to the excellence of the raw material with which it was supplied. He had had abundant evidence of the remarkable efforts made by the Welsh people to obtain knowledge under difficulties such as hardly any other people, except Scotchmen, had to contend with. Cases had been brought under his notice of miners, quarrymen, and people in the most straitened circumstances, almost starving themselves, in order that they might go to College, and of their obtaining such sound knowledge and such distinction as to do honour to the Principality as well as to themselves. The Departmental Committee had done good service. This was the first opportunity he had had of saying anything in the House with respect to the Departmental Committee; and he should be doing injustice to them and to his own feelings if he did not say how much the House, and how much Wales, was indebted to their labours. The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Emlyn) and the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) had been most energetic. Mr. Lewis Morris had shown all the ardour and affection of a Welshman for his country, Lord Aberdare had done yeoman service, and the Committee had also the great advantage of the services of a most able man—Canon Robinson. Speaking for the Education Department, he would say that they would be very glad if either North Wales accepted Aberystwith College, or Aberystwith College had offered to transfer its endowments to Bangor or elsewhere in North Wales. He believed the people of North Wales were perfectly justified in requiring that their College should be more accessible than Aberystwith was to them. In the Memorial submitted to the Prime Minister, enough had been said of the inaccessibility of Aberystwith. He thought they were all agreed that the people of North Wales had done wisely in selecting Carnarvonshire as the site for the North Wales College. The only question was whether Wales could support three Colleges. Having himself recently gone to the Treasury and obtained two not inconsiderable grants, one for North Wales and the other for South Wales,
  1612
  he felt that he should be going very far if he were now to ask for a third grant. The large subscriptions raised, both in North and South Wales, for the Welsh Colleges, did great credit to the Welsh people. He had been astonished to hear of the subscriptions, amounting to thousands of pounds, raised by the Welsh quarrymen, showing the earnest desire of those men that the Colleges should be a success. He could not accept the Resolution of his hon. Friend, because it was plain that to put the three Colleges on the same footing, so far as State aid was concerned, was not quite the position which ought to be taken up. If the three Colleges could co-exist and flourish without interfering with each other, then he thought the Department would be justified in subsidizing them. He therefore proposed that an inquiry should be instituted in order to ascertain what was the actual condition of Aberystwith College. If he found that the three Colleges could co-exist without mutual disadvantage, he should then have to inquire into the financial position of Aberystwith College. He could not immediately make any further declaration, nor was it possible for anyone to do so without obtaining further information. All he could say was that a good case had been made out for inquiry, and that the Government would consider the matter in the most favourable manner.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he was astonished at the right hon. Gentleman pointing to some further inquiry in connection with this matter. The House had not been told what the result of that inquiry would be.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, what he stated was that an inquiry would be made into the financial position of the College—the cost at which it was carried on.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that anybody who wished to find out the financial position of the College could do so in one day. The hon. Member who introduced this subject (Mr. Rendel) said he made no complaint. He (Viscount Emlyn) did complain, and he thought the constituencies of Wales were complaining strongly of the prospect of Aberystwith College being allowed to drop and fall. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his answer-would give the hon. Member who brought this matter forward perfect

  1613
  satisfaction. He should be curious to know whether it had had that effect. The movement out of which Aberystwith College grew was one of a most remarkable character, because it stood a test which had wrecked many other Colleges—the test of an appeal to the pockets of those who were engaged in it. He could not accept the statement which they had heard from the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, in any shape or form, as being satisfactory. It was clearly laid down by the Committee appointed in 1880 to inquire into the whole subject that Aberystwith College was to be utilized; and the right hon. Gentleman was in error when he stated that the Report of the Committee was vague as to what was to be done with it. The Government might have taken several courses; but, at all events, it was requisite that they should have a policy. He gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not the least idea what he should do with Aberystwith College. All he did was to promise inquiry into the financial conditions of the College, which did not seem a very satisfactory answer. The Government appeared to be drifting in an aimless way, which would be very dangerous unless they were pulled up in their course. They had, in the first instance, adopted the plan of giving grants simply because it was the easiest way of dealing with education; and now they had shelved for the time the question of intermediate education. It was true that for the last two Sessions it had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech; but nothing had ever come of it. The scheme, if there was one, should be laid on the Table of the House, as some earnest given them that that question was going to be dealt with. They had been told at the very fag end of last Session that some details were not settled, and now they had the same thing told them; in fact, the question of intermediate education was put entirely aside. He would press upon the Government that until they had drawn up a scheme for the grammar schools they would not be able to deal properly with the Colleges, which depended upon these schools. It looked now as if the grammar schools were to be gradually squeezed out of existence. The Government seemed quietly and calmly to have let Aberystwith drop out
  1614
  of their sight. Last year a deputation had waited on the right hon. Gentleman to ask that he would give due consideration to the claims of Aberystwith in deciding upon the claims of the different towns which were competing as to which should have the College, and the Lord President of the Committee of Council on Education had admitted their claim to consideration. The admission of Bangor did not make it necessary to lose sight of Aberystwith, which might have offered to meet them in some way. Now there was considerable difficulty in the position; it might be contended whether three Colleges could exist together and do good work. Another point to which he would like to call attention was the marked absence of any reference, on the part either of the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member who had addressed the House, to the existence of another College in Wales—namely, Lampeter. This College had existed for over half-a-century; it had good buildings, and its work was increasing. The students of Lampeter graduated not only in theology, but in classics, history, science, and modern literature. Theology there occupied a position as nearly as possible identical with that which it occupied at Cambridge. Lampeter was established for the training of young clergymen; but its doors had been opened as widely as possible to Nonconformists, and no religious tests or observances were required. The College was affiliated to Oxford and Cambridge in a way that no other College was affiliated except that at Nottingham. This College was doing good work, and he protested against its being ignored in the discussion.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, all that the noble Lord had stated was correct; but Lampeter was a denominational College, and if he had mentioned that he must have mentioned others.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, there was absolutely no religious teaching given unless it was requested. The action of the Government during the last few years had rather disappointed him. He had hoped that long before this the right hon. Gentleman would have taken in hand intermediate education for Wales. He did not know whether the Bill was ready. [Mr. MUNDELLA said that it was.] He hoped that, being ready, the right hon. Gentleman would produce it, because if he waited until

  1615
  the Order Book was cleared, he would have to wait a long time. He felt that Aberystwith College had been hardly treated. As the pioneer of education in Wales, it was hard that it should be suddenly, dropped, and almost snubbed, by being left to die a natural death, while the other two Colleges had £4,000 a-year each.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that Aberystwith had £4,000 a-year up to the present time.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would say he was not going to drop it? [Mr. MUNDELLA: I have said so.] But how long was the grant to be continued—for a term of years or permanently? The right hon. Gentleman had absolutely refused to give a pledge, except as to inquiry. There was nothing to prevent Aberystwith being dropped if it could not have the grant; and the stoppage of it was threatened. Uncertainty was a great drawback to education in Wales. People were hanging back, waiting to know what would be done with Aberystwith. If the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind, he ought to have told the House so in his speech, instead of indulging in these interruptions. He hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman had adopted some policy in regard to this question he would tell the House what it was.
  SIR JOHN JENKINSsaid, they did not ask the Government to support any denominational College. They appealed to the Government on behalf of Aberystwith, on account of the excellent work it had done, and on account of its undenominational character. The people of Wales were not fond of applying to the Government in such matters as these. They preferred subscribing among themselves, and in regard to Aberystwith they had subscribed £51,000 for its maintenance between 1863 and 1880. Aberystwith had also strong claims owing to its geographical position. This appeal was made respectfully and earnestly on behalf of the loyal people of Wales, and he hoped it would not he made in vain.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that, as several appeals had been made to him in the course of the debate, it would be hardly respectful for him to remain silent. The Motion of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Rendel) only
  1616
  appeared on the Paper that morning, and he had only learned the purport of it yesterday, when it became his duty at once to look into the question, and see what information the Treasury had on the subject up to the present time. He found, to his great surprise, that there was not a single word at the Treasury on the subject of any grant to Aberystwith College, except the intermediate grant made during the last two years out of the £8,000 a-year which was promised after the Committee of 1881 to the North and South Wales Colleges. The Papers relating to this intermediate grant were the only Papers in the Treasury from which he could obtain any information except the Report of the Committee of 1881—a very influentially constituted Committee, of which the noble Lord who sat on the opposite side of the House (Viscount Emlyn) was a Member, and which made, apparently, a unanimous Report, or, at least, a Report as to which there was no difference of opinion on the subject of this College. That Report, for which the public were greatly indebted to the Committee, covered the whole question; but on this subject of a third Welsh College he wished the House to remember that the noble Lord and the other Gentlemen who signed the Report only proposed that there should be two Colleges in Wales. They gave a tolerably satisfactory reason why there should only be two Colleges; and as to the existing College at Aberystwith, they used an expression which pointed to the propriety of that Institution being closed or being transferred to Bangor. ["No, no!"] Well, the words to which he referred were these—
  "The College at Aberystwith, whether retained on its present site or removed to Carnarvon or Bangor, must be accepted as the College for North Wales."
  This being all the information he found at the Treasury when endeavouring to prepare for this debate, he had come down to-night to hear what it was the hon. Member proposed. He had listened very carefully to almost the whole of the debate, having only been absent from the House for a few minutes; he had heard the proposals made on both sides; and the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Emlyn) would, perhaps, forgive him if he said that it would not be proper for him to pass from the express

  1617
  question before the House, which was that of Aberystwith College only, to the other interesting points to which allusion had been made. As to the College itself, the proposal seemed to be that, inasmuch as it was recommended that grants of £4,000 a-year should be given to two Colleges, one at Cardiff and the other either at Aberystwith or at Bangor, and inasmuch as while the other Colleges were being built part of the grant had been given to Aberystwith, they ought not, now that the other Colleges were built, to cut Aberystwith adrift and leave it entirely without help. It was contended that there was good cause for supporting three Colleges instead of two. This being really the whole of the case before the House, he wished to say, on behalf of the Government and in support of what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on Education (Mr. Mundella), that he would very carefully consider the proposal, which was absolutely new as far as the Government were concerned. He had heard of the Memorial presented to the Prime Minister the day before yesterday, and he had heard of the proposal of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire through the Notice which that hon. Member had given. He had also heard the debate, and, as a result, he could promise with almost absolute certainty that—notwithstanding the fact that the Departmental Committee of 1881, which was composed of Lord Aberdare, the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Emlyn), and others, recommended that there should be two Colleges—inasmuch as they had to-night heard very strong reasons assigned why, instead of two Colleges, the Government should endow three, the matter should be looked into with impartiality, and with a view to give any consideration in their power to the claims of the Welsh people. He was bound to say that it was very satisfactory to listen, almost for the first time since he had been in Parliament, to a not absolutely, but certainly essentially, Welsh debate; and he might, perhaps, be allowed to congratulate the hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the discussion upon the fact that there seemed to be great moderation in the tone adopted, and practical proposals had been put forward which it would not be difficult for them to deal with when they had to
  1618
  consider the course it was best to take. He ought not to say more at the present moment. He had, he thought, said as much as it was reasonable the Government should be asked to say on such very short notice; and he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Rendel) would accept the assurance he had given, and that the debate would not be prolonged.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that every hon. Member who had spoken, except the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), had expressed himself in favour of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Rendel). The words uttered by the right hon. Gentlemen he had referred to were really the death-sentence of Aberystwith College. The Vice President of the Council had said that he would grant an inquiry; but the matter had been already inquired into by the Departmental Committee, which sat for two years. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had said that he was not certain as to the financial condition of Aberystwith College. Well, in the very Memorial which the right hon. Gentleman held in his hand every statement which could possibly be made as to the financial condition of that College was made. The right hon. Gentleman, having read that Memorial, knew everything that could be possibly known on the subject. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire would not allow himself to be put off in this way by the Government, and would not allow the interests of Aberystwith to be shunted once more. Those interests had been shunted by the Departmental Committee, they had been shunted by the Government, and now, having been held for a length of time in a sort of balance, they were to be shunted again by this answer of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella). The Chancellor of the Exchequer had congratulated hon. Members on this being a Welsh debate, but there was no reason why it should be an exclusively Welsh debate, because in this question was involved the payment of a large sum of money out of the Imperial Funds; and the country and every Member of the House had a right to see that the application of that money should be settled on a principle tending to the national good, and contributing

  1619
  towards the attainment of an object of national importance. It was on this ground that, as an English Member, he desired to take part in this debate. But he had a still nearer and still more personal reason for intervening; because he, like his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, had many Welsh-speaking constituents, and he, unlike his hon. Friend, had his home in the midst of those persons, to whom the removal of this College would be an absolute denial of the means of higher education—means which they had promoted and obtained themselves, and which now, for a length of time, they had been enjoying. He did not believe, from what had passed in that House, that Members who had not an intimate knowledge of the case could be quite aware of some of the circumstances connected with the origin of this College. The circumstances connected with its origin were these. The Nonconformists of Wales were determined that their ministry should be a learned ministry; they were determined that the ministers of their chapels should have as good facilities and as great opportunities of obtaining the very best standard of knowledge and learning as were known in England. That was the origin of the College. It was the outcome of a movement of Nonconformists, not of Secularists; and, like all great movements, it was inspired by a deeply religious motive. The religious arrangements of the College, and the facilities for religious instruction, were such as were agreeable to all the Nonconformists of all the different sections—to the Wesleyans, the Calvinists, the Baptists, the Methodists, and the Unitarians. It was a fact that one-third of the scholars who had been trained at Aberystwith College had gone into the ministry of the Church or of the Chapel.
  MR. RENDEL: I think you will find that it is one-sixth. The numbers are 59 to 369.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg pardon. I am taking it from the Memorial presented to the Privy Council, and I think the hon. Member will find the figures to be 90 out of 300.
  MR. RENDEL: I must state positively that the numbers are as I gave them—namely, 59 to 369, or under one-sixth.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he was at issue with the hon. Gentle-
  1620
  man. If the hon. Member would refer to the document he (Mr. Stanley Leigh-ton) was quoting, he would see that he was right, or that if the number was not exactly a third it was only a trifle short of it, and it was certainly more than one-fourth. He maintained that everybody who knew anything about this College knew that what he said was true—namely, that it had had its origin in the strength of the feeling that prevailed amongst Nonconformists in favour of a learned ministry, and in the opinion that the establishment of this College was the means of obtaining it. First of all, the subscriptions came from the poor—from the congregations of the chapels—and Sir Hugh Owen had declared that 70 out of every 100 subscriptions were of sums of 2s. 6d. and under. So strong, however, was the feeling, that the rich people saw that they could not overlook the movement; and they themselves came forward with subscriptions of fifty pounds, hundreds, and even thousands of pounds. The rich and the poor were thus joined together, and, in a little time, it was found that politics created no division on this matter; but that Conservatives and Liberals were united in their support of the College. Furthermore, it was found that religious differences, which were strongly marked in the Principality, were wiped away on the question, and that Churchmen and Dissenters both extended their cordial support to the scheme, and offertories from the churches swelled the subscription list. He did not believe that another instance was to be found throughout the whole of the United Kingdom where the whole population, putting aside religious and political differences and distinctions bet ween rich and poor, had gone together so thoroughly and entirely as the Welsh people had done in their support of Aberystwith College. It was a College founded upon such principles and upon such a national feeling that the Government, as he understood, were about to abolish. But, even more than this, it was not only from Wales itself that subscriptions came, for the Welshmen of London, Manchester, and Liverpool contributed. No less than £25,000 were received from England in support of this National College. The Departmental Committee had done but scant justice to the College in their Report. They found a

  1621
  growing College, a College which had been created by the self-help of the Welsh people, and a College which had been in existence for about a quarter of a century. They found that College nationally endowed, supported by special grants from Parliament, and yet now, between the Departmental Committee and the Government, that College was in danger. At this point he should like to say something as to the conduct pursued by the Government in the matter from the beginning to the end. He felt very strongly on the subject. The Government sent a number of agents on a tour of perambulation throughout Wales, shaking a bag of £8,000 in the ears of Welshmen. They went from one county to another, the Government being in search of popularity, and the unfortunate Welshmen, of course, being in search of endowment, every one of the 12 counties expecting that it would be the happy recipient of the £8,000. It must be remembered that this was national money, and the House had a right to demand that the Government would take upon itself the responsibility of saying where the endowment should be located. Well, what did they do? They put up the endowment, as it were, to auction, and said—"Whoever can bring the greatest number of votes and appears the strongest will have the money, and not those who are most in need of the money." In this way Central Wales was betrayed, and two rich places—namely, Bangor, with its slate quarries, and Cardiff, with its docks—towns which, though they were Welsh in name, were hardly Welsh in character, having lost much of their Welsh nationality through the influx of foreigners—which were able to take care of themselves, received these two grants, while the poor men of Central Wales had had taken from them even what they possessed. Now, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Rendel) would not be satisfied with words, but would insist upon deeds. He hoped the College of Aberystwith would not find in his hon. Friend a second Lord Aberdare. That noble Lord had been the first President of this College, and the Chairman of the Departmental Committee, and the friends of the College thought he was a person whom they could trust. This was, perhaps, the reason why they did
  1622
  not press their claims as strongly as they might have done in the first instance. Lord Aberdare had now left them entirely in the lurch, and had become the President of, or a leading man in, the College of South Wales. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) did not wish to urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the other Members, who, in this instance, were allied with him, to undertake a forlorn hope, or to undertake anything in which they were perfectly certain to be beaten by the strength of the Government. Therefore, he desired to make them a practical suggestion, and one which, if it should not be taken up by them, he trusted to be able himself to bring to a test in the House. His proposal was this—It was understood that the Government were prepared to hand over to the cause of higher education in Wales £8,000 a-year. He wished to point out the utter insecurity of an annual grant from Parliament. The position of Aberystwith College at that moment was an example of the danger of trusting to Parliament for continuous support. "Put not your trust in Governments or in Parliaments." It might happen that a Government might come which knew not Joseph, and whom Joseph did not know. Suppose a Government of economists sat on the Treasury Bench—a Government, say, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and supported by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—and suppose they accepted the prevailing idea which was growing so strong in these days that higher education should not be under the thumb of the Government, but that it should take care of itself, the very first thing they would do would be to veto the endowment of the Welsh Colleges. Perpetual annuities were not unlike hereditary pensions. Both were in danger in these days. He would ask his hon. Friends, as a compromise on this matter, to appeal to the Government to commute that £8,000 into a grant of £250,000 down. This seemed to him a very fair proposal, based on economical principle, and it was one which the Government of the present First Lord of the Treasury was most likely to look on with favour, because the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Ministry had always had an objection to saddling posterity with the debts which he himself had

  1623
  contracted. This, therefore, would be an easy way out of the difficulty. A bird in the hand was worth two in the bush. All Wales could unite in such a demand, and the sum should be divided between the three Colleges. They would then have North Wales and South Wales, Bangor and Cardiff, entirely with them. This was his proposal to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and all the other Welsh Members, as well as all those who, like himself, were deeply interested in Welsh education. In conclusion, he wished to say that he was glad to find himself allied with his hon. Friends opposite in this matter. They were allied in this—that they all of them protested against the injustice and the impolicy of disestablishing and disendowing the Nonconformist College of Aberystwith. He could assure the House, and he hoped every Member would believe that they were not actuated by any sectarian, personal, or local motive, but that they acted on the principle, and on the sure conviction, that the policy of disestablishment and disendowment was wrong.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he would not detain the House more than five minutes. As, however, the debate had consisted of a series of appeals by Welsh Members to the Government, and of answers to Welsh Members by the Government, he thought it only proper that an English Member, who had had some opportunity of knowing the state of Welsh education, should add something to the discussion. It had been his duty to make inquiries in the year 1866 into the condition of intermediate and higher education in Wales for the Royal Commission, which was then sitting, and in this way he had had opportunities of gauging the condition of education in the Principality. The impression left on his mind, and which he had no doubt would have been left upon the mind of any Englishman visiting Wales, was that the country had fared ill indeed, as compared with England, in the matter of its educational facilities. He believed the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had already given some statistics to the House, and he (Mr. Bryce) would not repeat them, except to remark that the population of Wales was 1–18th of that of England, and that the educational endowments of Wales were only l–45th of those of England, or less than a third. This condition of things was very much due
  1624
  to the neglect of Wales by her richer neighbour, for he believed that the only time when England had thought of doing anything for the Principality was when the Commissioners for the Propagation of the Gospel in Wales, who were sent there under the Commonwealth, founded grammar schools there. There was in Wales a great want of even such educational facilities as existed in England and Scotland, and this state of things had been intensified by the fact that until very lately Wales was insufficiently provided with means of communication. Wales was a mountainous country, and had only recently been opened up by railroads, so that a country as to which it was more than usually necessary to bring education to the doors of the people was just the country to which education had been least brought. It was surprising to notice, under the circumstances of such want of educational opportunities, what a passion for education seemed to possess the people. He did not think there was any part of England or Ireland, or even of Scotland, where such a zeal for education was found to exist amongst the very poor. Whilst on his rounds in Wales, he had been very often struck by the large numbers of people, scarcely able to speak a word of English, who attended humble school-buildings which would not be accepted by the Education Department for the poorest elementary school in England, labouring away at classics or mathematics in order that they might fit themselves to become Nonconformist ministers. To his mind, no better proof could be given of the zeal of the Welsh people, of the thirst of those people for educational advancement, than the fact that Aberystwith College had been erected to so large an extent out of the subscriptions of persons of limited means. With regard to that College, he wished to make one remark in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Departmental Committee had reported that two Colleges were enough; but that one of them should be placed in South Wales, and that the other should either be retained in Aberystwith or transferred to Bangor. The Departmental Committee did not speak of the extinction of the College of Aberystwith; but said that if a College were

  1625
  started at Bangor, it should be Aberystwith College removed there. Though he did not argue that there was a complete case made out for three Colleges, still he admitted that this was a point deserving further inquiry. It was, however, a different thing to say that they must establish de novo three Colleges, from saying that they ought to extinguish an existing College, which had its buildings and its clientéle, as well as the attachment of the people who had established it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear this fact in mind, and also the fact that Wales was a country where the people were still very much under the influence of local feeling, and where it was not necessarily the case that people living in one district, who went to a certain place for education, would, if the educational establishment at that place were removed to another district, follow it. It was, he believed, a fact that Aberystwith College had hitherto obtained her students from North Wales or Mid Wales. As to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Emlyn), he should like to support them. The College at Lampeter, to which the noble Lord had referred, had for its Principal one of the most able men in Wales; but it must be remembered that the ecclesiastical associations of Lampeter were such that it was not to be expected that that gentleman, or his colleagues, could gain the confidence of the Nonconformists of Wales for some time to come. Besides the out-of-the-way situation of the place, its connection with the Established Church had been such that it could not do for Wales what a College otherwise as well fitted ought to do. He ventured to express a hope that the Government would Very soon bring in their Intermediate Education Bill, of which so much had been said. He believed that intermediate education was the great need of Wales, and that, where good intermediate schools had been established, they would serve as feeders to the Colleges, and would justify the existence of, perhaps, even three Colleges. He hoped that full powers would be taken for the consolidation of endowments, and for their removal from places whore they were of little value, and also that power would he taken to lay hold of dole charities, and apply them to more useful purposes,
  1626
  though always for the benefit of the poor.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he had no wish to continue the debate, which, as it had now been going on for a considerable length of time, the House was anxious to bring to a conclusion. But he wished to say one word with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was clear that this matter really resolved itself into a question of finance; and, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not imagine that it was a question that merely concerned those who resided in Wales, he (Lord Claud Hamilton) wished to tell the right hon. Gentleman of the strong feeling which existed amongst Welshmen in Liverpool, who had left the Principality possibly never to return to it. As the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education was aware, the great majority of these gentlemen were not political supporters of himself (Lord Claud Hamilton), but were the strongest supporters of the Party sitting opposite. Well, he had received many communications on the subject under discussion. During the past two or three weeks a great many letters had been sent to him with regard to it; and, without exception, they had all pointed to the desirability of continuing the grant to Aberystwith College. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would approach this question in the fair and comprehensive spirit in which he generally dealt with these matters; and, if he did so, no doubt he would find that the College in question had been proved to be a great success as far as it had gone, and that unless it obtained a grant its continuance would be impossible; and, no doubt, under the circumstances, he would deal with the subject not in a cheese-paring or pettifogging spirit, but in the broad, liberal, and comprehensive spirit which its importance deserved.
  MR. JONES-PARRYsaid, he was one of those who believed that though speech was silvern silence was golden, and he did not trouble the House often. But on this occasion he could not sit silent, even at that late hour, when an active debate was proceeding—a debate

  1627
  in which not only his countrymen on the Ministerial side of the House, but he was happy to say Gentlemen on the other side who sympathized with the Welsh people, were taking part. He would, however, only say a very few words, and they would be practical. He did not happen to be in the House to hear the favourable and courteous speech which he was told the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education had made on the question a short time ago. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman very much for what he heard he had said in that speech; but he would venture to remind him, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of one point which appeared to be very crucial—namely, that last year an offer was made to the Universities of Scotland of £40,000, and that offer was rejected by the Scotch Members as being utterly inadequate. Taking into consideration the relative population and taxation of Scotland and Wales, he calculated that if Scotland was entitled to £40,000 for her Universities, the Principality was entitled to £17,000 annually. And yet what did the Welsh Members ask for? They asked simply for £12,000 a-year, and they would be very glad and very grateful to the Government if they would give them that. The Government had already promised them £8,000 a-year, £4,000 for the new South Wales College at Cardiff, and £4,000 to the new North Wales College at Bangor. All they asked was that the Government should give them another £4,000 a-year for the already-established and popular College of Aberystwith in Mid Wales. Wales, he might remind hon. Members who lived before school boards were established, was known in old times as North "Wales, or, in their ancient British language, Gwynedd; Mid Wales, or Powis; and South Wales, or Dehendir. They had already, through the generosity and justice of the Government, for which they were very grateful, because it was exceptional, obtained two Colleges; but in the College of Aberystwith he had always taken a great deal of interest. He, in his humble capacity, was one of the first supporters and originators of that College, and he should be very sorry indeed if it were to collapse while its two more modern rivals flourished. He would point out
  1628
  that Aberystwith College was specially adapted for Mid Wales. Cardiff College was at the extreme end of South Wales, while Bangor was at the extreme end of North Wales; and these Colleges, being intended for the higher education of the middle classes, must necessarily be fed by students in the immediate locality. This might be proved by the fact that the four counties of North Wales—namely, Carnarvon, Anglesea, Denbigh, and Flint had only contributed about one-sixth of the students of Aberystwith College up to this time. Again, he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Scotland had had a grant amounting to £150,000 towards the buildings of her educational and University Institutions. Welshmen did not ask for any aid towards their educational buildings. Aberystwith College was already established in very handsome and commodious buildings, and the two new Colleges of North and South Wales were being built from their own resources. He thanked God that his countrymen, though they were called poor, had come forward in a most generous and magnanimous manner—even to the pence of the poor—not only to establish the College at Aberystwith, but also to assist the two new Colleges. Though he did not wish to use strong or un-Parliamentary language, he might say he thought it would be almost a national crime if the College of Aberystwith, which had led the way under very disadvantageous circumstances, in educational advancement, and which had been working so satisfactorily for many years, should be allowed to collapse for want of a paltry £4,000 a-year from a great country like this. He appealed to the Government on another ground. Welshmen had been—and who would deny it?—the most loyal, quiet, and well-behaved people in the United Kingdom ever since the days of the Tudors. If hon. Members wanted a proof of this they should read through Welsh history. They had had no rebellions; they had had no revolutions; they did not deal in dynamite; they paid their rents to their landlords, and they never troubled the House of Commons in any way. They did not pretend that they had grievances. Thank God, all their grievances were wiped away in the times of the Tudors, when they were placed on a perfectly equal

  1629
  level with their friendly neighbours, whom they called the Saxons, and who only invaded them now for their advantage. He humbly hoped and trusted, and he believed firmly that the Government would treat them as generously—he might almost say as justly—as the Welsh people thought they deserved. Although he regarded this as a national question, quite irrespective of creed or of politics, as was shown by the Report which had been received, he would say that Members from Wales had a right to some consideration from the present Government, in whose support every county and borough in the Principality sent to that House a Member, with the exception of the constituencies represented by two hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he joined in the opinion expressed as to the moderation which had characterized the speeches delivered in the course of that debate; but even at the last moment they had not arrived at the conclusion of Her Majesty's Government in respect of this matter. The Vice President of the Council had said that he was going carefully to consider the question—that was to say, the financial position of the College at Aberystwith. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he was rather taken at a disadvantage because he had only become acquainted with the terms of the Motion within the last 24 hours, and he also assured the House that he would give the matter his favourable consideration. He ventured to point out that, notwithstanding the short notice spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman, the subject was no new one to Her Majesty's Government, because it was one which had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech on two occasions. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No, no! Not Aberystwith College!] No; but the question of intermediate education in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not taken this matter into consideration. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have done so. He ventured to remind Her Majesty's Government that the College of Aberystwith moved to Cardiff or Bangor was not the same thing as the College at Aberystwith, and the Government must have known that that College was on the verge of being shut up; and he thought it would only have been fair on the part of the Government to have
  1630
  prepared the people of Wales interested in this matter for the closing of the College of Aberystwith, if that was what they really intended. But he had heard that the Government had not been able to make up their minds as to the course to be taken, because they were unwilling to disappoint their supporters from Wales. He hoped, however, that the result of the debate would be that the Government would determine one way or other—that they would tell the people who were connected, as teachers or otherwise, with the College at Aberystwith that the College would be closed, so that they might make their arrangements accordingly; or, if they proposed to retain it, that they would give them notice that the grant would be continued. This was no question of local prejudice, or of removing from one part of the country to another a denominational establishment struggling for existence. A great deal more than that was involved, because the persons immediately interested would have to make arrangements in accordance with their convenience; they could not be turned out at once. He was far from saying that the Government ought to allow the College at Bangor to be established under something like false pretences; but if the Vice President of the Council had made up his mind that there should only be two Colleges in Wales let him say so, in order that the people of Wales might know. The Government, by not coming to a conclusion on this subject until they were forced to do so by the exigencies of the case, had given rise to a great deal of disappointment and heart-burning. An hon. Member had referred to the College at Lampeter as being a Sectarian College. Well, no doubt it was a Church College; but, although established on Church of England principles, it was a College at which ample provision was made for those who were not members of the Church of England. He had authority for stating that one-third of the boys who were educated in the junior department at this moment were Nonconformists. It was, therefore, clear that Nonconformists were at least satisfied that justice was done to them when they went within its walls. Hon. Gentlemen were probably aware that the scheme of affiliating Colleges to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge

  1631
  was one which had created great interest in the country; and he would take that opportunity of saying that Lampeter College was, he believed, the first of those which had availed itself of the scheme, so that he was justified in saying that Lampeter College occupied a distinguished position amongst the Colleges of the country. In making the appeal to Her Majesty's Government for a decision about Welsh education, he wished it to be borne in mind that he was not suing in formâ pauperis; he simply asked them to come to a conclusion on this truly important question without loss of time.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this was a matter of great interest to a large number of his constituents in Lancashire, a view which would, he believed, be confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). It was not a question of establishing a new College, but of destroying an old one, and the Government ought to consider seriously before they took that step. He thought it right to state that the existence of Aberystwith College was a subject of the greatest concern, not only to Welshmen in the Principality, but elsewhere; and he could bear personal testimony to the immense disappointment that would be caused by its disestablishment.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he had been struck with the extraordinary interest shown by the Welsh people with regard to Aberystwith College, who, he felt sure, would be deeply disappointed if the action of Her Majesty's Government led to its surrender. He believed, however, that the declarations of Her Majesty's Government would give great satisfaction to the Welsh people generally; and, on behalf of a large number of constituents, he tendered his thanks for the manner in which they had responded to the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, with reference to the Supplementary Votes in Committee of Supply, it was admitted that they must either be taken at that Sitting or finished to-morrow (Saturday). He thought his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proved to hon. Members who were present last night that it was absolutely necessary to take the Votes without delay. The question, then, was whether the House should, in the event of any other hon.
  1632
  Members wishing to speak, continue the present discussion, or proceed to the consideration of one or two limited Votes. He submitted whether it would not be better to allow Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair, so that the Vote for the Afghan contribution and two Votes on account of the Post Office might be taken.
  MR. BIGGARasked if, in the event of the House going into Committee of Supply for the purpose of considering the Votes indicated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Postmaster General would be in his place?
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—AFGHAN WAR (GRANT IN AID)—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1883–4.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £500,000, Afghan War (Grant in Aid).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I think it is right I should give to the Committee some explanation with respect to this Vote. The contribution towards the expenses of the Afghan War is, altogether, £5,000,000 sterling; £2,000,000 of that consists in the remission of the repayment of £2,000,000, lent without interest, by the late Government, I think, in 1879, and the other £3,000,000 was to be paid in six annual instalments of £500,000 each. Now, Sir, the proposal in this Vote is that the instalment which would naturally be paid after the end of this financial year—which might be paid in the first week of April—should be paid in the last month of the present financial year. It is, therefore, not a postponement, but an anticipation of the charge. I will state to the Committee why we make this proposal. The next financial year—1884–5—will be a very remarkable one in respect to the Revenue. There will be no windfall of any kind during that year; but, on the other hand, the year 1884–5 will be, with respect to the Revenue, worse than the present year or the year following. In the present year we have the advantage of the remnant of 1½d. Income Tax; and we also have the advantage of the remnant of the Railway Duty, the repeal of half of

  1633
  which only took effect from the 1st of last October. Those remnants will probably amount to £800,000 or £900,000; but, of course, we cannot tell exactly until the accounts are made up Therefore, this year is better than next year by about that amount. The year after next will be better than next year, because the £800,000, the additional sum charged annually upon the Consolidated Fund for the debt on account of the Russian scare and the South African War, comes to an end, so that in the following year the Revenue will be £800,000 better. Under these circumstances, we have thought it wise to propose to Parliament to charge this fifth instalment rather upon the present year than upon the next year. Whether we should charge next year with half the remaining instalment or not is a matter which it is not necessary I should consider until we finally frame the Budget; but we propose to make this charge, at any rate, during the present year. There is nothing in the arrangements made in 1880 to interfere with this course; but, on the contrary, in the course of the debates in 1881 and 1882 as to the contributions towards the expenses incurred by India in regard to the Afghan War, there was more than one suggestion made that some course of this kind might be adopted, and that the repayment might be made a little more rapidly than by an equal sum each year if the Revenue admitted of it. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) made the proposal in a very practical form. I find that the noble Lord said, on the 14th August, 1882—
  "The method adopted was to give to India a sum of £5,000,000, by remitting India a loan of £2,000,000 due from India to England, and to pay the remainder—the sum of £3,000,000—in six equal amounts spread over six financial years … He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was aware that it had been necessary to raise an additional sum by taxation in the United Kingdom every year in order to pay the contribution of £500,000 to India. He would suggest that the realized surplus, if any, at the end of the financial year should not be voted for the reduction of the Debt, but for the payment to India of the amount which was due under that head, until the whole was liquidated."—(3 Hansard, [273] 1749–50.)
  I am in a position to inform the Committee that, in every probability, there will be a sufficient surplus on the present year, which is now within a fort- 1634
  Night of its close, out of which to pay this additional sum of £500,000. As I have shown to the Committee that it will be for the convenience of Parliament and the taxpayer that this charge should be borne this year, the surplus in which will be sufficient to meet it, I trust hon. Members will agree to the Vote.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: The right hon. Gentleman kept for the close the important part of his statement—namely, that we may take it there is a surplus upon the financial transactions of the year which enables him to make this payment of £500,000 this year instead of next. That really being so, I do not know that anyone has anything to say, except that they are sorry so much should have been withheld from the reduction of the National Debt.
  Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1883–4).
  (2.) £102,000, Post Office.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would take that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) with regard to the conveyance of mails. He was desirous of putting a similar question during the last two Sessions; but the Post Office Estimates were hurried through in such a way that there was no opportunity for any hon. Member to address himself to the questions of the Department. Now, the question which he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was one which, if the right hon. Gentleman did not feel able to answer at this moment, he would gladly postpone to some future period. He wanted to know why we, in this country, could not have the same advantages at railway stations with regard to the posting of letters which the people of foreign countries had? The right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be aware that at almost every foreign railway station there was a removable post office box, which remained open until within a very few moments of the arrival of the train; the letters were then collected and put at once in the van. Well, now, in England, which was supposed to be some time in advance of other countries, such postal facilities were not afforded. In many of our

  1635
  stations there were no pillar or letter boxes at all, and his experience was that even where such pillar or letter boxes were found, the letters, instead of being put at once into the post office, were some considerable time before taken into the town and sorted at the post office. This seemed to him to be a great inconvenience, and he could see no reason why the public of this country should not be put upon the same footing as the people of foreign countries with regard to the postal arrangements at railway stations. Many years ago, when the noble Lord the present Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) was at the head of the Post Office Department, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) took a great deal of trouble to bring this matter under his consideration, and the noble Marquess did give certain advantages to the public—for instance, the public were allowed to post letters in the post office van, but only where there was a van in charge of a clerk. Now, in the post office train which served Whitehaven, the borough which he had the honour to represent in Parliament, there was no post office van properly so-called. The mails were conveyed by the London and Northwestern Railway Company to Carnforth or Carlisle under the charge of a railway guard, and not under the charge of a post office clerk. Therefore the people in the district comprising Whitehaven, with its 20,000 inhabitants, had no power of posting letters at the last moment. They must go to the post office in the first instance; and, therefore, the people were debarred the advantage which persons residing in a place from which a post office van in charge of a post office clerk departed, enjoyed. He did not mean to move a reduction of the Vote. His desire was as perfectly as he could to bring the matter under the right hon. Gentleman's notice, in the hope that at some future time the facilities he suggested might be afforded the public.
  MR. SEXTONwished very briefly to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) to one or two important matters concerning the despatch of mails from the West of Ireland, which had come under his notice. He had received a letter from one of his constituents at Sligo, in which it was shown that if a person posted a letter at Glasgow for Sligo and then afterwards left
  1636
  by train, he would land in Sligo 12 hours before the letter. Letters from England and Liverpool only occupied 22 hours in transmission, and those from Glasgow 36 hours. As to the despatch of the day mail to and from Sligo, it was as well the right hon. Gentleman should be put in possession of the facts. The day mail left Dublin at 9 o'clock and arrived at Sligo at 2.40; the distance was 140 miles; so that the train only travelled at the rate of 24 miles an hour. This train might easily be made to start at half-past 8, and to reach Sligo at 12 o'clock. The letters arriving at 2.40 were not delivered in the majority of cases until 5 o'clock. Under the proposed arrangement the letters could easily be delivered at 2 o'clock, thus rendering a reply the same night possible. Pretty much the same state of things prevailed in respect to the day mail from Sligo to Dublin. The secret of the matter was to be found in the payment which was made by the Post Office to the Railway Company. There were four great mail roads in Ireland, and the Government paid the Great Northern for the conveyance of mails £73 per mile, while to the Midland they only paid £41 per mile. The Chairman of the Midland Company, at the last half-yearly meeting of the shareholders, exposed the facts. He pointed out that the Western lines starved in comparison to the Northern, Southern, and Eastern lines, because the sum paid to the Midland was only about two-thirds of the amount paid to the other lines. And the Chairman added that his Company was quite ready at a moment's notice to run trains at 40 miles instead of 24 miles, if they were paid properly. He (Mr. Sexton) would not delay the Committee further. He trusted, however, it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to procure for the citizens of Sligo, and the West of Ireland generally, the same postal facilities which were afforded in every other part of Ireland.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked whether it would not be feasible, now that there was a Parcel Post in operation, to make such arrangements as would permit of the distribution of Parliamentary Papers to Members of Parliament living outside the very restricted area within which they were delivered at present? Now, the restriction of the

  1637
  free delivery of Parliamentary Books and Papers to the present narrow district had simply this result—that the Books and Papers were almost altogether useless. All Members of Parliament did not live in London; all Members of Parliament did not live within the narrow area in which the distribution now took place. It was not every Member of Parliament who was able to be in attendance at Westminster during the whole period of the Session, so that many Books and Papers which were interesting and valuable, and which would be carefully studied if hon. Members had an opportunity of studying them, became absolute waste. As there was now a Parcel Post in operation, he did not think it would be a very serious drain upon the exertions of the Post Office Department to send the Blue Books and other Parliamentary Papers—of course, he did not mean Papers intended for immediate use—to whatever address in the United Kingdom hon. Members might choose to give. He had spoken to several Members upon the subject, and they agreed with him that the course he suggested would be a very wise and proper one to follow. Many of the Books and Papers were very costly; they were meant for the enlightenment and instruction of Members of Parliament; and, therefore, why should three-fourths of them be absolutely wasted owing to the arrangements now in force for their distribution? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would give his attention to the matter.
  MR. WARTONsaid, there was a little matter he wished to revert to. He brought it under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General in 1881 and in 1882. He could not bring it forward in 1883 on account of the disgraceful way in which this and other Estimates were hurried through the Committee. He hoped that this Session they were not going to give their undivided attention to Reform Bills and nonsense of that sort, but give some real attention to the financial transactions of the different Departments of the State. After this introduction it was just possible that the point he wished to raise might be considered a rather trivial one. Perhaps it was on account of the smallness of the matter that it had escaped the attention of the right hon.
  1638
  Gentleman. They were all aware that the Post Office authorities preferred to have letters registered if they contained anything of value. There was one little obstacle to registration still left, and that was the charge for the envelope. He had been more than once told there was a farthing to pay. Now, he did not carry farthings, and he had had to pay a halfpenny for an envelope. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be far better to have the 2d. charged for registration cover the cost of the envelope. The envelope was not worth a farthing, and even if it were the Post Office could well afford to forego it. A round sum was always preferable to a broken sum, and in point of revenue he did not think the Post Office would be the loser by the change. This was the matter he wished to raise. Twice the right hon. Gentleman had kindly said he would attend to it; and he (Mr. Warton) hoped that upon the third time of asking the right hon. Gentleman would think it desirable to effect the proposed improvement.
  MR. O'BRIENwished to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the matter which was raised in a Question he put to the right hon. Gentleman the other day. He asked why it was that Mr. Thomas Walsh, who was Post master at Castletownshend, and who had been convicted under the Crimes Act and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, and whose sentence was confirmed on appeal, was reinstated in the position of Postmaster upon his release? He also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not a fact that postal employés who had been arrested under the Peace Preservation Act merely as suspects, without ever having been convicted at all, had been dismissed from their employment. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said he was not aware of any such cases to which he (Mr. O'Brien) had referred. He (Mr. O'Brien) had since only been able to come across one case; it was that of E. J. Barrett, a telegraphist in County Gal way. Barrett was arrested under the Coercion Act upon some general suspicion. He was imprisoned in Galway Prison for five months. He was then released, and application was made for his re-instatement in the Telegraph Service, but without avail. The unfortunate young fellow had thus lost the

  1639
  means of obtaining a livelihood. Not only had he lost his employment, but he had ever since been persecuted by the police—in fact, he was practically ruined. He (Mr. O'Brien) was sure the right hon. Gentleman was a little more anxious than most of his class to steer an even course; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if a man convicted of the serious offence of threatening letter-writing was to be reinstated in his former position, a man against whom no serious charge was ever made—certainly never substantiated—would experience equal indulgence from the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. HEALYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had stated the facts with more moderation than the hardship of Barrett's case justified. Barrett was the sole support of aged parents, and simply because he was merely suspected of crime he had been peremptorily dismissed the Postal Service. Walsh, however, happened to be a man of Orange sympathies. He was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, and his sentence was confirmed on appeal by Mr. Ferguson, County Judge at Cork. In response to an appeal ad misericordia, Mr. Walsh was released from gaol, and the Postmaster General now told the Committee that the release was tantamount to an admission by the Government that Mr. Walsh was not guilty at all. Of course, it was rather hard to blame the Postmaster General himself; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was so much in the hands of his officials. Up to the present the right hon. Gentleman had certainly given the impression that he acted upon his own responsibility. Though his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had only mentioned the case of Barrett, it was not the only case of hardship which happened under the Coercion Act. He did not think the release of Walsh was tantamount to an admission of his innocence. They might be told that the release of Mr. Hastings was an admission of his innocence, Mr. Hastings having pleaded guilty at the trial. It was clear the Postmaster General must not accept the release of men by Government favour in Ireland as tantamount to an admission of innocence. The Government convicted Walsh, through the Resident Magistrate, of sending a threatening letter. Not only was the man convicted,
  1640
  but his sentence was confirmed on appeal by the County Court Judge. A case, however, was got up in the man's favour, and the Lords Justices released him from prison. It was a very extraordinary thing, however, that the Postmaster General should fall in with this friendly arrangement, because how did he suppose that the people of that locality could have any confidence in the administration of justice? Barrett was only arrested on suspicion. Was his release tantamount to an admission of his innocence? He was released from gaol just as Mr. Walsh was. Why was he not reinstated in the position he had formerly occupied? He (Mr. Healy) did not think that even the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman could find an answer. Were they to have in future the Postal Department in Ireland conducted upon Orange principles; were they to add the Department of the right hon. Gentleman to the other Departments that were conducted solely to please the Orange faction? The people were asked to place confidence in the Departments of the State; but how could they do so under present circumstances? Why was a different measure of justice meted out to Mr. Walsh than to Mr. Barrett?
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had only one word to say with reference to the issue of postal orders. They all knew that postal orders were very convenient forms of sending money; but the difficulty about them was that they did not easily adapt themselves to sending odd sums. What he had to ask was, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider if it was not possible, by some means of affixing stamps, to make up any difference required?
  MR. FAWCETT: We are going to move in the direction the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General gave a reply which he (Mr. Biggar) did not exactly follow to a Question with regard to the postal arrangements on Tory Island. Tory Island stood some distance from the mainland, and there had been some difficulty in getting the mails conveyed to and fro. Some time ago, he asked a Question with regard to the class of people who carried letters in Ireland. In some instances he had heard that the

  1641
  remuneration was exceedingly small. He understood that the rate of pay depended upon the rate of wages in the locality; and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General promised that, if he (Mr. Biggar) would draw attention to particular cases, he would investigate them. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) did not wish to make himself the champion of individual persons, possibly persons of no merit, and who did not deserve to be supported. Besides, it was a very indiscreet reply on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, for the very reason that it led a number of people in Ireland to suppose that he (Mr. Biggar) was able to use influence with the right hon. Gentleman. He considered it was very desirable that the Post Office officials in Ireland should receive reasonable remuneration. The postal arrangements in County Cavan were of a most unsatisfactory nature. There was no intercommunication between the different parts of the country for postal purposes. If a letter had to be sent from one part of Cavan to another it was usually sent up to Dublin, and then sent to its destination, which probably was only a few miles from the place where it was posted. He should imagine it was possible to make arrangements whereby a letter posted at one place could be delivered at a place 20 miles distant under two days. Such was the state of things in Cavan. He had no doubt the same state of things prevailed in other parts of Ireland; and, therefore, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) would apply some remedy.
  MR. FAWCETT: With regard to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I shall be very glad indeed to consider his suggestions. Of course, my opinion on such points is not worth anything at all compared with that of the practical officers who for years have had under their special consideration arrangements connected with the carrying of mails; but it strikes me that one of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals is surrounded by some difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that at a station like Rugby, for instance, there should be a removable letter-box on the platform, and that such letter-box should be kept open until the last moment and then put in the train. He does not seem to
  1642
  make any provision for sorting, so that it is just possible you will have North letters going South and South letters going North. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman would get over such a difficulty as I have foreshadowed; but still I will very carefully consider the matter. In order that I may not make any mistake in laying the subject before the practical officers of the Department, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would write me a short letter describing his plan. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), I shall be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman will send a copy of the letter he has received as to the delay in the conveyance of mails between Glasgow and Sligo. As to the general question of the acceleration of mails between Sligo and Dublin, I have only to say that the acceleration of the Irish mails is now the most pressing question engaging the attention of the Department. We are now on the point of settling a new time table between London and Kingstown; when that is settled we shall be in a position to effect an acceleration in regard to the Irish Provincial towns. I may remark here that I fully recognize that the acceleration of the Irish mails to the Provincial towns in Ireland is far more important than it is to Dublin, because Dublin now gets its letters at convenient times, and letters leave the City at convenient times. But I am aware that in the case of many Provincial towns there is not sufficient time given to answer a letter the same day it is received. One of the chief obstacles would be removed if the Railway Companies are willing to accept a reasonable increase of payment for an accelerated service. Therefore, nothing will promote acceleration of mails so much as that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland should do what they can to bring their opinions to bear on the Railway Companies, and cause them to be reasonable in the terms they demand from the Government. With regard to the case of Mr. Barrett, brought under my notice by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), I have to say I have an indistinct recollection of the case. I searched the records at the Office diligently yesterday, but I could not find a single instance of a man being dismissed under the circumstances.

  1643
  alleged. I may have overlooked it; but I assure the hon. Gentlemen that I will look into this case carefully on Monday, and I will communicate to them either in the House or by letter what the result of my inquiry is. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has referred to three questions. One question was the conveyance of mails to Tory Island. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman asked me whether I refused to make a contract for conveyance of mails to Tory Island on certain terms. What I said in reply—and I am willing to repeat it—was that if the hon. Gentleman knows any suitable person who will convey the mails upon the terms mentioned in his question I shall be at once glad to enter into the contract. The hon. Gentleman also complained of the general postal arrangements in Cavan. The remarks I made in respect to Sligo also apply to Cavan. As to the question of the pay of letter carriers, I have only again to say that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) knows of any particular cases that might have been overlooked by the Department, I shall be much obliged to him if he will bring them under my notice. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) is really one he should address to the Treasury rather than to me; because in anything involving expenditure, however small, the Treasury is supreme over the Post Office. But I will take the suggestion into consideration. I am sorry I forgot to do so before. And with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) with reference to postal orders, I am glad to tell him that on the 2nd of June a new scheme, such as that which he indicated, will come into operation. I believe the effect of that scheme will be to greatly extend the use of postal orders. We shall introduce new denominations of postal orders, which I need not describe now; but the result will be that any broken sum up to £1 may be sent by using postal orders, and putting not more than five stamps on the back of the orders. The use of postal orders has enormously increased. The year they were introduced we estimated that we should issue about 50,000 a-week. That estimate has already been exceeded by more than 600 per cent. and the number now issued is 270,000 a-week, or more than
  1644
  12,000,000 a-year. I believe that when the new scheme comes into operation this means of sending small sums of money will be still more largely used by the public than it has been up to the present. The question raised by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) is one over which I have no control whatever. The distribution of Parliamentary Papers is undertaken by the Vote Office under the superintendence of the Speaker, and I have no power to alter or enlarge the area within which the Parliamentary Papers are delivered.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Westmeath had only to notify to the Vote Office that he wanted certain Papers and Books kept for him and he would find his wishes complied with.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into further consideration, because it was extremely desirable that the Parliamentary Books and Papers should be delivered to Members when in the country as well as when in town.
  MR. HEALYsaid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was very skilful; but that was only one branch of the question, and he had adroitly avoided dealing with the case of Mr. Walsh. They must pin the right hon. Gentleman to the case of Mr. Walsh. It was no answer to them to say what Mr. Barrett had done; that was not the question. The question was why Mr. Walsh had been treated in this way; and they wanted to know from the Postmaster General whether he was satisfied with the conduct of matters in his Department? They had had enough of the Chief Secretary's dealings with Orange magistrates; but if the Government were to import Orangemen into the Post Office there was no knowing where things would stop.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it was extremely novel to hear that he had strong Orange sympathies. So far as he understood this case, it seemed to him to stand in exactly the same position as that of several persons who had been released after having been imprisoned under the Peace Preservation Act, and who had been re-appointed to their posts. He would, however, look into the matter again.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he and his hon. Friends, of course, acquitted the Postmaster General of any personal know-

  1645
  ledge of matters of this kind; but, unquestionably, the feeling in the neighbourhood was that this man's reinstatement was due directly to Orange sympathies. He could not for a moment understand how so clear-minded a Gentleman as the Postmaster General could be deceived by this case of a person arrested under the Peace Preservation Act. This was the case of a person convicted by the tribunal established by that Act—convicted by two Resident Magistrates; who appealed to the County Court Judge, who, on a review of the evidence, deliberately confirmed the judgment of the Court below. Afterwards, of course, the magistrates, for reasons of their own, got this man released. The whole thing had been managed in camera, and this man got his release just as a man sentenced to penal servitude got his release after a certain length of time.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, there was to be a new post office at Mullingar; but there had been great delay in the matter, much to the surprise of the people in that neighbourhood. There had been a rumour that a change of site had been decided on, and he would like to know whether progress was being made in that matter?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, his memory was not quite clear, but he would inquire.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £18,000, Post Office Packet Service.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked why this sum of £18,000 was not proposed in July last, or in August, when the Supplementary Estimates were before the House; and why the whole of these subsidies and contracts for the Post Office were not placed, as they used to be, under one head? Under this Supplementary Estimate there were, for example, under Class V., 10 subsidies to the Castle Mail Packet Company; and, again, in Vote 3, for the suppression of the Slave Trade, there was a sum of £4,800 to the Aden and Zanzibar Packet Service. That seemed to be a very inconvenient and a new practice. He would like to have some explanation.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, this Vote of £18,000 was exceptional. Last year the Government proposed to enter into a certain contract which would save
  1646
  something like £16,000, if accepted, for the conveyance of the Irish Mails by the London and North-Western Railway to Kingstown. It was not necessary to go through a long controversy; but the House rejected that proposal, and the Government reverted to the proposal of the Dublin Steam Packet Company. When the Estimates were made out last year they were made up on the supposition that the new service would be accepted by the House, and would agree to saving £16,000. Therefore, this was not an additional charge, but was a charge rendered necessary, because certain expected savings did not take place.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that his question had no reference to that matter. It was, why this Supplementary Estimate had not been proposed at the end of last Session?
  MR. FAWCETTreplied, that when the Supplementary Estimates were made up the Government had not got the sanction of Parliament to the new arrangement. It was almost the very last thing done in the Session.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Aden and Zanzibar subsidy ought not to come into the Postal Contracts. That service was maintained for putting down the Slave Trade. It was represented to the Government by our Consul at Zanzibar that there was nothing more effective for stopping the Slave Trade than repeated visits of the mail steamers; and he, on that account, urged the payment of this subsidy.
  MR. BIGGARasked whether any change had been made in the amount of payment for the conveyance of the Scotch mails between Glasgow and Ardrossan? He also wished to have the opinion of the Postmaster General on the expediency of making a contract for conveying mails between Lame and Stranraer. To make a contract for that route would be an absurdity; for the only part of Ireland that would get any benefit by that route was the county of Antrim. Letters posted in any part of Scotland as far East as Edinburgh late in the evening were delivered in Belfast the following morning. With regard to the mails from England by way of Holyhead and Kingstown, in all the Irish counties except Antrim letters were delivered sooner by the present route than they could possibly be by the Larne

  1647
  and Stranraer route. It was possible that a little time might be saved to Belfast; but be did not believe that that would be the case under the proposed arrangements. He urged the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General not to be led away by restless people to make changes where no changes were required.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that no decision had been come to with regard to the Larne and Stranraer project, and he could assure the hon. Member that his remarks would be considered. With regard to the mails between Glasgow and Ireland, the Post Office took the cheapest routes they could get.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not disposed to raise any objections; but what was the sum asked? In former times it was only a nominal sum.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that in former times the mails were conveyed on nominal terms; but the owners of the steamers made certain stipulations, one of which was that if mails were sent by any other route they should make a charge.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [13th March] reported.
  First Resolution.
  MR. HEALYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take steps that would insure an impartial distribution of advertisements emanating from the Board of Works in Ireland, so as to include newspapers of National politics. He wished also to draw attention to the fact that the Board of Works had obtained possession of a number of monuments in Ireland, amongst others an old castle in the town of Clankilly, on which it bad been the custom for 200 years to run up a flag. As soon as they took possession of this old structure they announced that the practice to which be had referred would be put a stop to, notwithstanding that the mason of the Board of Works had so far recognized the right of the people as to fix some iron holdfasts into the wall to carry the flagstaff. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would, in order to gratify the
  1648
  people of the district, take such steps as would prevent the custom being interfered with.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the device on the flag was of a very innocent character. On one side of the flag there was a serpent, and on the other a harp.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had not seen the newspapers referred to by the hon. Member for Monagban (Mr. Healy); but he would make inquiries into the matter, and also into the action of the Board of Works in Ireland with reference to the custom of running up a flag on St. Patrick's Pay at the old castle mentioned. He had not had an opportunity yet of examining the Report of the Surveyor.
  MR. DEASYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reconsider his decision of last night with reference to the harbour at Kinsale. He (Mr. Deasy) maintained that the quay at present projected was absolutely of no value. One of the Commissioners had stated that it would cost, at least, £100,000 to make it of any use. He asked the hon. Gentleman to suspend the operations at Kinsale until the Report of those gentlemen who were making inquiries was sent in.
  MR. COURTNEYwas unable to say any more than that he would look into the matter.
  Resolution agreed to.
  The next Four Resolutions agreed to.
  Sixth Resolution.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to call attention to the serious objection there was to the charge of £100 only appearing under this Vote as a contribution towards the construction of a railway for the convenience of the Government Establishment at Dartmoor, whereas there was a further sum of £2,400 included elsewhere. It was not according to the usual practice to appropriate savings on a Vote to an entirely new service. With regard to the contribution of £2,500, nothing appeared to him more liable to abuse than an arrangement of this kind between a Company and the Government. He said that, on principle, a contribution to a railway was an objectionable thing, and that it ought to be made the subject of a special Estimate. He was at a loss to understand why £100 was taken,

  1649
  whereas £2,500 was really required, and why the amount came forward in the Supplementary Estimates. The Vote appeared to him objectionable on all grounds; and he was unwilling to allow it to pass without drawing to it the attention of the House.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, a brief history of the Vote might be interesting to the House. The railway in question was one that would greatly facilitate the supplies to Dartmoor Prison; and when it was projected an application was made to allow some of the convicts at the prison to assist in its construction. The calculations which were submitted to the Treasury from the Home Office showed that the saving effected by the railway would be very much greater than the full estimated cost of the labour of supplying the prison. Subsequently, it was found inconvenient to employ convict labour; and it was decided that, instead of keeping so many convicts at work upon the railway, there should be a grant of a certain sum of money rather less than the estimated cost of convict labour, the money to be paid when the railway was completed, and it was upon that ground that the amount came forward in the Supplementary Estimates. If it had been known when the Estimates were being prepared that the railway would be completed in the year, it would have been their duty to put this amount in the Estimates; but the Government had no such knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Government were submitting a Vote of £100, when, in fact, they were asking the House to sanction a Vote for £2,500. That objection would lie, no doubt, if on the face of the Vote the Government had not given full information to the House that the Vote itself involved the sanction of an expenditure of £2,500. There was not the least attempt to withdraw from the House full knowledge of the expenditure to which it would be committed by voting this sum of £100. Either the Government must have presented a Vote to the House giving an exaggerated estimate of the expenditure under this particular head, or they must have presented a Vote which represented the true increase of expenditure. They had taken the utmost pains to prevent any misconception by giving the fullest particulars to the House; and had they adopted the
  1650
  course of proposing an Estimate of £2,500, the result would have been that under the general head the expenditure for the year would have been £413,600, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was only £411,200. In that way they would have presented to the House a totally unreal Estimate, instead of an accurate account of the expenditure incurred. It was quite true that the Government only asked for a limited sum, and that it involved the sanction of the House to a much larger sum. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, deserved the thanks of the House for calling attention to this matter. It was within the well-understood practice of the Treasury, if there were a surplus under one sub-head of the Vote, to transfer it to another subhead of the same Vote; and it was also in the power of the Treasury to set up a new sub-head if it was covered by the Resolution which sanctioned the whole of the Vote.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation; but he could not agree with his view that the setting up of a new sub-head on a Supplementary Estimate was within the well-known practice of the Treasury. To him it appeared something quite new, and he regarded the Supplementary Vote as illusory, because it would appear that a small sum only was asked for, whereas a much larger expenditure was sanctioned by the passing of the Vote.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, this was a very peculiar case. Supposing it had not been necessary to take this £100, they would never have heard anything about the £2,500. They had had a very elaborate explanation, but it did not alter the peculiar aspect of the case.
  Resolution agreed to.
  The next Two Resolutions agreed to.
  Twelfth Resolution.
  MR. SEXTONbegged to move that the Report of this Vote be postponed until to-morrow. It had been arranged that on this Vote he should call attention to the case of Mr. Eyre Preston, and that the Chief Secretary should deliver the reply of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not in his place; and though he (Mr. Sexton) did not blame him, it was obvious that under

  1651
  such circumstances the discussion could not be taken.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Resolution be postponed,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Land Drainage Act, 1861," ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 1137.]
  House adjourned at five minutes after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Brokers (City of London)* (24).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Greek Marriages (26).

GREEK MARRIAGES BILL.—(No 26.)
(The Earl of Milltown.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, in 1850 a church was built in London Wall for the Greek community. Marriages according to the rites of the Greek Church were celebrated there. In 1856 Greek residents became more permanently resident in this country, and a number of them acquired an English domicile. Doubts having been suggested as to whether in the circumstances these marriages had hitherto been perfectly legal, in 1856 these residents were advised that they should be performed before the Registrar, and that the Church should be duly licensed for the purpose. From that time down to the present moment there was no doubt whatever of the perfect legality of these marriages. The object of the Bill was to take away any doubt with regard to the marriages which were contracted previous to the year 1857. The number of these marriages was about 30. Some difficulty had been experienced by the children of these marriages, in having their legitimacy recognized in connection with monetary transactions. The Bill had passed the House of Commons unopposed.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this Bill might no doubt be founded on
1516
very sufficient reasons, and might he one that it was proper to pass after due inquiry; but it appeared to him to be equally clear that to pass any Bill of this nature without careful inquiry, which could only be conducted by a Select Committee, would be in the highest degree dangerous and objectionable. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl, if the Bill was read a second time, would be willing to refer it to a Select Committee.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he should be happy to agree to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC EXECUTIONER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL COWPER, in rising to call attention to the office of public executioner; and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they do not consider it desirable that this functionary should, for the future, be appointed, and, if necessary, removed, by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State? said, he thought it was unnecessary to state at any length his reasons for bringing this subject forward. They had all been disgusted at seeing certain accounts in the newspapers, not only recently, but on former occasions, with reference to the conduct of the executioner and the manner in which he performed his duties. He thought it was a very serious state of matters that the executioner was in the habit of drinking very freely, and going about public-houses and showing his implements to large crowds of people. Not only so, but when in the actual discharge of his duties the executioner seemed to be perfectly incapable of carrying them out satisfactorily. That being so, they must recognize that it was a very serious matter. He was content to rest his case on the fact that on Monday last a Coroner's jury deliberately, and after much consideration, severely censured the executioner for the clumsy performance of the execution at which he was engaged. They should be glad to know how far these accusations were true. He should probably be told that the Home Office had nothing to do with the appointment of the

  1517
  executioner for the reason that he was appointed by the Sheriff of each county, and that he was in fact a kind of deputy Under Sheriff. This was the very thing he complained of. He was sure that their Lordships would think, if what had been said could be proved on inquiry to be true, that the person who filled this office at the present time ought to be got rid of if, possible, and that room should be made for one who was more capable of discharging the duties. It was not, however, so far as he could make out, very easy to get rid of the present executioner. He could not imagine any position more disagreeable than that of a Sheriff at this moment. If a sentence of death was to be carried out, the Sheriff had either to employ a man who was given to drunken habits and known to be incompetent, or he would find it very difficult to get anyone else to do the duty for the sum of £10, which he understood was the sum paid. It might be very easy to got a man to undertake all the executions throughout the United Kingdom, receiving £10 each time, amounting in the aggregate to £200 or £300 a year; but it would not be an easy matter to get a man to officiate in each particular case. It was all very well to say that this practice first grew up some considerable time ago. In those days people were not so particular, and a man could be got more easily in those days to perform the duty. But now people had become more squeamish, and therefore it was that this office had fallen into the hands of a man appointed for the whole of the United Kingdom, with this disadvantage—that he was responsible to nobody, and there was great difficulty in getting rid of him. He did not think there should be any difficulty in getting a man permanently appointed for the office. He was informed that when Marwood died the public were under the impression that the Home Office had to appoint his successor. The result was that there were no fewer than 800 applicants, and out of this large number he thought it should not have been a very difficult matter to secure the appointment of a man who would carry out his duties without creating a scandal. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that after reading the recent accounts of what had taken place at several executions the scandal ought not to be allowed
  1518
  to occur again, and that the man who was guilty of causing it ought to be removed. They were all horrified at the idea of even the greatest criminal having to endure unnecessary sufferings or having those sufferings unnecessarily prolonged. This, however, was not the only reason. The majority of thinking men in this country, he believed, thought it was absolutely necessary for the sake of the security of life, and for the keeping down of murder, that whoever was guilty of taking life should forfeit his own. But he thought they need not disguise from themselves that they were in these days very much governed by sentiment. If there were many repetitions of such things as the heart of a man continuing to beat for 13 minutes after the drawing of the bolt an outcry and clamour might be raised for doing away with capital punishment altogether which it would be difficult to resist. The suggestion which he had to make was that the appointment of the executioner should be vested in the Home Office. In the last Act passed dealing with the subject of executions and making them private instead of public, a clause was inserted distinctly reserving the rights of the Sheriffs. But this right of appointing the hangman they would probably be only too willing to give up. Perhaps the Home Secretary might not be so willing to accept it. But it seemed to be for the public interest that he should do so.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was glad to be able to disappoint the expectation of the noble Earl in one respect. He certainly should not tell the noble Earl on behalf of the Secretary of State that the Government had nothing to do with this question. Since the noble Earl had put his Notice on the Paper Her Majesty's Government had had their attention directed to this matter, and they would certainly take it into their consideration. His noble Friend had described with perfect accuracy the manner in which the executioner was at present appointed. There was no such thing as a permanent executioner. His noble Friend was, it appeared, of opinion that if a permanent executioner was appointed such scandals as those of which they had recently read would no longer occur. He, however, was afraid that it was useless to expect that the class of men who volunteered for the

  1519
  post of common hangman would be men of high character, refinement, and culture, and he did not see why the Secretary of State should be more fortunate in his selection of an executioner than the Sheriffs of London. He happened to know that when the appointment was last made the Sheriffs had no less than 800 applications, and they went through these with great care, so as to secure the best qualified person. What reason was there for supposing that the Home Secretary would be more fortunate? If the appointment were transferred to the Secretary of State he would then become responsible for the manner in which each execution was performed; whereas under the present law the responsibility of seeing the sentence carried out devolved on the Sheriff, who, if he could not obtain a person to carry it out, was obliged to carry it out himself. The alteration suggested by the noble Earl would, therefore, entail a change in the whole body of the law relating to this matter. He might remind the House that, so late as 1877, when the Prisons Act was passed, the duty of carrying out the capital sentence was expressly reserved to the Sheriffs, and it was intended—he supposed for good reasons—that the local authority should be charged with carrying out the law, and not the administrative authority. The details of the cases referred to by the noble Earl had not yet been received by the Secretary of State. When received they would be carefully looked into, and the point to which the noble Earl had called attention would not be forgotten.

EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE SOUDAN)—RESULTS OF THE DEFEAT OF OSMAN DIGNA.

  QUESTION.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Before the House rises I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has anyinform ation to give to the House with reference to the Soudan?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The only information I have to give is contained in the following telegram:—
  "From Major-General Sir G. Graham to the Secretary of State for War—Despatched Suakin, March 14, 3.30 p.m. (received 3.0 p.m.)—Sheikh Mahmoud Ali believes that when the news of Osman Digma's defeat of yesterday is spread
  1520
  among the tribes they will become peaceful, and the Berber route will become clear in about ten days."
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.