Sitting of 2 July 1889

NEW WRIT.
MR. MARJORIBANKS MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwick) moved for the County of Carmarthen (Western Division) in the room of Walter Price Howell Powell, Esquire, deceased.
QUESTIONS.

  FLOGGING.
  MR. BRADLAUGHI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a prisoner named Jewis died a few months since in St. Angus tine's Gaol, Canterbury; whether Jewis was flogged in gaol, and how recently prior to his death; whether the back of Jewis, at the time of his death, was a mass of wounds, partly self-caused and partly caused by the flogging; and whether the Government will lay upon the Table the Report of the prison medical officer relating to this case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir this prisoner received, by the order o the Visiting Committee, 12 lashes on the 3rd of January last, and he died of an apoplectic fit on the 20th of the same month. In consequence of allegations made at the time as to this man's prison treatment, and as to the cause of his death, I ordered a special inquiry to be made last February by the Inspector into all the circumstances of the case It was stated in evidence by the Medical Officer of the prison that he examined the deceased prisoner the day after his death; that the skin was not broken by the cat, and the self-caused scratches were healed over. A full report on the case was also made by Dr. Gover, the Medical Inspector of Prisons, which I shall be happy to show to the hon Member, but it would not be usual to lay Departmental documents of this character on the Table of the House.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to see the

  1251
  document between this and Thursday?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Gentleman can see it at once if he likes.

  THE TOWER OF LONDON WHARF.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many times in 1888 stores were landed at the Tower of London Wharf, and the quantity and nature of such stores?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The number of times on which this wharf has been used for landing and shipping stores during a particular period affords no source of indication of the use which would be made of it in time of pressure; and I must adhere to my decision (arrived at after careful investigation) that it is inexpedient, in the interest of the public service, to open the wharf to the public. It would be difficult to give an account of the quantity and nature of the stores.

  THE WEST SOMERSET YEOMANRY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a letter from Messrs. Reed and Cook, solicitors, stating that they are employed professionally for the parents and friends of the late Minnie Yandall, of Taunton, concerning whose death, during the annual training of the West Somerset Yeomanry, an inquiry by the Commanding Officer of the Yeomanry has been promised, and asking that the inquiry should be a public one, and that the parents of the girl should be represented at it; and, what answer, if any, has been made to this letter?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; a letter has been received from Messrs. Reed and Cook relative to the case of Minnie Yandall, and those gentlemen have been informed that the Commanding Officer of the West Somerset Yeomanry has carefully inquired into the circumstances of the case by my direction, and that, having considered his Report, I am of opinion that no further steps are necessary in the matter. One point which I referred to in my former answer has been satisfactorily cleared up. I said that in my opinion the officers in question ought to have
  1252
  appeared to give evidence before the coroner. It has now been explained to me that the training being over, the regiment had dispersed, and that those officers had no knowledge whatever of what had occurred, nor were they summoned by the coroner. If they had been informed of the lamentable event which took place, they would at once have applied to be examined as witnesses.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is no publication to be made in regard to the inquiry?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir.

  THE SALVATION ARMY AT BUNGAY.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been celled to the circumstances under which the Magistrates at Bungay Petty Sessions, on the 20th of June, sentenced Ambrose Sutton, a member of the Salvation Army, to pay a fine of 10s. and 10s, 6d. costs, or in default to go to prison for 14 days, for putting his hand on the bridle of a horse to prevent the driver from running into a small crowd of Salvationists assembled in the market-place; whether it is the fact that the Bench refused to state a case for appeal, and also declined to grant a summons against the driver; and whether he has taken, or will take, any steps with regard to the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received from the Clerk to the Justices a Report on this case, which gives a totally different statement of the facts from that which is suggested in the hon. Member's question. The Justices could not grant a case, because the point involved was one of fact and not of law. The defendant has, however, given notice of appeal, and, pending that appeal, I express no opinion upon the matter.

  THE ALLOTMENTS ACT.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Lee, the trustee of the Broughal Charity land, after promising to let the land to the labourers, as directed by "The Allotments Act, 1882," has now let it to a neighbouring farmer, and that Mr. Lee is about to let the land on lease, whereby the men will be deprived of their rights under the Act;

  1253
  and whether the Charity Commissioners will take immediate steps to compel the trustee to carry out the law?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Mr Lee, the trustee of the Broughal Charity land, has not let, nor is he about to let, the land in question on lease. The Commissioners have been informed by him that he has no idea of letting the land on lease, and that he is anxious to carry out the provisions of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882. Mr. Lee has been directed to proceed at once to comply with the provisions of the Act by giving the required notices of setting apart and of letting the land in allotments.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Having regard to the fact that the promise was made by Lee months ago and that he has practically ignored the communication from the Charity Commissioners, will the Commissioners take proper steps to ensure that the law shall be obeyed?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: We have taken steps. We have written to Mr. Lee and told him that he must forth-with put the Act into force; and if during the next fortnight these notices are not given we will then see what further steps should be taken to compel Lee to carry out the Act.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member whether he is aware that the trustees of the Church and Town Estates at Mendlesham have refused to set out 27 acres of land, as directed by "The Allotments Act, 1882," and have let the land on lease at 20s. per acre, although the labourers offered 30s. per acre; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Charity Commissioners can set aside the lease, or will direct the trustees to hire other suitable land for the purpose of allotments?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners are aware that some 27 acres which the labourers desire to have for allotments have been let on lease, with about 100 acres besides, by the trustees for seven years, from October 11, 1887. The trustees claim to have acted under the powers of Section 4, Proviso 6, of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882," and the Commissioners are not prepared to hold that the lease if granted in bonâ fide exercise of such powers can be set aside. They cannot direct trustees to hire other suitable land; but on this point, which was
  1254
  brought to the notice of the trustees by the Inspector last August, the Commissioners will again communicate with them.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Looking at the fact that the trustees have acted deliberately with the intention of setting aside the Act of 1882, may I ask if the Charity Commissioners will exercise their powers under the 10th Clause so as to place the land in the hands of other persons who will be likely to carry out the Act?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I must ask the hon. Member to put the question down for another day. I should like to consider the matter a little more carefully before putting the penal section in. force.

  THE JAMAICA RAILWAY.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the event of the Government of Jamaica having to take back the railway from the purchasing Company, the three and a half per cent Government Stock to be given to the bondholders in exchange for their mortgage bonds will be chargeable on the general revenues of the Colony, or contingent only on the profits of the railway?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The Government stock will be charge-ble on the general revenues of the Colony, and not contingent only on the profits of the railway.

  STREET PROCESSIONS IN LONDON.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether au arrangement can be come to between the authorities of the City and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to put a stop to unnecessary street processions within their respective districts; and, whether he is aware that the obstructions to traffic and general inconvenience resulting from processions in the public thoroughfares are highly disapproved by the vast majority of the inhabitants of London?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I believe that the majority of the inhabitants of London disapprove of the obstruction to traffic and public inconvenience arising

  1255
  processions which do not afford to the eyes or ears of the public any gratification to compensate for the interference with the free passage along the streets which is the common right. I should hope that the good sense and good feeling of those who are fond of walking in processions will induce them to select routes and times which will cause the least possible annoyance to others, and so render police action unnecessary.

  JAPAN AND MEXICO.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Treaty has been concluded between Japan and Mexico by which Mexican citizens are allowed to settle in the interior of Japan for purposes of trade; whether it is the fact that the United States are about to conclude a similar Treaty with Japan; and, whether it is the intention of the British Government to enter into negotiations, with the object of securing similar advantages for British traders?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): A Treaty was concluded at Washington on the 30th November, 1888, between Mexico and Japan, by Article IV. of which Mexican citizens are allowed full rights of travel, residence and trade throughout the country. The ratifications have not yet been exchanged. A Treaty between the United States and Japan was signed on the 20th of February last, which is not as yet ratified, and will, in any case, not come into force till the 11th of February, 1890. It contains provisions in regard to the freedom of residence and trade of United States citizens in Japan. Similar proposals have been made to Her Majesty's Government, and have been carefully considered. Her Majesty's Government hope shortly to commence negotiations with that of Japan for the conclusion of a treaty which shall secure equal privileges to British subjects.

  DELAGOA BAY.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consul at Mozambique is now at his post or is absent on duty or leave; what is the salary of the Consul at Mozambique; whether the Consul is
  1256
  allowed to trade or to enter into any business whatever in addition to his duties as British Consul; and would he give the like information with regard to the Consul or Consular Agent at Quillamane, and also with regard to the Consul or Consular Agent at Delagoa Bay?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Mr. Johnston, the Consul at Mozambique, left for his post some weeks since and should arrive very shortly. He receives a salary of £800 a year. He is not allowed to trade nor to enter into any private business whatever. The Vice Consul at Quillamane is an unpaid trading officer. He is at at his post. The Vice Consul at Delagoa a year, Bay receives a salary of £500 and is not allowed to undertake any non-Consular work. He has recently been invalided home, and, as usual in such circumstances, a resident of the place is acting temporarily in his absence.

  THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the 14 vacancies in the senior class at the Central Telegraph Office, shown in the Estimates for 1889–90, were filled up in December 1887, in favour of clerks who had been waiting at the maximum of their class for 22 months and less; and, whether he will take into consideration the desirability of anticipating the increase in the senior class for next year, in favour of the clerks who have been waiting for two years and four months at the maximum of their class, and are thus in a worse position than the clerks for whose benefit the vacancies for this year were anticipated?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The telegraphists who were promoted to the vacancies existing in the senior class in December, 1887, had been in receipt of the maximum pay of the class next below since the 1st of April, 1886. In reply to the second question of the hon. Member I can only state that it is not in my power to make appointments where vacancies do not exist.

  POST OFFICE, KILAWALLA.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General on what conditions will he consent to give

  1257
  a post office to the people of Kilawalla, co. Mayo, in the vicinity of the chapel, the two schools, and the police barrack, the centre of a large population?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I am sorry to say that the only condition upon which I could sanction the establishment of a Post Office at Kilawalla is that a guarantee should be given on behalf of the persons interested to pay the expense involved. Even now the postal service in the direction of Kilawalla entails a loss to the Revenue.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman require a guarantee from a population of 400 or 500 people in any part of Great Britain? This locality contains a population of 400 or 500 who are obliged to go to Westport, a distance of eight miles for postal purposes.
  MR. RAIKES: If it were a mere question of population I should certainly have to require a guarantee from the residents of any part of the United Kingdom if the post office at such a place were carried on at an actual loss. The establishment of a post office at Kilawalla would, I am informed, involve a loss of revenue, and having regard to the local circumstances, I am bound to ask for a guarantee from the residents against loss.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Is not Westport a well-paying post office, and if so, why not let the people of Kilawalla have the overplus?
  MR. RAIKES: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of the question.

  IRELAND—BOYCOTTING—CASE OF JAMES DOYLE.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is to be understood that the only act charged and proved against James Doyle was that he put in his own window the placard "No bum-bailiffs or emergency men shod here"; whether the police entered the man's private shop and took down the said placard; if so, under what warrant or what authority of law; and, whether he is aware that Doyle, at the hearing, frankly promised not to put up this placard again, and was nevertheless sent to prison?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps the hon. Gen-
  1258
  tleman will allow my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, to whom he proposes to address a further question on the same subject, to deal with the matter. In regard to the answer which I gave the other day, I stated that there were other circumstances alleged in reference to Doyle, but I do not think I said that any other overt act was alleged against him.
  MR. STOREY: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman would make that statement now; but I beg to remind him that he was asked specifically if any other act was alleged against Doyle, and he said, "I think there was." I then asked, "Proved on evidence?" and the right hon. Gentleman said, "I suppose so." I beg now to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of James Doyle, who has recently been committed to prison, the only act charged and proved against him being that he put in his own shop window a placard, "No bum-bailiffs or emergency men shod here;" whether this is a legal offence under any law or statute other than the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and whether he will point out to the House under what clause of the Act this is a legal offence punishable by imprisonment?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have inquired into the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member, and I find that there was important evidence before the Magistrate in addition to proof of the act mentioned in the question. It was stated on oath, and not contradicted, that there were emergency men located as caretakers on a farm situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Doyle's shop, on which an eviction had recently taken place; that a very bad state of feeling existed in the neighbourhood against those emergency men, who had since the eviction been refused bread in the neighbourhood; and, further, that the notice exposed in James Doyle's shop was intended and calculated to keep alive this bad feeling, and was calculated to disturb the peace of the locality. Those emergency men were at the time under police protection. Under these circumstances the Magistrate, having asked Doyle to undertake not to do anything calculated to excite ill feeling

  1259
  against the caretakers on the evicted farm, and Doyle, having refused to give such an undertaking, ordered him to find sureties to be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned. Doyle was not convicted of an offence, as the hon. Member appears to assume. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate, both under the Commission of the Peace and under the statute 34 Edward III., to require sureties against conduct calculated to lead to an offence against the law or a breach of the peace is clearly established by a number of cases to which I shall be happy to refer the hon. Member. These cases show that the jurisdiction in question may be exercised as a precautionary measure without proof of the commission of a crime, or even after the acquittal of the person accused of the crime, and ordered to find sureties to be of good behaviour. The police were clearly entitled to remove a placard inciting to the commission of an offence against the law, or calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.
  MR. STOREY: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the police were entitled to enter a man's private shop and to take away a placard of this nature?
  MR. MADDEN: Certainly, under the circumstances which I have stated, if the placard was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace or to boycotting.
  MR. STOREY: I do not want to be put to the necessity of taking another course in order to bring the matter before the House. I hope, therefore, that I may be permitted to ask whether there was any evidence against Doyle, except that of the policeman, which was as follows:—
  "I should say that there is an evicted farm about 200 yards from where the defendant Jives, and a notice of this sort was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. It was plainly pointed at the person in charge of the farm.—Mr. Bodkin (to defendant): Do you hear that?—Defendant: Yes, I do.—Mr. Bodkin: What have you to say to it?—Defendant Nothing."
  I want to know what additional evidence there is to connect Doyle with any other act than the putting up of this placard.
  MR. MADDEN: The evidence which the hon. Gentleman has read to the House clearly shows the existence of a state of things under which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, a notice of this kind was calculated to excite to a breach of the peace and to
  1260
  the commission of the offence known as boycotting. Further, I may mention that there were emergency men at the time, under police protection, and they were in danger of their lives. [A laugh.] At any rate they were in danger of serious injury, and a notice of this kind, directed against emergency men, in possession of a farm only 200 yards distant, was obviously calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.
  MR. STOREY: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give me a plain answer to a plain question? Was there any other evidence before the Court against Doyle, of any act whatsoever, except the putting up of this notice?
  MR. MADDEN: The Act proved to have been done by Doyle was what the hon. Gentleman states. But Doyle must be taken to have known the natural consequences of this Act, having regard to the proved state of the district. I leave the House to judge for themselves what would be the effect of putting up such a notice, within 200 yards of where emergency men were in possession of an evicted farm.
  MR. STOREY: In regard to another part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, I understood him to say that Doyle refused to give a promise. May I call his attention to the evidence?
  "Mr. Bodkin: You promise not to put this notice up again? Doyle: I do.—Mr. Bodkin: And in no way to interfere with these people? Doyle: It has not been proved that I have interfered with them. I cannot promise not to do a thing I have not been guilty of doing.—Mr. Bodkin: Very well, you are bound over to keep the peace."
  MR. MADDEN: The exact words used by the Magistrate were—
  "If you promise not to put up this notice in your window again, or to interfere with persons you have no right to intimidate or interfere with, I will accept your promise."
  Even according to the evidence read by the hon. Gentleman Doyle refused to make a promise. The very fact that he refused to give the undertaking asked for showed the purpose for which he had put up the notice.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Did I rightly understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there has been any reported case in which the Justices required sureties of the peace to be given under the Statute of 23rd Edward III?
  MR. MADDEN: The jurisdiction exists both under the Commission of the Peace and under the Statute of Edward III. I shall be happy to give a Reference to the case under the statute, but I have not got it by me at this moment.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I did not refer to any decision as to the general powers of the Justices; but I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman explicitly whether I understood him to say that there was a decided case in regard to the Justices requiring sureties of the peace under the statute of Edward III? If so, I should like to have the Reference. I know there are plenty of cases under the general powers of the Commission of the Peace.
  MR. MADDEN: Quite so. I am not prepared to say whether there are any decisions under the statute; but this question is irrelevant, for, as I stated to the House, this Magistrate had jurisdiction under the Commission of the Peace.

  THE LANCASHIRE COUNTY COURTS.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is correct that the County Court Judge for Circuit No. 5 has announced his intention of resigning his office; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the number of sittings of this Court, holden before the Judge, were 78 in the last year, steps will be taken to annex Circuit 5 to one of the other Lancashire Circuits?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Judge has not communicated to the Lord Chancellor any intention of resigning, and it would be premature to say more than that careful consideration will be given whether, on the occurrence of a vacancy, a concentration of the County Courts in Lancashire would be practicable and consistent with the public interest. The districts in question are very populous and important, and it may be anticipated that provision will have to be made for more frequent sittings in the Courts.

  CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a
  1262
  position to state when the legislation promised in the Speech from the Throne, and on several subsequent occasions, relative to the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will be submitted to the House, and when the Treasury Minute relating thereto will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Treasury Minute relative to the first and second Reports of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments is in type; but the pressure of business has been so great that the Cabinet has as yet had no time to deal with the matter.

  BLENDING TEA IN BOND.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the desire of London wharfingers to be allowed to blend tea in bond for Home consumption, which the Treasury have declined to sanction on the ground of the large increase or cost of superintendence involved, whether the Treasury have since received an intimation that merchants are quite prepared to pay any fair sum to cover the cost of any extra work thrown on the Customs; and, if so, whether such an offer would alter the conclusions of the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the question of allowing the blending of tea in bond has been most carefully considered; and I am advised that if allowed the expense of supervision would be considerable. It is difficult to see how, if the privilege were allowed at one bonded tea warehouse, it could be refused at any other bonded tea warehouse. The information which comes to me tends to show that it is by no means clear that there is any general or unanimous opinion among tea merchants and dealers in London and in the country that the privilege, if granted, would be so advantageous to the traders as to warrant the very considerable expenditure which would be involved. I do not, therefore, at present feel justified in acceding to the memorial which has been received from one warehouse.

  THE BETHNAL GREEN POOR'S LAND.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if his

  1263
  attention has been directed to a proposal to deal with a piece of land, six and a-quarter acres in extent, called "The Bethnal Green Poor's Land," which is adjacent to the Bethnal Green Museum Garden, already under the control of the London County Council; whether he is aware that the ground is leased to the Bethnal House Asylum until Michaelmas next, when it proposed by some of the Trustees, constituting a small majority of their number, to have the land used for building purposes, under authority to be obtained from the Charity Commissioners; whether he is aware that the Trust Deed contains the following restriction:—
  "Provided always that none of the said Contributors or Trustees, their heirs or assigns, or any of them, do or shall at any time erect, or suffer to be erected, any building, upon the said enclosed premises, or any portion, part, or parcel thereof;"
  and, whether he will direct that this open space shall not be used for building purposes, unless sanctioned by special Act of Parliament, as was the case when a portion of the land comprised in the same Trust was used for the erection of the Bethnal Green Asylum?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNRET,): I cannot give the hon. Member any information on this subject, of which I have no official knowledge, nor have I any control over the lands to which he refers.

  TELEGRAPH ENGINEERING INSPECTORS.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has recommended to the Treasury any scheme for the improvement of the salaries of the Telegraph Engineering Inspectors; how long the matter has been under consideration; and, when he hopes to be in a position to carry the proposed changes into effect?
  MR. RAIKES: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers has formed the subject of a correspondence between the Lords of the Treasury and myself since June, 1888, and my last communication to them is still under their Lordships' consideration.

  PRISON AUTHORITIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chie
  1264
  Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the terms of any instructions issued by the Prisons Board in Ireland to Prison Authorities, directing them not to require certain prisoners under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act to take exercise with other criminals; and, whether such instructions apply to any other offenders?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The General Prisons Board report that no such instructions have been issued by them.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: If a change has been introduced, by what process has it been brought about?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only repeat that no instructions of the kind have been given; but if the right hon. Gentleman requires further information, and will put down the question, I will be glad to give it to him.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is understood that a change has been made so far as the Irish Members are concerned, and I want to know by what process the change has been brought about?

  MR. VIZITELLY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Vizitelly, recently imprisoned for the sale of indecent books, has been treated in gaol as a first-class misdemeanant; and, if so, whether this was by direction of the Magistrate who tried the case, or the Home Secretary?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; this prisoner has been treated as a misdemeanant of the first division in accordance with the sentence passed upon him by the Judge at the Central Criminal Court on the 27th of May last.

  CLERK TO COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a superannuated assistant secretary, who is drawing a full pension, is also borne on the Estimates of the Inland Revenue Department for an allowance of £150 per annum (active pay), as "Clerk to, Commissioners of Income Tax?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The gentleman in question formerly held two distinct appointments as Assistant Secretary and as Clerk to Commissioners of Income Tax. He was superannuated in respect of the former, not in respect of the latter, and the pension he draws is only in respect of the former. His continuance in the latter post is due to the fact that it was not considered desirable to make a fresh appointment, which would involve a further claim to pension, and which circumstances might subsequently render unnecessary.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY COLONELS.
  COLONEL HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have been taken to re-assess the additional amounts of compensation granted in August, 1888, to the six Regimental Colonels of Royal Artillery, who, up to that date, had been compulsorily retired for age, seeing that these additional awards have been received under protest; and, whether any steps have been taken to re-assess the amounts of compensation granted to the two Regimental Colonels of Royal Artillery, who have been compulsorily retired for age since August, 1888, seeing that the awards made to them have likewise been received under protest?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; the awards re-assessed up to August, 1888, and those since made (which have been calculated on the revised basis) are considered to give the utmost compensation due.

  SAMOA.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact, as has been stated in the public prints, that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to retire from the position which this country has hitherto occupied as one of the three protecting Powers in Samoa, and to occupy the position of an umpire only in case of differences between Germany and the United States; and, when the Papers relating to the recent Conference at Berlin on Samoan affairs are to be presented to Parliament?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As I have: already stated, the proposed Agreement respecting Samoa cannot be ratified by-the United States until it has been submitted to the Senate, which will not meet till December. Until then it would: not be proper to make public any part of the proceedings of the Conference. It follows that I cannot undertake to deny assumptions in regard to it; but I will say that the statement in question has no foundation in fact.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL—THE SERVICE FRANCHISE.
  SIR D. CURRIE: I wish to put a question to the Lord. Advocate of which I have given him private notice. I wish to know if the Government see their way to extend the Service Franchise in the case of Parliamentary Elections to the County Council Elections under the Local Government Bill for Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): After careful inquiry and consideration, the Government have determined to propose that Service Franchise occupiers shall be entitled to be County Council electors without the necessity of making any claim for that purpose. It appears that the practice is common, if not general, that a deduction is made from the wages of miners and such workmen in the name of rent, the rent being calculated to cover rates. That being so, it has appeared to the Government that we shall be justified in proposing to give the new franchise without special rating in the case of Service Franchise occupiers; but it will also be proper to provide that if an employer pays the rate, but does not deduct it from the wages, he shall be entitled to recover the rate from the employé.

  COAL DUES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given private notice. The House has passed the Second Reading of the Bill for the abolition of the coal dues which expire on the 5th inst. The House referred the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, with instructions to inquire whether any equitable conditions could be placed in it to enable the Corporation to meet the debt of £700,000 still owing in respect

  1267
  of the Holborn Valley Improvement. The Committee have this day reported, and the further consideration of the Bill is put down for to-morrow. I wish to ask what course the Government will adopt in these circumstances? One Amendment made by the Committee was to provide for the continuance of a coal duty of 4d. a ton for 12 months longer in order to give relief to the Corporation in respect of their debts. If the Bill does not pass and become law before Friday next the coal dues at 1s. 3d. will wholly cease, and there will be no taxation on the coals of London. I therefore ask what course the Government intend to take?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Looking at the extreme urgency of the case, I think I shall be justified in asking the House to suspend the Standing Order to-morrow so as to allow the consideration of this Bill in the course of to-morrow's sitting. Unless I see any strong feeling on the part of the majority of this House against that proposal I shall put down a notice at the commencement of business to-morrow to that effect.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to give notice that I shall oppose that Motion.

  COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the Second Reading of the Council of India Bill be taken to-day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid that it will not be possible to reach that Order.

  IRELAND—THE ARREST OF MR. W. O'BRIEN.
  MR. GILL: May I ask whether the Government have had any further information as to what passed at Charleville on Saturday night; and whether they still adhere to the account they have already given?
  MR. MADDEN: No information has reached me tending to modify the information conveyed to the House yesterday. If the hon. Member desires further information he had better put down a question.
  MR. GILL: From whom did the Government get their information?
  MR. MADDEN: We received it from two distinct sources; and I have since received no information to the contrary.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: Have the Government had any information, confirmatory or otherwise, of the statement in the Times that the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) was seriously injured by the police when he came forward to shake hands with Mr. W. O'Brien?
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member for North Monaghan received injury in the events which occurred at Charleville; but I cannot accept the statement that he was merely going forward to shake hands with Mr. W. O'Brien, and I have reason to believe that the accounts that were first given of the hon. Member's injuries were exaggerated.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: As this is the case of a Member of the House whose personal character is known to many of us, we should like to know in what circumstances the hon. Member has been injured.
  MR. MADDEN: Later information than is in my possession may have been received by the Chief Secretary, who has just left the House, but who has been sent for on account of these questions being put.
  MR. GILL: The hon. and learned Gentleman stated yesterday that the hon. Member for North Monaghan was engaged in an attempt at rescue when he received his injuries; and I therefore now ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has received any information confirmatory of that assertion?
  MR. MADDEN: I distinctly assert that I made no such statement yesterday. I stated that I was not in a position to give information as to the details of the occurrence, or to say whether it amounted to an attempt at rescue.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURhaving returned to his seat,
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give the House any information about the hon. Member for North Monaghan?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it was stated to the House yesterday that the hon. Member had received some blow in the course of an attempted rescue. There was a large and excited crowd at the station; an attempt at rescue was feared by the police; and in

  1269
  the mêlée which occurred the injury was inflicted.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I cannot quote the account given in the Times; but for personal reasons many of us would be glad to know how it came about that the hon. Member for North Monaghan was injured.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would have been more convenient if the hon. Member had sent me a note half an hour before the House met. My recollection of the account sent to me is that there was a great crowd at the railway station; the crowd was very much excited and surged forward in a violent manner, nearly throwing the police upon the lines; the hon. Member was in the crowd, and in the course of the mêlée which ensued, and which put the police under the necessity of preventing any attempt at a rescue, the injuries were inflicted, but I have no reason to believe that they were very serious.
  In answer to Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.),
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I cannot add anything to the information which I gave yesterday. The further information which has been since received confirms the statement which I made yesterday that there was a deliberate and organized attempt to rescue the prisoner, and that shots were discharged in the course of this attempted rescue.
  MR. GILL: Did the crowd fire a shot into the carriage in which Mr. W. O'Brien was?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I made no such statement. Shots were fired in the course of an attempt to rescue. I know nothing more than that.
  MR. GILL: The statement of the Solicitor General was that before the police fired the people had fired into the carriage in which Mr. O'Brien was.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Shots were fired in the course of a very violent attack by the crowd, and they were fired by the crowd. It was necessary that the police should show that they were prepared to protect their own lives and to prevent a rescue.
  MR. GILL: Were the shots fired by the crowd before the police fired?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR OF WALES.
  Message from Her Majesty, brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
  VICTORIA R.
  Her Majesty, being desirous of making competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of Her Grandson Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, recommends the consideration thereof to Her faithful Commons, and relies on their attachment to adopt such Measures as may be suitable to the occasion.
  V. R.

  PRINCESS LOUISE VICTORIA OF WALES.
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
  VICTORIA R.
  Her Majesty having agreed to a marriage proposed between Her Granddaughter, Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Victoria Alexandra Dagmar and the Right honourable the Earl of Fife, has thought fit to communicate it to the House of Commons.
  The numerous proofs which the Queen has received from Her faithful Commons of their loyalty to the Throne, and of their attachment to Her Person and Family, leave Her Majesty no doubt of their readiness to enable Her Majesty to make provision for Her Royal Highness.
  V. R.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg to give notice that I shall ask the House to take Her Majesty's Gracious Messages into consideration on Thursday next.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to ask the House to vote provision before the pledge has been fulfilled as to appointing a Commission to consider the whole matter of Royal grants?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already given notice that I shall ask the House to take these Messages into consideration on Thursday next, and that, I think, will be the fit time to answer any questions of the hon. Member.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I beg to give notice that, if any proposal is made to vote any money for these objects before the Commission is granted, I shall oppose the Vote.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is fixed for next Thursday? Are the Royal Messages to have precedence over that measure?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.
  Messages to be considered on Thursday.

  MOTION.

    ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Noble, Bill to provide fox the Qualification and Registration of Architects, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Noble, Sir Lyon Play fair, General Goldsworthy, and Mr. Justin M'Carthy.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 306.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 137).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to move the omission of Clause 17, which provides that the Commissioners should inquire into the subject of tests now to be subscribed by professors and report to the House. This I do with a view to subsequently moving further Amendments abolishing all tests. Before proceeding to discuss the Amendment, 1 desire to ask the Government whether they intend to give way on the matter of the declaration now imposed on lay professors and principals, because if I receive an affirmative answer time will thereby be saved, as I shall not enter into any arguments on that part of the subject, but confine myself to the
  1272
  question of the test required from theological professors. One would have supposed that in these days all tests on lay professors would have become wholly obsolete, and I trust the Government will now assure me that they accept, at least, so much of my Amendment as propose to abolish the declaration contained in the Act of 1853.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): As the hon. Gentleman has moved the omission of the clause it will be well, perhaps, that I should invite the attention of the Committee to the two very distinct and separate subjects which come under the' general denomination of tests in the Scotch Universities—the lay and the theological. Up to 1853 all the Chairs in the Universities of Scotland could only be filled by persons who subscribed very stringently to the whole Confession of Faith. But in that year the test in regard to all the Lay Chairs was modified, and merely required the professor to declare solemnly that he would not use his position in a manner hostile to the Established Church of Scotland. With regard to this test, it appears to Her Majesty's Government that its object could be attained by proper rules of academic discipline; for a professor who fills a Lay Chair and uses his position as such professor to inculcate theological doctrines is exceeding his province, and can be dealt with by rules of academic discipline. The question is raised in a very distinct form by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Finlay), who has placed on the Paper an Amendment which does away with the declaration of 1853, and will leave the Lay Chairs open without tests. But the case of the Theological Chairs is different. It may be right that there should be some modification of the test, so as to make it one that might be taken by Presbyterians of all denominations in Scotland; but the exact manner in which this modification should be carried out is a matter of a somewhat complex character that requires careful consideration. In the discussion of this question it is quite clear that if, from a philosophical spirit, we treat the teaching of theology as we should treat any other scientific study, and apart altogether from its relation, to the profession for which it qualifies,

  1273
  then we must make up our minds how we are going to adapt the tenure of the Chairs so as to fit in with any scheme of scientific knowledge. That is a subject manifestly suited for dispassionate and careful examination. If we take the more limited view and suggest that these Chairs ought to be open to a limited number of religious denominations who hold the larger doctrines of our Christian faith in common, we must ascertain what are the arrangements or details on which we may secure the consent of the churches. That is the condition of success. We have already equipped colleges of theology outside the Universities; and the disposition or state of mind of the bodies who control those colleges is a matter which lays at the root of their success in adopting any scheme of that kind. We might cut and carve in our Faculty of Theology; we might relegate Biblical criticism and Hebrew to another faculty; we might suppress the remaining Chairs; but we cannot decide on the question of tests until we have made up our minds what we are going to do with the Chairs. There is a necessity for inquiry as to the tests applicable to the Theological Chairs. That is the state of the question. I have sketched it briefly, and I hope fairly. From what I have heard in this House I am unable to discover that there is any strong opinion in favour of tests for the lay Chairs; and when I compare the opinion adverse to the test with the terms of the test itself, I cannot say that it possesses intrinsic qualities which entitle it to any very large amount of enthusiasm. Therefore we have had to see how we can reconcile the just treatment of this question with a proper regard to the various interests outside the Universities—namely, the ecclesiastical bodies who are concerned in that matter. I venture to think that the best solution of then difficulty is now to do away with the tests for the lay Chairs. Accordingly, I am prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness, by which we shall make access to all the lay Chairs in the Scotch Universities open, without exacting from the candidate the smallest requirement which could diminish his independence or his self-respect, while we should, at the same, do nothing to injure the Established Church or the interests of religion. I
  1274
  therefore hope that the statement I have made will remove any difficulty which might have been felt in any part of the House as to the course the Government propose to pursue. We eliminate from the operation of Clause 17 the whole of the Lay Chairs, and we concentrate the attention of the Commissioners on the various problems which I have stated to the Committee. Whatever may be the ultimate decision arrived at as to the test for Theological Chairs, it is surely well that the question should be maturely considered by a body which will treat it from an academical point of view, and that Parliament should in due course be put into possession of all the facts of the case.
  MR. BRYCE: I think the Committee will have heard with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Government at length propose to abandon lay tests. I am glad that it has come now, late in the day as it is. They have hitherto made no sign, and would have allowed Clause 17 to pass in its present shape, and it is not until the present moment that they have admitted that it ought to be amended, so as to be made to refer to the Theological Chairs only. I congratulate the Committee on having this question disposed of, and the Government on having at last made up their minds to get rid of the test. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked two clauses which stand on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) and myself, which come before that of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. Those Amendments will probably be moved because we think that they will deal with the question in a better way than that suggested by the hon. Member for Inverness, which the Lord Advocate seems to wish to accept, in order that he may appear to assist one section of his own supporters. The question of tests for the so-called Theological Chairs still remains to be settled. The test imposed on these Chairs is a very stringent one; indeed, a test more rigid, more exacting in its demands on the conscience can hardly be imagined. It goes far beyond the Thirty-nine Articles, with which this House was often concerned 20 or 30 years ago. The Confession of Faith is a much

  1275
  longer document than the Thirty-nine Articles, and the test is most stringent and exacting. There are three objections to theological tests—first, that they exclude conscientious men; secondly, that they are ineffective and delusive as a security against unconscientious men who are perfectly willing to take them without believing them; and thirdly, that they narrow the University, make it sectarian, and exclude men who would confer honour upon the University. These arguments apply to all tests, and are so familiar that I need do no more than mention them. However, I admit, as the Lord Advocate put it, that the arguments in favour of the retention of theological tests are, in some points, different from those which apply to lay tests, and I proceed to examine the three on which stress is laid in the present case. It is said that to take away the Theological Faculty from the Established Church of Scotland would be probably to move in the direction of Disestablishment. I do not admit that that is so. There is already a majority of Scotch Members in this House who are in favour of Disestablishment, and I believe that the Scotch people have already made up their minds in favour of it. Therefore, if that argument is used it is not an argument of great force with the majority of Scotch Members. But I do not put this question as if it were a part of the Disestablishment Question, for the exclusive possession of a Theological Faculty in the Universities bound by tests is not essential to the existence of an Established Church. There are countries which have maintained a State Establishment of religion, but no test restricted Chairs; there are, in fact, many and various methods of dealing with the public teaching of theology. I will give three instances. In Germany there are Protestant and Roman Catholic Theological Faculties, but the former are not subject to any test. In Italy there is an Established Church, but theological instruction is not provided in the Universities, but is left to be given in the various seminaries and other institutions entirely under the control of the Catholics. That is another way of dealing with the question, and perhaps not a happy way, because it has tended to narrow and cramp the theological teaching. The most eminent and famous of
  1276
  the Universities of North America has a Theological Faculty, in which there are professors bound by no test whatever. These instances, and many more which I could mention, go to show that there is no necessary connection between the existence of an Established Church in a country and its possession of Theological Chairs in the National Universities. What reason is there that that should be done for the Established Church in Scotland which is not done for the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, especially considering that the number of students and of ministers in the two latter Presbyterian bodies is in the aggregate greater than the number of students and ministers in the Established Church? There is a second argument which we may expect to hear from the Government, and that is that there are still Theological Faculties, restricted by-tests to the clerics of one denomination, at Oxford and Cambridge. There is, however, one great difference between Scotland and England. In England the theological professors are almost entirely at Oxford, and partly at Cambridge, supported by cathedral establishments, and the fact that they are connected with cathedral establishments is the great difficulty in the way of this branch of University reform. That difficulty does not exist in Scotland because there is nothing in the nature of a cathedral foundation. Why should we who desire to reform the Scotch Universities wait for England in this matter? If an English University Bill were before us we should move to set free the Theological Chairs in Oxford and Cambridge; now that a Scotch Bill is before us, we propose to begin with Scotland. One must begin where one gets a chance. Besides, it is a great deal easier to deal with this matter in the case of Scotland than of England. In the case of England, whatever the statistics be as to the relative number of adherents of the Established Church and of the other Churches, there can be no doubt that the proportion of the adherents of the English establishment—the proportion of ministers and students in the Universities belonging to her communion—is very much larger than the proportion of the adherents of the Establishment in Scotland. The Established Church in Scotland is in a minority as respects

  1277
  both ministers and students. There is also this point to be considered—that the hardships of excluding members of other Presbyterian bodies from the Chair and of practically excluding them from attendance at the theological lectures of the University is greater in the case of Scotland, because the theological differences between the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church and the Established Church are very much smaller than those which exist between the Established Church and the Nonconformist bodies in England; they are, in fact, so small as to be practically invisible to any but a Scottish eye. The third objection which can be taken to this proposal is one on which I suppose most Members of the House will feel most difficulty, and that is whether you can have a faculty of theology at all which is not bound down by tests to some specific denominational teaching—in other words, can you have Theological Chairs that are not test-bound? What are these Chairs? They are four in number—namely, Hebrew—or, as it is called in most Universities, Oriental languages—Biblical criticism, Ecclesiastical History, and Divinity. As regards the first three of these Chairs, there is no reason whatever why they should be dogmatic or test-bound. The Professors of Hebrew and of New Testament Greek have to deal with questions of scholarship and literary history, and must be permitted to deal with them freely. So the Professor of Ecclesiastical History has to investigate history in a scientific and critical—not in a dogmatic—spirit, and will be more likely to teach well if he is not obliged to accept foregone conclusions. In the University of Cambridge, where a few years ago a Chair of Ecclesiastical History was founded, it was founded as a lay and free Chair, subject to no test; and though the distinguished historian who now fills it is a clergyman, I can say, having been one of the electors, that this happened only because he was the best candidate, and not because he was a clergyman; and in regard to the fourth Chair—that of Divinity, or systematic theology—there are several courses which may be taken. As suggested by the Lord Advocate, it is open to the House either to abolish the Chair altogether, or to
  1278
  throw it open to every Presbyterian denomination, or to keep it as it stands. I confess I should be sorry to see it abolished, as I should be sorry to seethe faculty of theology abolished.. Apart from any sentimental reason I believe it to be a matter of practical value to the national intelligence and development of national religious thought that there should be a free faculty of theology in the Universities. It is desirable to prevent the subject of theology falling entirely into the hands of denominational colleges, and it is a benefit to the Universities themselves that there should be persons chosen by reason of their special fitness and competency to give theological teaching. There is no difficulty in teaching theology without the authoritative inculcation of dogma. A professor in a free faculty would not be put in his place to say, "This is true, and you must believe it: it is what the State, my master, and the Church to which I belong, hold to be true." He would treat the subject just as professors now treat the subjects of psychology, entology, and ethics.. The Lord Advocate suggested that we ought to know what is the opinion of Scotland and of the Scottish religious bodies on this question. The Free Church of Scotland expressed the opinion in its last deliverance on the subject a year ago, that it is desirable that Chairs and a Faculty of Theology should exist, but that they should be subject to no test whatever. The United Presbyterian Church is of opinion that all dogmatic teaching of theology in each of the Universities ought to cease as a State-supported institution. If the professor of theology is not bound to inculcate any particular doctrine, he is not a teacher of any particular religion, so that the objection felt very consistently and logically by the United Presbyterian Church to the present state of things entirely falls to the ground. The view I am pressing upon the Committee is therefore entitled to claim the support of the United Presbyterian Church as well as of the Free Church. The objection may be urged that if there are no tests it may be possible to appoint persons who are not Presbyterians, not Protestants, not even Christians at all. That is, of course, theoretically possible, but my answer is, are we to suppose that the

  1279
  appointing authority, be it the Crown or the University Court, will commit such an unpardonable blunder, such an insult to the people of Scotland and the Universities as to put in persons who from their professions and position would be obviously unfitted for the post? I think we may look with some confidence to the appointing authority choosing persons who will be suitable for the professorships. However, I admit there maybe difference of opinion as to whether this one particular Chair should be abolished, while thinking that it would be a distinct benefit to the country and more compatible with the principles which ought to guide us if the Chair were retained. Last night we adopted an Amendment by which the Commissioners have power to abolish any Chair. So if the Commissioners see fit to put an end to this Chair, they can do so without the need of inserting this 17th clause at all. This is, however, a matter of detail. In proposing to omit this 17th clause, we take our stand on the broad principle that all tests ought to be abolished, and desire to have the opinion of the Committee on that clear and simple issue. The Lord Advocate said the Government proposed to leave the matter to the Commission because there were two questions to be considered: the first question was what the relation of theology teaching should be to the other University teaching, and the second was what concession should be made to the other Presbyterian bodies, if the tests were so widened as to include members of every Presbyterian community. We conceive it is not necessary for the Commission to take evidence on these points. We think the more simple and more excellent method is to abolish tests altogether. The adoption of that course makes it unnecessary to enquire what the relation of theological teaching to other teaching should be. We are persuaded that there is in Scotland no middle course between retaining the present system and an absolute and complete abolition of the tests. The non-established Presbyterian Churches do not wish to be admitted to these theological professorships at the expense of the principles they advocate. I hope I have shown the Committee that there is no necessity for any further inquiry. It is not desirable that this matter should be
  1280
  brought up again in three or four years' time. We conceive that the Committee are now in possession of all the essential facts. We conceive that by simply abolishing the tests we shall put the question upon its true and natural basis. We wish to do the best we can for the religious life of Scotland, and to extinguish the last trace of a sectarianism which has prevented the Universities from being in this respect, as they have been in every other respect, the national possession of the people of Scotland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that the hon. Gentleman dwelt rather too much upon this clause, as if his proposal were the only one consistent with the immutable principles of the party he so ably represents. The Committee is aware that the only difference between the proposal which the Government are now making and the proposal which the hon. Gentleman and his friends made when they were in office in this matter of ecclesiastical tests is that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give up the lay tests, whereas the hon. Gentleman and his friends never hardened their hearts to make that proposal. I do not say that to convict right hon. Gentlemen of inconsistency. But it is well to remind the hon. Gentleman that three years ago he and his friends did not think that Liberal principles required the sacrifice of the ecclesiastical tests in Scotland. What we have to consider is not the relative claims of the Established Church and the other religious communities in Scotland, but whether we should have any tests whatever, and leave it to the Commission to advise what and how far tests ought to be retained. With regard to fees, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the portion of the salaries of the professors paid out of the Consolidated Fund is very small compared with the part paid by fees. I believe that in Germany it is not the custom in the case of Protestant Chairs to require theological tests; nevertheless the appointments are made in many cases by the Theological Faculty. In many cases the appointing body is a religious body, and, therefore, the same necessity does not exist to see that the new professor takes the test.
  MR. BRYCE: The members of the Theological Faculty in German Universities have not themselves taken any test.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to Oxford and Cambridge, the hon. Gentleman has to admit that the principle has been accepted by Parliament, and rigidly adhered to, that in the case of the theological professors subscription to theological tests should he maintained. The hon. Gentleman suggests that great difficulty has arisen in the way of the reforms he has recommended from the fact that these professors, as a rule, were attached to cathedral foundations. It is true in some cases there is that connection. But the reason why Parliament has refused to interfere is not the technical difficulty of settling the relations between the professorial and ecclesiastical functions of these gentlemen. The broad view which has influenced every Government is that in dealing with a subject like theology tests are an absolute necessity, unless we wish to see the whole system dissolved into an amorphous and wholly shapeless condition. That brings me to the four subjects dealt with by theological professors—namely Hebrew, Old and New Testament criticism, ecclesiastical history, and theological dogma. Now, taking the first two together, though it may possibly be said that the study of Hebrew and the study of the New Testament are subjects which may be removed altogether from the Theological Faculty, and placed in some other faculty, yet the hon. Member will see that when a religion is based upon doctrines, and when those doctrines are the whole subject which has to be discussed, it is not possible to eliminate the dogmatic element from the discussion. It is true, of course, and we know plenty of great examples of it, that the Old Testament and the New Testament have been discussed in the absence and to the entire neglect of all theological considerations; but what is the result? The result is that the teaching of the professor who has so dealt with the subject, has in many cases been of the atheological character which I have just indicated. A Chair conducted by a person of the high qualities, say of M. Renan, would not be a Chair devoted to the advancement of anything which in these islands is
  1282
  called religion. It might be for the advancement of what many regard as sound knowledge, but it would not be religious knowledge. The case is almost equally strong as regards ecclesiastical history. Early ecclesiastical history cannot by any human ingenuity be separated from the question of religion. Will the hon. Gentleman contend that the great series of works on the "Early History of Christianity," which M. Renan has just brought to a conclusion are works which can be considered apart from religion? You cannot possibly divorce questions of early ecclesiastical history from the question of Christianity, however wide be the definition which you choose to give to that term. I think the hon. Gentleman when he came to the last Chair which he discussed—namely, dogmatic theology—himself felt that his case was rather a difficult and a weak one. He held out an ideal state of things in which what he was pleased to call free theology should be discussed by the holders of this Chair. I do not know what he means by free theology. If he means the impartial consideration of religious dogma from a purely scientific standpoint, in the first place, that, if you got it, would not satisfy the people of Scotland, and, in the second place, you would not get it. By free theology you would not as a rule get that free discussion from an impartial standpoint of theological dogma; you would have an arbitrary series of theologians, each professing a different creed, none of them accepted by the other as a true representative of scientific theology, and none of them accepted by the Church of Scotland or by any Presbyterian body in Scotland as at all representing their view of what theology ought to be. The hon. Gentleman regarded it as practically absurd either that the appointing body would ignore the fact that the great mass of the people in Scotland are Christians, or that the appointing body would be so foolish as to ignore the general opinion of the people of Scotland and appoint somebody who differed from the people of Scotland in the matter of theology. If that is the argument, then the whole case of the hon. Gentleman is destroyed. I can understand the argument—and from certain points of view have sympathy with it—in favour of perfectly free scientific inquiry into all these matters, but that is not the

  1283
  point of view of the hon. Gentleman. He wishes to transfer the task of imposing tests on theological professors from the House of Commons to the appointing body. [Mr. BRYCE shook his head in dissent.] Well, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman gets over that. As I understand it the hon. Gentleman thought that if Strauss were to come to life again and compete for a Scotch Chair, or M. Renan, those two eminent theologians would be rejected because their views were not in harmony with those of the people of Scotland. That, I contend, is itself imposing a test, and if that test is to be imposed I would rather it was imposed deliberately Parliament than left to the caprice of the appointing body. The hon. Gentleman, using a dangerous argument, began his speech by saying that tests were useless because they hamper the conscientious man and they did not hamper the un-conscientious man; but towards the end of his speech, he said:—"After all, will not every professor whom you have appointed have the strongest motive to teach a theology agreeable to the students, because will not he consider his fees?"
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. I did not say that; what I said was, the theological professor will have the strongest motive for treating with respect and deference the opinions of those who do not agree with him. I never mentioned the fees; I never even thought about them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, if we are going to admit that as a kind of motive which is to modify this free theology and this impartial consideration of dogmatic teaching from an impartial standpoint, we, after all, introduce, I will not say a meaner motive, but a much less lofty and creditable motive, than I thought was to actuate those who appointed the professors and those who occupied the professors' Chairs. It appears to me that the complexity of the question which the hon. and learned Member has brought forward, and the number of considerations he himself has been compelled to advance in support of his view, is, in itself, one of the strongest arguments for carrying out the plan which he and his friends were the first to suggest—namely, that of leaving these questions to the Commissioners themselves. They would have
  1284
  the opinion of the people of Scotland, of the great ecclesiastical bodies whose interests they were bound to consider, and of the academical interests of the Universities, and I submit that they will be far more qualified to discuss the question and to lay it before Parliament in a form mature for the decision of Parliament than we could possibly attain to by any other procedure that can be suggested.
  MR. FINLAY: I think general satisfaction will be felt in the Committee at the announcement made by the Lord Advocate that the Government are prepared to abolish all tests in the case of Lay Chairs in the Scotch Universities. I certainly should have strongly objected to remitting for the consideration of the Commission a matter which I believe to be ripe for decision by Parliament. It is somewhat remarkable that a reform of this kind should have been delayed longer in the Scotch than in the English Universities. In 1871 they were done with in English Universities; in Scotland we have waited until 1889, and that is the more remarkable in that the Scotch Universities do not, as the English Universities do, profess to supply the moral and religious training for their students. With regard to the other part of the subject, different considerations altogether come into play. On one conclusion there will be general agreement—namely, that in the case of Chairs of Theology there must be a test of some kind. I cannot understand a professor of theology who does not profess belief in a God. My hon. and. learned Friend proposess that the professor of theology should teach theology on principles which are absolutely unintelligible. It is to be theology in vacuo. The professor of theology is to state every view, but not to express to his bewildered students his predilection for any view in particular. I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, in fact and in substance, a professor teaching theology on those principles would not be a professor of general scepticism. What would his teaching be? If we had a professor of theology stating every theory and not indicating to his students which theory they ought seriously to consider as representing truth in these matters, we should have a professor of theology teaching his students to disbelieve, in effect, in every theory. The hon. and learned

  1285
  Gentleman ought to explain how, on his principles, theology could be taught in this fashion. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has given up his position on this point. He is opposed to any direct test, but he advocated doing indirectly what he would not do directly; that is to say, he left it to the Commission to appoint men of particular religious views, while he shrank from adopting the principle that a certain test should be imposed. Of one thing I am certain, that if a Chair of Theology were established on the hon. and learned Gentleman's principles in Scotland it would have no students at all to attend it. The great Presbyterian bodies of Scotland would repudiate it on behalf of their studends if the teaching of theology or cognate subjects was based on such principles. The first conclusion I submit therefore is that there must be some test in the case of Theological Chairs. The second conclusion I submit is that the present test is too strict and too narrow. The Act of Security was passed just before the Union of the Crowns, and it declared that those Chairs could only be held by members of the Established Church, who had not only to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but also to submit themselves to the discipline of the Established Church. Since that time circumstances in Scotland have greatly changed, and I believe it is impossible to suppose that the test of that day should be kept in operation at the present time. In these circumstances, how far should we go in this matter? My own view is that we should render these Chairs open to members of the great Presbyterian bodies in Scotland. The doctrines of all those churches are absolutely identical; in point of doctrine there is no difference whatever between the Established Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and the Free Church. Anyone, therefore, should be eligible to a chair in the Faculty of Theology in the Scotch Universities who is prepared to subscribe to the formula which is exacted by those Churches from a man who desires to become a minister in that Church. If this were done we might in time have a combined education for the students of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. But some hon. Gentlemen are disposed to go further, and to endeavour to extend admission to those Chairs to those
  1286
  who do not hold the tenets of any one of the Presbyterian bodies in Scotland. I think, however, that this is not practicable, because in these matters we must have some regard to the feelings of the people for whom we are providing the theological faculty, to the people from whom the students for those classes are to be drawn. The certain effect of extending the standard of admission so as to render eligible to those Chairs other persons than those who are prepared to adopt the Presbyterian views of doctrine would be this—the Established Church of Scotland would find it absolutely necessary for the training of its own students to set up a fresh college of its own. The result of having a separate training college for the Established Church of Scotland in addition to the Free and United Presbyterian Churches would be that the professors in the Faculty of Theology would be left without any students at all. The matter in my judgment is hardly ripe for legislation, and I think that the proposal of the Government to remit this matter for Report by the Commission is an eminently judicious one.
  MR. DE LISLE: I hope no apology is due from me if, for a few minutes, I intervene in this interesting and important debate. I voted yesterday in favour of retaining the Theological Faculties in the Scotch Universities, but it will not be expected that I shall vote in favour of the theology taught by the Faculties. On the other hand, supporting the legal status of the Established Church of Scotland, I am willing to refer the question of theological tests to a Commission such as is appointed in the Bill before us. As a Catholic I may be pardoned for taking a special interest in the fate of the Scotch Universities. Three of the Universities were established to be bulwarks of the religion I profess, but by strange irony of fate two of them became almost from the first foremost in attacking and seeking to overthrow the faith they were founded to defend. The University of Edinburgh, though founded since the Reformation, was founded by an alumnus of St. Andrew's, so that the Scotch Universities truly owe their being to the Catholic Church. The point I wish to put before the Committee is that in the present day,

  1287
  with the knowledge we have of the past religious history of these islands, that there ate many propositions in the Westminster Confession of Faith which no well-informed Scotchman really believes, and which every well-intentioned Scotchman would wish to be buried in oblivion. I do not refer to the strictly theological side of that document, which, indeed, contains a mixture of theological and political doctrine drawn up—as the historian Clarendon remarks, by men all of them of mean learning, and some of scandalous morals—by men many of them of infamous morals. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says "Rubbish"—I will leave it as matter of opinion, but it cannot he denied that these same persons who formulated the Confession of Faith, not long after sold their King to the British Government for £100,000. But I avoid many points on which the Confession of Faith is open to criticism. I desire to point to certain statements concerning the Church of Rome, to which I belong, which can only be most painful and offensive to thousands of the Queen's Scotch subjects. The two most regrettable statements in the Confession from this point of view, are these—first, that every Scotchman who teaches theology in a University Chair is bound by his promise to hold that the Pope of Rome is in no sense the head of Christ's Church, but that "he is Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, who exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God," and as a corrollary follows the disciplinary statement contained in the Confession of Faith:—
  "And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolators, nor with such as are notoriously wicked in their lives."
  I am certain that no Scotchman in the present day, certainly no University man, will hold that Papists are idolators, and that they should only be put on the same level with persons of notoriously wicked lives. That is a thing which University Scotchmen would wish to see eliminated from the Confession of Faith; also the statements that the doctrine of transubstantiation is blasphemous, that the worship of 200,000,000 of Catholics is a devilish practice, that their Litanies are wicked ones, and that all who observe the festival days of saints are to be
  1288
  punished as idolators. This is not the kind of document which in the present day it is desirable to maintain. Therefore, I should have preferred to have moved an instruction to the Commissioners that in no case shall the Westminster Confession of Faith be any longer an obligation on professors of divinity in Scottish Universities. But I am prepared to leave this grave subject to the consideration of the Commissioners. Besides, I do not wish to support the Radical tendencies of the present day, which would subvert the definite teaching of dogmatic theology in Universities. Honest error, or misapprehension of truth, is sometimes better than indifference to truth. On the other hand, I should like to see the oath now taken modified, not in a latitudinarian, but in a more Christian sense, in a sense which would make the reunion of Christendom more possible, and at least enlarge the bounds and scope of Christian charity so as to enable the conflicting churches to look on each other with respect and goodwill. The declaration made by the Scotch Professors of Divinity is—
  "I will never endeavour directly or indirectly to teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures or to the Westminster Confession of Faith as ratified by law in the year 1690."
  The only change I would wish to see made in this would he to make it run thus:—
  "I will never endeavour directly or indirectly to teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, or to the Apostles' Creed as recognised by Westminster Catechism"—
  (made by the same authority as that which made the Profession of Faith)—
  "to be a brief sum of the Christian Faith, agreeable to the Word of God and anciently received in the churches of Christ."
  That is a test, I venture to say, which would be regarded with respect by Christians of all denominations, and all Catholics who live in Scotland would, I think, hail it with satisfaction. Last summer I had the pleasure of visiting many parts of Scotland, and among other places I visited was the church of St. Giles, where I was struck by the evidences which are noticeable of the more Catholic development of religious thought which has been going on in Scotland of recent years. All that ministers to the sense of the beautiful

  1289
  in sculpture, painting, architecture, and music is no longer banished from the service of religion. Looking back on the history of the Church of Scotland, you see that it has been a reforming church for three centuries. The Church of Scotland 300 years ago reformed itself away from the centre of Catholic unity and what I believe to be the perfection of Christian doctrine; it is now, I am glad to think, reforming itself back again. In supporting this clause, I believe the work of the Commission will tend to remove a painful obligation, and to replace it by a test more conducive to the maintenance of Christian charity and truth.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has embarked on a controversy of considerable width and some danger. I do not propose to follow him into that controversy, but will only observe that in one part of his speech, at all events, he did not show that he appreciated the distinction between the profession of the Solemn League of Covenant and the Confession of Faith, which ought to be present to the mind of every one who ventures on so perilous a discussion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs has made some remarkable admissions. I listened to his speech with satisfaction, with even more satisfaction than to the speech of the hon. Member for South Aberdeen, because it came from one who can hardly be described as friendly to the attitude of the majority of the Scotch Members on this subject. We had an admission from him that went the whole length we wanted. My hon. and learned Friend at the very beginning of his speech said he was dissatisfied with the law of tests in Scotch Universities, and that he was satisfied they could no longer be maintained. And he said that if the Lord Advocate had not begun by making a certain concession, he should have voted against Clause 17. I challenge my hon. and learned Friend to indicate what test he would put in place of that now in use. We all know the test imposed on Scotch professors. We all know it is a test to which hardly any honest man can subscribe his name. It is a test which implies all kinds of mental reservations and puts people in a position which, certainly, no one occupying the honourable and elevated position of professor
  1290
  of theology ought to be placed in. My hon. and learned Friend says we shall be able to devise some other kind of test. What other kind of test? Why, he told us a sentence or two afterwards that we had not arrived at that period in the history of Scotland when such a test could be devised, and he went on to say that it would be the business of the various Churches in Scotland to discover what were the Articles in their creed which they regarded as essential. It is very remarkable that at the last Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, which is not the least rigid of all the Churches, a decision was arrived at which practically throws over the Confession of Faith, as it has been preserved hitherto. My hon. and learned Friend says it is essential that the professor of theology should at least believe in the existence of a God. Does my hon. and learned Friend propose to stop there?
  MR. FINLAY: I never suggested it should stop there.
  MR. HALDANE: I am pleased to hear that statement, but my hon. and learned Friend did not give any indication of what the test should be.
  MR. FINLAY: I did throw out a suggestion that anyone seeking to be admitted to a professorship should be able to subscribe to the faith of one of the great denominational bodies in Scotland. Perhaps my hon. Friend when he has done with what I did not say will come to what I did say.
  MR. HALDANE: My hon. Friend explained in another part of his speech that the denominational bodies are not agreed as to what the beliefs of their own clergymen should be, and he gave that as a reason why this was not the period at which any one could say what was the proper kind of test. The House can give a decision as to whether the existing tests are to be maintained. That is a plain business. We on this side of the House have made up our minds that we will not maintain the existing tests if we can get rid of them, but when we are asked to go further and to say what we would substitute, we are entitled to ask for some indication as to what it is we should be asked to subscribe to.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I do not think this House is a very fitting tribunal to judge between the differentia of professions of faith.

  1291
  I think the Confession of Faith was in the main accepted by the Scotch people, although it is impossible to agree with every phrase in it. So long, however, as it holds its present position, and until the time when the Presbyterian Churches think fit to amend it, I think the House need not trouble itself about the matter. The clause turns over the 17th clause, and what is the alternative to the proposal therein contained? I have listened to the speeches which have been made, and I do not see that there is any solution if the proposal is not accepted, save the total abolition of the test. Hon. Gentlemen may think it very easy to abolish the test, but as a Scotchman I altogether protest against such a thing. The subject is not one which agitates the public mind in any form, and my own view is that the Government, by giving up the tests with regard to the Lay Chairs, have gone as far as they can to meet public opinion in Scotland upon the subject. If they were to go further they would alienate a large majority of the people of Scotland from their side, and it would not be a satisfactory result. I think if the House were to adopt the suggestion of the Government and pass this clause with the limitation indicated by the Government, it would give the greatest possible satisfaction to the majority of -the country. I, therefore, deprecate very strongly any further interference in this matter in dealing with the Theological Chairs. I am as certain as I am that I stand here that a large majority of the students who now go to the Universities, would cease to do so if there were no Theological Chairs in existence.
  MR. C. PARKER: The question raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, as to amending the clause as suggested by the Government will require attention, for they have delayed their concession till the forms of the House hardly permit the alterations to be made in the present stage of the Bill. But I will pass from the question of form to that of substance. I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Gentleman beside me (Mr. Haldane), and I agreed with a great deal of what he said, but not with his conclusion. It did not seem to me to follow from the premisses he laid down. Undoubtedly, the religious life of Scotland is highly organized, and if you once
  1292
  admit that you are going to keep the Theological Faculty in our Universities, which certainly the people of Scotland desire, you must deal with the large organized bodies of Christians in Scotland. Of what use will a Theological Faculty be if the principal Churches have no confidence in the professors appointed? The three great Presbyterian Churches are most influential. They have at present their standards of doctrine, and if they change their tests in the future it will be done after full deliberation, and with the consent of every part of the country. It is, of course, possible that without any tests these Churches might be satisfied, were the patronage of the Theological Chairs so vested as to command their confidence. But I doubt if that will be found to be a practical solution of the question, for this reason, if for no other—that professors after being appointed would then be quite free to change their opinions and teach contrary to the standards. The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) was more to the purpose—namely, that a theological professor should satisfy the requirements of one or other of the Presbyterian Churches to which the great majority of Scottish theological students belong. For my own part, I should be prepared to go further, and include Episcopalian and other smaller Protestant Churches; but that, again, might not be found practical. There are at present two streams of opinion in Scotland working the one against the other. On the one hand, the intensely sectarian feeling upon matters of Church government and the relations between Church and State creates a tendency towards sectarian theological education; and if the Faculty of Theology be abolished, or if all standards of doctrine for the professors be abolished, we shall be promoting sectarian theological education. For the great Churches in that case will certainly keep up separate training for their own students. On the other hand, if a University professor who is an able man satisfies the requirements of one of the Presbyterian Churches his classes will be attended by students from the other two Churches. For there is among the students, and in the country generally, also a contrary tendency towards breadth of thought and rejection of the

  1293
  old narrowness of sects. Now such being the case I must, in fairness, admit that the difficulty and delicacy of this question about the Theological Chairs, the novelty of it, and the necessity of adjusting it to the satisfaction of the Churches, brings me to a conclusion different from that of the hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane). I think it well that we should not attempt at present to solve the question offhand in Committee of the Whole House; but rather that the Commissioners under this Bill should first confer with the great Ecclesiastical Authorities of the country upon the subject, and with that large body of Scotchmen who care intensely about religious teaching and theological training in the Universities, and that they should report to Parliament. The House would then have the issue before them in a form which would enable them to arrive at a decision. Therefore, if the Government modify their clause as they propose I shall vote for referring the question to the Commission.
  MR. W. SINCLAIR: I should not have risen had it not been for a few words that fell from the hon. Member for Haddington, who seemed to say that the churches of Scotland are throwing every issue into the melting pot, not knowing what will come there from. Such an idea is repugnant to the minds of the people of Scotland. The truth is the Westminster Confession of Faith is a document of some antiquity, and the terminology therein used is not suitable to the present day, and the churches of Scotland are united in this regard. They agree in every respect as far as dogma is concerned, the best proof of which is to be found in what is called mutual eligibility between the various churches, by which a minister from one denomination can be chosen for a charge by any of the other denominations. I must say I think that the clause in its modified form will be acceptable to the people of Scotland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Every one who has listened to the discussion must admit that, though the range of the subject with which we are dealing is not a very wide one, yet the discussion raises questions of the utmost interest and importance, and I think that the situation is a very peculiar one. I am not able to follow the connection
  1294
  between the concession made by Her Majesty's Government regarding the lay Chairs and the course we are to take with respect to the Theological Chairs. The two questions are absolutely distinct, nor can I see why, the Government having done a sensible thing with regard to the lay Chairs, the House should proceed to do a foolish thing with regard to the theological Chairs. The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire is going to vote for the clause although he thinks the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith quite intolerable.
  MR. DE LISLE: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I said I should vote for the clause in the belief that the Commissioners will so modify the test that the Westminster Confession will no longer be of obligation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would observe upon that that the Commissioners will have a multitude of things to do for which they will be much more fitted than for framing new theological tests. And they will have no power to frame theological tests. We are told that one of the first things the Commissioners will do will be to get rid of the Westminster Confession. But they have no power to get rid of the Westminster Confession. We have also been told that modifications have been adopted by the Free Church and by the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland more or less varying from the sense in which the Westminster Confession was framed, and that a distinct disposition towards relaxation has been indicated by these Churches. But now the House is going to vote, and the hon. Member opposite is going to vote, that the Established Church should have no power to relax its subscription to the Westminster Confession, the terms of which the hon. Member has said are so outrageous. The effect will be that the professors will continue to be persons who have subscribed to those very terms, and the Established Church, though it may have become disinclined to those terms, will through the vote of the hon. Gentleman and the votes of other hon. Gentlemen who think with him, be prevented from effecting that very modification which he considers to be indispensable in the interests of Christian charity and Christian truth. To my mind, that is an extra-

  1295
  ordinarily foolish course. I must own I am entirely at a loss to understand the position of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), who said the question is doubtful, and that the House would do well to refer it to the Commission. But the hon. and learned Gentleman does not doubt that the present test is a bad one; and yet he said that when we see clearly a proposition to be indisputable we ought not to refer it to a Commission, but to vote directly upon it. But the hon. Member is going to vote directly contrary to the principle which he laid down in his speech, and for the maintenance of a test which he disapproves. The maintenance of that test might not prevent a possible reform of it at some future period, but it is proposed, further, to make the test still compulsory with all the objections which can be derived from the extraordinary language of the Westminster Confession, and, on the other hand, from the fact that this vote excludes from the Divinity professorships not only the majority of the people of Scotland, but even the majority of the Presbyterian population, I much doubt the competency of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, in his able and ingenious speech, said that the Commission would be more competent to consider this question than the House of Commons. I have no high opinion of the competency of the House of Commons to frame new theological tests; and I must say that the House of Commons has never in my experience shown more uniform and persistent good sense than in the disinclination it has always shown to mix itself up in matters of this kind. But, as between the Commission and the House of Commons, I cannot see why the Commission would be more competent to frame a new test than the House of Commons. The Government are presuming that a change is required in the tests, but are leaving it to the Commission to feel its way to the formation of some new form of test. That is a matter with which the religious bodies themselves would be perfectly able to deal, each in its own interest and its own sphere; and if they are left free to do so, I have no doubt they will do it in a manner satisfactory to themselves and efficient for the purpose. But to maintain the 17th clause would pre-
  1296
  vent the most important and the most numerous of these bodies, the Established Church, from making any change or relaxation in the terms of subscription. That is unquestionably the fact. We have now before us the proposal of my hon. Friend sitting near me to meet the case by the abolition of tests. The practical proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness is that the House should enact, and enact by compulsion, tests which do not yet exist, and with respect to which we do not know what they are. I have a great respect for the Presbyterian I bodies. But I think Parliament ought not to impose any religious tests. What is the practical objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend? My hon. Friend proposes to leave the matter entirely free to the respective religious bodies in Scotland, and that the House should decline to exact any religious tests. Is there the smallest fear that the people of Scotland and the organ chosen to make these appointments will not discharge their duty properly? Is the sentiment of Scotland so divided, or are the people so divided as to make that duty a difficult one without the supposed security of an enactment which would exclude one-half, or more than one-half, of those who accept the doctrines-of Presbyterianism? We have to deal with a reformed country, a Protestant country, one of the most Protestant countries in the world, where not only are the people agreed as to Christianity, but five-sixths at least, or seven-eighths, are entirely agreed in the dogmatic form to which they gave their adhesion. Suppose the Motion of my hon. Friend is rejected. The House would give a new sanction to the principle that half the people who adopt Presbyterianism are to be excluded from these Chairs, and the House will be preventing the Established Church from relaxing the terms of its subscription. But will any practical difficulty arise from the adoption of my hon. Friend's motion? What would happen? A vacancy will occur in a theological Chair, and the University Court will proceed to deal with it. Whom will they appoint? Why, the man most competent to instruct the bulk of the theological students. If they do not they would offend against all the rules of common sense. Presbyterianism will be taught

  1297
  as it is now taught in these Chairs, but without any reference at all to those remarkable and objectionable words which have been quoted by the hon. Member opposite. This is an argument to which the hon. Member ought to have assigned considerable weight. But the question of tests in the University Chairs is to be decided by votes which in certain cases, like the vote of the hon. Member opposite, and that of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, are determined by considerations essentially and radically based upon the maintenance in its present form of the legislative union between England and Ireland. It is not to be decided upon its own merits, but upon its possible bearing upon this subject. It appears to me that hon. Members on this side of the House are rapidly learning the lesson of that happy arrangement which has had such beneficial results in Ireland, and the price they have to pay for it. I contend that there are great theoretical objections and great practical objections to the present state of the law, and that it is most unjust that the whole body of Free Churchmen, and the whole body of United Presbyterians, who are just as firm defenders of Protestantism, and rather firmer defenders of Presbyterianism than the members of the Established Church, should be excluded from these Chairs because we choose to determine on an arbitrary test requiring them to submit, not only to the doctrine, but to the discipline and authority of the Established Church.
  Sir G. CAMPBELL: I intend to vote for the omission of this clause for reasons stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I shall vote against it because it is unnecessary. For my part I am very much in favour of abolishing the Chairs of Theology, but I cannot accept the view that there can be a Chair of Theology without dogma. Indeed, I am in favour of abolishing theology altogether, as I am one of those who would like to return to the simple principles of Christianity—to the fishermen and the carpenters and the mechanics, and the simple God-fearing men—and to get rid of priests and priestcraft. But as long as we have Chairs of Theology it would not do to have professors who are subject to no test. I altogether object to scientific theologians. If we must
  1298
  have teachers of religion, we must have men who represent certain views. Seven-eighths or nine-tenths of the Scotch people are agreed in their theological confessions and as long as that agreement exists I suppose we must have theological tests. If they are to be modified, it should be by the Churches and not by a Royal Commission. I shall vote for the omission of this clause, but I shall not vote for any proposition to abolish theological tests at present, though I would much like to abolish some Theo logical Chairs.
  THE CHAIRMAN: With respect to the observations made in the course of the debate, I think it right to point out that Clause 17 cannot now be altered. It is put to the House for adoption or rejection. I think it right also to point out that it will not be possible for the hon. Member to move the new clause which he has on the Paper.
  MR. FINLAY: Will it be possible to move the Amendment which stands in my name?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has misrepresented, unintentionally of course, what the question is which is before the Committee. His speech would imply that we are called upon by the proposal in the Bill to confirm the present tests, whereas the proposal is that the Commissioners shall inquire with a view to ascertain whether any and what changes in the tests are necessary and expedient. I would also take the liberty of reminding the right hon. Gentleman that this clause, against which he argues, was in his own Bill of four years ago.
  MR. DE LISLE: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether the construction the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian put upon this clause—namely, that it would stereotype the tests—is a correct construction?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to put that construction upon the clause. Irrespective of that, however, in my opinion the clause does not stereotype these tests. On the contrary, it desires the Commissioners to report as to whether any and what changes should be made upon them.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 157.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
  Clause 18.
  MR. HUNTER: I have next an Amendment to propose at the instance of University College, Dundee.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 14, line 38, insert after the word "University," at end of paragraph, these words:—
  "In preparing such draft ordinances as relate to University College, Dundee, the University Court of St. Andrew's shall confer with the governing body of that college." (Mr. Bunter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because I am not sure it might not have an injurious effect on the friendly relations between the two parties concerned. If we were to provide that there shall be a preliminary conference between them I am not sure whether University College, Dundee, would not be prejudiced by a scheme such as that proposed, and therefore I trust the Amendment will not be pressed.
  MR. HUNTER: The clause is one prepared by the authorities of University College, and therefore I think there can be no objection to it from their point of view. I should have expected that the objection, if any, would have come from St. Andrew's. The consequence of passing the Bill as it stands now, would be that there would be no provision at all for any statutory communication between the two bodies. I trust the Government will adopt the words of the Amendment, as the College Authorities are strongly of opinion that it would greatly facilitate the working of the Act.
  DR. CLARK: I cannot see what objection the Government can have to the Amendment, and I wish to know the ground on which they are opposing it. The University of St. Andrew's is not affected by the Amendment, which simply provides that the professors of Dundee College shall be consulted on matters specially relating to that institution, and this will prevent ordinances being arbitrarily made without the Dundee people being consulted.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING, Edinburgh and): I think the hon. Member opposite can hardly appreciate the position as regards time. The Government are willing to give all possible facilities for the affiliation of Dundee to St. Andrew's, but the view we take is that this clause might tend to impede rather than to forward the negotiations. I may point out that the Act comes into operation on the 1st January next; but the ordinances need not be lodged until six months after that, and I should hope that long before that time the negotiations will have been concluded one way or other. There ought certainly to be the fullest consultation between the two bodies voluntarily; but I think it would be a mistake, when everything depends on consent, to make it a matter of statutory obligation.
  DR. CLARK: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman quite appreciates my point. If the University Court of St. Andrew's is making ordinances with reference to University College we ask that those ordinances shall be submitted to those who will be affected by them. Surely that is a reasonable proposal, and what objection can there be to consulting the professors at Dundee on proposals which solely affect them?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: It will be in the power of either Party to secure a frank interchange of views with regard to proposed ordinances, but why propose that there shall be compulsory negotiations? I think the Amendment is unnecessary, and will be probably mischievous in its operation. If a union is to be brought about between University College, Dundee, and St. Andrew's University, there must, from the necessity of the case, be an interchange of views between the two bodies. But there is no reason why there should be a special and exceptional provision inserted in the Bill for that particular case. Indeed I think the proposition would give rise to great dissatisfaction in other colleges throughout the country.
  Sir W. FOSTER: I am anxious in the interests of education, and for the efficiency of St. Andrew's, that University College shall he forthwith amalgamated with St. Andrew's University. The colleges

  1301
  to be affiliated hereafter are in a totally different position to University College, Dundee, which offers means of increased usefulness, and I think it would be well if the Amendment were agreed to.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I do not believe that the adoption of this Amendment will make much difference. But University College, Dundee, is in a somewhat exceptional position, and I am not aware that St. Andrew's has any objection to this proposal. As Dundee is anxious for the Amendment, I think it would be better that it should be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I hope the Lord Advocate will not agree to the insertion of the words. Negotiations will, of course, have to take place for carrying out the provisions of this Bill, but if we make this exceptional provision, we shall, I think, be showing a want of confidence in the bona fides of St. Andrew's in proceeding with the ultimate development of a large and conjoined University of St. Andrew's and Dundee.
  MR. HUNTER: The Solicitor General for Scotland has spoken as if the application of St. Andrew's and University College will immediately take place. But that is quite out of the question, and it can only occur after a full agreement has been arrived at on matters of detail between the two institutions.
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: Affiliation cannot formally take place until after the Bill comes into operation; but there is nothing to prevent the negotiations beginning the moment the Bill becomes law.
  MR. HUNTER: Of course negotiations will take place on advances prepared by the University Court of St. Andrew's specifically relating to University College, Dundee; what possible reason can there then be for objecting to this Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: There is an additional reason why the Government should give way on this point. If you refuse opportunities for discussion, the University College Committee will have to obtain the end they have in view by a public Bill, and you will obviate the necessity for that, and there need be no friction if you allow matters to be arranged in private conference. The right hon.
  1302
  Gentleman the Member for Clackmannanshire seemed to think we were proposing to place the Dundee College in exceptional position, and that no other colleges would be affected by the proposal. But the colleges afterwards affiliated will come into the settled plan. I therefore cannot understand why the Government are opposing.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 160.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
  Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman fully comprehends the force of the words which by my Amendment I propose to omit, for they appear to me to give the Chancellor automatic powers in regard to future alterations. I think it is an innovation which is not satisfactory. In no other part of the Bill, as far as I can remember, has the Chancellor practically operative power, except that he sits as a member of the University Court, where, of course, he can be out-voted by other members. But I take it that under this clause, he will be able absolutely to binder any new ordinances being passed. It is impossible for one who has read over the names of the Chancellors not to feel the greatest respect for these imminent men, but still they are only individuals, and future holders of the office may not be such men as we should like to see entrusted with these enormous powers. If the Government would consent simply to omit these words, there are plenty of other provisions in the Bill to safeguard against the passing of new ordinances hastily conceived and rashly proposed.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 20, page 16, line 13, leave out "Consent of the Chancellor signified in writing, and the."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR.J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. I think there is no reason to fear that the Chancellor will use the power to interfere with the decisions of the University Court; the

  1303
  proposal is rather a ceremonious method of authenticating the resolutions come to by the authorities of the Universities.
  MR. HUNTER: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not withdraw the Amendment. I believe there is no University official whose services could be more easily dispensed with than could those of the Chancellor. In a Scotch University the Chancellor is appointed for life, and thus you would put it into the power of one official to obstruct all University reforms for a very long period. You are giving him power which I contend should only appertain to the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. CALDWELL: I also hope that this Amendment will be pressed. It is not a mere matter of form, as the Lord Advocate seems to infer, but you are proposing to confer upon one individual, for life, powers which will enable him practically to defeat all reforms which the University Court may wish to carry out. I think the provision that the ordinances shall be sanctioned by Her Majesty in Council is a sufficient guarantee to the public that the ordinances have been properly considered. Yet you are proposing to give the Chancellor greater power than that which you are giving to Her Majesty in Council. If he chooses to veto the consent of Her Majesty in Council he will be able to do so. I think such a proposal as this cannot be acceptable, and it seems to me outrageous that we should have a University Court established upon a popular basis, and at the same time allow a Chancellor elected for life to veto its deliberations if he so chooses.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I think the power proposed to be given in this clause to the Chancellor is not consistent with the principle of the Bill. The Chancellor holds a high office, the dignity of which I wish to see maintained; but I do not think he should have power to refuse his sanction to any ordinances which the various University Courts may pass. He ought not to be allowed on his own ipse dixit to say that certain ordinances shall not take effect. Perhaps in order to save the dignity of the office, and at the same time to deprive the clause of its more objectionable features, the Lord Advo-
  1304
  cate will agree to provide that the ordinances shall be transmitted in writing through the Chancellor to Her Majesty in Council. You might do, away with the words insisting that he shall signify his consent in writing to them.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is one which I feel it my duty to accept, and if the right hon. Gentleman will move an Amendment accordingly, I shall be willing to agree to it. We are in this Bill enlarging the powers of the Chancellor in another region, for we make him one of the Universities Committee, which ultimately decides on the Ordinances.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment proposed, to insert after "fit" the words "shall be transmitted by the Chancellor for the approval of Her Majesty in Council."
  Amendment put and agreed to.
  MR. HUNTER: I propose to modify this clause by the insertion of a provision that the ordinances shall not be valid unless they are sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament. I cannot understand upon what principle this clause has been drawn. Previous clauses relating to the making of ordinances require that they shall be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. This clause gives the same power to the University Court as a Bill gives to the Commissioners with respect to the ordinances which have been paid by the Commissioners; and I should like to know why the ordinances to be passed by the University Court should be valid without the consent of Parliament. The legislative power which we delegate to the Commission is extensive and I think we ought to require a guarantee that their ordinances shall be submitted to Parliament. I venture to suggest that we are going too far in allowing the University Court to pass ordinances which need only to receive the approval of the Privy Council, and I may point out that the Privy Council would rarely interfere with ordinances of this kind, unless they were likely to affect the rights of property or of individuals. I hold the proper tribunal to control these ordinances would be the Houses of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 20, page 16, line 38, leave out all after "has been" to "thereon" in line 41, and insert "laid before both Houses of Parliament in the manner provided by Section 19 of this Act."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Under the scheme as it now stands, after the Commissioners have finished their work, the University will be completely equipped with bodies constituted under statute, and drawn from all possible representative sources. When these bodies are established it is contemplated that the University will have sufficient power to enable it, from time to time, to alter its own ordinances, and a double check is provided in the Bill to secure that this is done under proper conditions; all matters of dispute will have to come before the University Committee. It seems to me that these ordinances stand in a widely different position from the ordinances of an Executive Commission which has powers delegated to it by Parliament for only a limited period. Work done by such a body may be properly subjected to Parliamentary review, but once you have a complete and autonomous system established, such as is contemplated in this clause, I think it would be undesirable that; there should be constant discussion in Parliament upon any alteration—large or small—which it may seem fit to make.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment. Although there is some force in what he says, I am rather impressed by this view—that the first ordinances passed would be the result of the action of the Commission appointed under this Act, and would be passed under the impetus now given to the question at a time when the eye of the public is fixed upon the matter; but the clause also enables the Universities in a certain manner to alter old ordinances and to pass new ones, and it might be possible for ordinances of a reactionary, objectionable character to be passed without the public generally knowing anything about it. If the ordinances complete the work of the Commission and carry
  1306
  it out satisfactorily, then Parliament will have an opportunity of admiring them if this Amendment is agreed to, and, on the other hand, if there should be any departure from the intentions of Parliament in any respect, then the House should, at all events, have power to express an opinion upon it. I do not think it would be any derogation of the dignity of the Universities to have the proceedings reviewed by Parliament.
  Dr. CLARK: I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very bold principle he is advocating. The High Court of Parliament has generally been considered to be the final Court of Appeal. You have hitherto placed Scotch Universities under the control of Parliament, but now you are going to abolish that and give the University Court power to make ordinances upon which Parliament will not be allowed to express an opinion. You are going to give a body control of money which used to be voted by Parliament, and if the Bill is carried in this form the House will no longer have any power over higher education in Scotland, either in the way of granting public money, or of controlling its expenditure. Before long, however, we shall have our own Parliament in Dublin, and then we will see that it has control over the Universities. If the ordinances have to receive the approval of Parliament when first passed, any alteration subsequently made in them should also be submitted to the House for its consent.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: May I point out that it is possible—although very improbable—that ordinances extremely unpalatable to particular University Courts might be passed and then when the powers of the Commissioners have expired the Courts would be able to turn round and revoke the ordinances. The only check upon that would be the supervision of the Universities Committee and I do not think that that is at all comparable to the supervision of Parliament. The occasion on which Parliament would deem it necessary to discuss these ordinances would be extremely rare—as is the case with the schemes laid on the Table by the Educational Endowment Commissioners. I do not think that there is anything in the Bill which should make the Government reluctant

  1307
  to grant this concession, and I therefore hope the Lord Advocate will agree to the Amendment.
  MR. BUCHANAN: It may be in the knowledge of the House that under the Oxford and Cambridge Commission Act, passed 10 years ago, the Statutes framed by that Commission had to be laid before Parliament. The laying them on the Table of the House has, as a rule, been a mere formality, and I believe that in only one instance has there been a discussion on them. I would therefore urge the Lord Advocate to consent to the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCE: I have here the Oxford and Cambridge Statute, and I find that everything is to be laid before the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am perfectly willing to assent to the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24.
  MR. HUNTER: The Amendment which stands in my name is one of considerable importance, but before moving it, I should like to know how the Government intend to fill up the blank that follows immediately after the Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): £42,000.
  MR. HUNTER: Then I will move the Amendment.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: It may be convenient that I should say that there is a certain direction in which it would be possible for the Government to give further assistance. This perhaps is not the proper moment to enter into that question.
  MR. HUNTER: It will not affect this Amendment. It has long been the practice of putting a charge on the Estimates for the Scottish Universities. The measure of the late Liberal Government contained a finality clause, and it was part of the idea of finality that the money granted should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. That policy was abandoned; no convenience what-
  1308
  ever can arise from charging the money on the Consolidated Fund, but on the contrary great inconvenience, both financially and otherwise, must arise from adhering to the present form of the Bill. I need hardly point out that if the clause passes in its present form the Scottish Universities will be entirely withdrawn from the control of Parliament. At the present moment there is an effective form of expressing public opinion with regard to the condition of the Scottish Universities upon the Estimates. It is true it seldom happens that the time of the House is occupied with discussions as to the Scottish Universities, but the Estimates afford an opportunity for public criticism of the University administration. Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the propriety of taking the money of the taxpayers, which is for the most part the money of poor men, and applying it to University education, there ought to be no difference of opinion upon this, that Parliament in giving the money should not cease to exercise control over the manner in which the money is spent, and the way in which the institutions are conducted. It is quite contrary to the rules of finance that charges of this kind should be put on the Consolidated Fund. Of course charges that are not susceptible to increase or decrease may be placed on the Consolidated Fund, but under ordinary circumstances nothing can be more inconvenient than to put a charge like the present on the Consolidated Fund. But I have a special objection to this proposal. We are going to establish a Commission with power to establish new professorships, and to incur various other expenditure on the part of the University. There is an opinion entertained by very competent persons that £42,000 is inadequate even for what maybe called the necessary reforms of the Universities. It seems to me that financially the Bill puts the cart before the horse. Instead of coming to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a definite scheme showing how much money is required, the Bill proceeds on the other tack. It says "give us money, and then you shall see what we do with it." All the difficulties can be got rid of, if we adhere to the present system of putting the money on the Estimates, taking for the year what is necessary for

  1309
  the year. I would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that before the Scottish Universities should be entitled to come to the general taxpayers in England, Ireland and Wales for more money they ought to be in a position to show that they use properly the money they obtain now. There can be nothing more certain than that in the University of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's the sum of £4,000 is not beneficially and well employed, because it is used in training only 63 students. The sum is altogether unreasonable compared with the general requirements of the University, and it would be easy, without obtaining much more money, for the Exchequer to entirely equip the Arts Faculty in Aberdeen and St. Andrew's with all that is required. I say, therefore, there could be nothing more inconvenient and improper than the charging of this money on the Consolidated Fund, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 24, page 17, lines 37 and 38, leave out "charged upon the Consolidated Fund on the growing produce thereof" and insert "paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: It would be convenient, in order that we may make up our minds on this question, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain what effect the Bill as it stands will have on the annual Vote we at present pass for the Universities, and in fact what the financial position of the matter will be as regards the House of Commons.
  Dr. CLARK: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. Taking away from the Vote the sums for the Observatory and the Royal Botanic Gardens, there are £38,000 on the Estimates this year. With the additional £4,000 offered there will be £42,000. How then do the Government make out that they are giving us £13,000 and not nearly £4,000?
  Sir G. CAMPBELL: Before we go into these questions of detail, I think we ought to settle whether the money is to be put on the Consolidated Fund or not. For my part I heartily support the Amendment. It seems to me that the Consolidated Fund is an abomination
  1310
  and the refuge of all sorts of abuses. We go on paying by means of it for the feeding of hawks that never existed and for various other abuses, and I think it much better that we should have control yearly over the sum we grant. The Amendment is a kind of self denying ordinance on the part of Scotch Members, and I hope it will be accepted.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: This proposal has been based, like others in the Bill, on previous recommendations, and on the proposals of previous Bills. I do not know the motives which influenced the right hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) to put a clause of this character into a previous Bill, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman can give the Committee adequate information on the point. I can, however, conceive a most excellent reason why the sum should be put on the Consolidated Fund. By this arrangement the Universities are to rely upon themselves. Parliament will place a certain amount of money at their disposal, so that the Universities can make both ends meet according to their own necessities. Parliament will not vote every year so much money for one purpose and so much for another, but the finances of the Universities will be put into the hands of the Universities themselves. By this means they will be administered from an academical and not from a House of Commons point of view. It appears to me that when the Commission have arranged the finances and the general management of the Universities it is desirable that the system should have a fair trial, and that the House of Commons should not interfere every year, as hon. Gentlemen wish, with new suggestions and thus practically take part in the financial administration of the Universities. From the educational point of view, therefore, the proposal of the Government seems to me the right one. If this sum were put on the Consolidated Fund, of course the items would disappear from the Estimates, and the amount would be placed at the disposal of the Universities, who might, from time to time, I presume, recast their endowments or their general expenditure according to the exigencies of the time. I think it will be necessary and desirable that the Scotch Universities should

  1311
  furnish more information to the House than is furnished by similiar institutions which have no endowment, but that will not be the same as casting upon the House the duty of annually voting the salaries of professors and so on.
  Sir G. TREVELYAN: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes us to dispose, first, of the question whether this money is to go into the Estimates. As to the previous Bills which did not pass the House, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not press his observations too far, because those bills were not brought forward with the full knowledge on the part of every one concerned which these debates have supplied. Hon. members who have followed the debates in this Committee must have felt that much further knowledge has been gained by these discussions. There is no doubt that the essence of previous Bills was that a lump sum should be handed over each year to the Universities; that responsibility should be placed on the Universities to dispose of this sum for the best academical purpose within the scope of their intelligence; and that the intention of Parliament was that they should be left to themselves and not kept within leading strings. It was therefore thought that the only mode of giving expression to that view was to put the charge on the Consolidated Fund. If the Bill passed in its present shape, of course it is necessary that the items should disappear from the Estimates. At present the salary of each professor is voted, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go back to Vote 8, Class IV. of the Estimates he will see how kindred cases have been dealt with by Parliament. Under the Bill, £12,000 will be given in aid of the expenses of the Scottish Universities. At present the State gives £2,000 in aid of the expenses of the Victoria University, and £4,000 each in aid of the expenses of the three Welsh colleges. I think that is a much more satisfactory way of giving the money than the way in which it was formerly given to the Universities of Scotland. The items will disappear from the Estimates as much as if the money was placed on the Consolidated Fund. I think we should do very well to adopt the principle of entering on the Estimates the lump sum that is given. By
  1312
  adopting such a system we shall, without retaining too minute a control of expenditure, keep it within our control generally; whilst meeting every condition laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech.
  Dr. CLARK: Are we to understand that the Government refuse to accept the Amendment in the modified form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—namely, that the Scotch Vote should be placed in exactly the same position as the Welsh Vote and the English Vote?
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: To tell the truth, the view of the right hon. Gentleman comes upon me, and, I presume, upon my colleagues, somewhat as a surprise. I do not make the slightest complaint, but I had anticipated that we were practically in accord on the subject, and therefore we have not discussed this particular point among ourselves with very great minuteness. Perhaps the best course under the circumstances would be to reconsider the point before Report. I have not myself the right to personally decide the question, because the tendency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is nearly always to keep things on the Votes, and not to put them on the Consolidated Fund. I should, therefore, like to have time to consult with the Lord Advocate. I quite admit that putting a lump sum upon the Votes would considerably modify the objections to which I called the attention of the Committee.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: Personally I would very much like to see the change proposed by my right hon. Friend carried out. The system of granting a lump sum out of the Consolidated Fund has not worked well in the case of the Queen's Colleges, and I think the better plan is to put the amount upon the estimates.
  MR. HUNTER: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, having regard to the promise to bring up the question on Report.
  Dr. CLARK: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that if the sum is not placed on the Estimates the only difference will be that a discussion will take place on a Tuesday or a Friday, and therefore the question will still be brought forward.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: With reference to the proposal that the grant to the Universities should be £42,000, several representations have been made to me that the sum is inadequate for the purposes for which it is intended. An hon. Member has asked me how the sum is arrived at, and whether it is true that the increase upon what the Universities receive at present is £13,000. I think the hon. Member will see that the present sum is between £28,000 and £29,000, and if we add to that £13,000 or £14,u00, we bring the amount up to £42,000, which is what we propose to put in the Bill. All the Universities have carefully examined the matter for themselves, and have arrived at the conclusion that that is the increase. But it has been considered an insufficient increase. I have examined the matter with great care, and I am bound to say that before I could admit that it was insufficient, I should have to look at the present financial administration of the Universities. I have pointed out on several occasions that there appears to me to be a resource open to the Universities not usually taken into account—namely, the extremely large emoluments of a certain proportion of the professoriate, emoluments which seem to me, looking at the matter with English eyes, to be quite out of proportion to similar emoluments enjoyed elsewhere. I have, by the courtesy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, been supplied with certain statistics which show that there are four professors receiving between £2,000 and £3,000, 23 professors receiving between £1,000 and £2,000, 25 professors receiving between £700 and £1,000. These are all very high emoluments compared with similar emoluments enjoyed in other Universities. I think it will be one of the first duties of the Commission to review the scale of salaries enjoyed by the professoriate above a certain line. Not only do these professors receive these very high emoluments, but they are entitled to pensions, not only upon the basis of their salaries, but upon that of their total receipts, which include the large amount of fees which they receive from the students, an indeterminate sum which may run up from year to year. The system of pensions to the professors and teachers in the Scotch Universities will require reconsidering.
  1314
  When it is said that there are new Chairs which must be founded, and new directions in which expenditure must be undertaken, I must point out that there is a very large margin in the salaries of the existing professors. I am aware there are some Members of the House, and a great many professors and others out of the House, who think, on the whole, that if we were to redistribute this money amongst all the existing professors, there would not be much left for the endowment of any new Chairs. I am not prepared to agree to that. I think these emoluments are in many cases so large that there is a considerable margin for economy and for the endowment of new Chairs, and for carrying out some of the objects which will be put before the Commission. I believe it will be one of the first duties of the Commission to revise the old scale of salaries and emoluments, and in the course of their labours they may find that they have to deal with some existing interests which will give them a great deal of trouble. I am not prepared to increase the amount specified in the Bill beyond £42,000. But if the Commission, when it enters on its labours, should submit a general revised scale of emoluments in the Universities, and if in that process they should find themselves, as they probably will, involved in pecuniary difficulties with regard to compensation, I should be prepared to recommend to the Government a moderate increase of the annual amount already named, or a sum down, in order to enable the Commission to deal with that most difficult problem. But I should only consent to do this on one condition—that the compensations granted should be reasonable, and that the system of pensions should be such as would commend itself generally to the House. I think it would be wise for the Treasury to keep a certain liberty in that matter, as it would be a protection to the Commission against many influences which are absolutely certain to be used to induce them to be too liberal in the scale of those pensions. I foresee that the University Commission may be somewhat crippled in its movements if it has not a little latitude in regard to the funds at its disposal for the purpose of revising the scale of emoluments, and with that intent I shall be glad if I can render some further assistance.
  Amendment moved, line 38, insert "£42,000."
  Question proposed, "That £42,000 stand part of the clause."
  MR. CALDWELL: There is one point to which I should like to call attention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think that all the professors have very large salaries, but I would explain that this arises from the great number of students. The fee of each student is three guineas, and if there should be a distribution of these fees between several professors so that each should have only what might be considered a proper number of students, the emoluments of each professor would sink very considerably unless the fees were increased. I think it will be agreed that three guineas is the lowest at which a fee could be fixed. No one can suppose that good professorial teaching can be had for less. The apparent largeness of the salaries arises from the enormous number of students each professor has in his class. The reform of the system will probably break up each class into smaller classes, but every penny of the amount now devoted to teaching will be used though it be distributed among more professors. The source to which the right hon. Gentleman looks for a fund will not, therefore, be available. Every penny will be required for the professorial teaching for which the student pays his fee.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: That is precisely the purpose for which more money is asked, for the Commission recommended that there should be more teachers, and for this more money is required, and I argued that a certain proportion of the funds might be found by a revision of the scale of salaries.
  MR. CALDWELL: In a scheme of this kind there must necessarily be increased expenditure at first, and if you are to invite public support to the scheme, you must first formulate the scheme and get it into operation. The responsibility will therefore be upon the Commissioners, unaided and alone, to formulate a scheme, that at first must involve the expenditure of a considerable amount of money. There is the fact that compensation must be given to every professor whose interest is affected in the slightest degree. If there is a class
  1316
  that qualifies for a degree, and if other classes are established to qualify for that degree, you at once confer on the professor of the first class a claim for compensation. There are matters that will entail expenditure at first, special circumstances that the Commission will have to take into consideration.
  MR. CRAIG SELLAR: From the beginning of this discussion I have taken a lively interest in this point, for I felt that it was quite impossible that the Commissioners could do the work expected from them without a considerable amount of Government assistance. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees his way to do something for us. Speaking for myself though, I still think the sum is inadequate for all the purposes with which the Commissioners will have to deal, and although I should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have seen his way to have increased that sum, still I am of opinion that under the new proposal the labours of the Commission will be lightened, and we shall be able to make a better job of the work entrusted to us. I would just like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could strengthen our hands — the hands of the Commission—against the pressure to which we may be subjected, by putting the views he has expressed into the form of a Treasury minute for our guidance?
  Sir G. CAMPBELL: I think the proposal of the right. hon. Gentleman is reasonable. I sincerely hope that the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to salaries will be carefully considered in regard to the emoluments attached to the Divinity Chairs. A desirable opportunity now offers in regard to St. Andrew's where a vacancy in the principal professorship was recently caused by death. I hope that full justice to St. Andrew's will be done in regard to other Chairs.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the improvement on his first proposal, but I hope he may be induced to go a little further. The increase in the grant is about £13,000. But the recommendations of last Universities Commission involved, it is computed, an additional expenditure of £11,600 a year, and since that Commission reported, in 1878, other re-

  1317
  quirements have emerged, especially in connection with the teaching of science, calling for a further sum of nearly £12,000 a year; so that altogether for the new work to be done by the Universities under this Bill, there is need for an increased grant of £23,000, rather than of £13,000. With the increase proposed there will be no margin left to meet the claims for compensation that are sure to arise in carrying out any scheme for the redistribution of professorial emoluments. I quite agree that these claims will require to be carefully watched, and that the Treasury must be supported in their dealings with such claims for compensation for disturbance, as I may call thorn; but presuming that these claims are reduced to a reasonable sum, I trust that the Treasury may see their way to meet the whole of that expenditure, so that the Commissioners may be free to go forward with their work without check on this account. There is another subject on which I think we might look for assistance from the Treasury, and that is in respect to the pensions now granted to professors retiring on account of permanent ill-health. This system was established in 1358, and the Universities Commissioners reporting in 1863 say of it—
  "One of the most beneficial of the changes which have been introduced under the provisions of the Universities Act, relates to the retirement of professors incapacitated by age or permanent ill-health from the performance of their duties. The practice which has heretofore prevailed in the case of a professor being so incapacitated, of having his class conducted by an assistant or deputy, remunerated from the income of the professor, has been found most injurious in its effects."
  The terms on which retiring allowances have been given may have been somewhat burdensome to the Treasury; but, if so, the blame rests with the Treasury of the time, who declined to agree to the proposal of the Universities Commissioners, fixing a maximum and a mimimum pension, and insisted on the terms which have since been observed. The allowance for pensions in the grant of £42,000 is stated to be £6,000. But the charge is a fluctuating one, and in some years it may considerably exceed this sum, so long, at least, as there are professors who have accepted office under the existing terms. With professors to be appointed hereafter, the University
  1318
  Courts may make their own terms as to pensions, but they have no discretion as to claims from professors now in office. I hope it will not be considered unreasonable to ask the Treasury to bear the burden of their pensions in so far as they may exceed the sum allowed for them in the grant, as was proposed by a clause in the Universities Bill of 1885.
  Dr. CLARK: I regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not enlighten us a little more as to how he arrives at his statement that this amount is an increase of £13,000. Such is not the impression I receive from the figures and statements on page 399 of the Estimates. I will tell you why I am a little curious about these facts. I asked the Treasury for a Return not long ago, and they promised to give it, but I have seen nothing of it yet, although two Sessions have passed. I want to know how it is that although we are really voting £42,000 for the Scotch Universities we are told that it is only £29,000. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should expect a single farthing from the other source to which he referred. And as to these amounts given to the Scotch Professors, and which seem in English eyes so large, I would tell the Committee that when I was studying in Edinburgh a certain gentleman was anxious for a professorship, but found himself unable to accept it as the emoluments were only £4,000 a year, whereas he was making in his profession £12,000. I do not think large salaries to professors are thrown away, because they enable you to get popular men, whose lectures attract large numbers of students.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: I think it is trespassing on the time of the Committee to go into details on this matter. The sum now proposed to be given as the annual sum from the Consolidated Fund is in reality £13,000 more than was formerly given. I may say with regard to the question of compensation, that I am quite willing to support the action of the Commissioners, but I also want the Commissioners to support the Treasury. The Universities should have an interest in reducing compensation to the lowest possible amount. I should not think it right that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay the whole of the compensations without the Universities being in-

  1319
  terested in reducing them. They would only be human if, in such a case, they looked more to educational interests than the financial interest of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman wishes us to restore the clause under which the Treasury undertook to pay the excess over a certain amount of pensions. It should be remembered that the additional £13,000 was given when that clause was struck out. If we restore the clause we shall have to take off the £13,000.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I think the Government are wise in their decision as to the mode of giving supplemental aid to this sum of £42,000. The question of compensation will be a great difficulty to the Commissioners, but through the joint assistance which will be rendered between the Treasury and the Commissioners the money will be much more safely applied to educational purposes than would otherwise be the case.
  MR. CRAIG SELLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Commissioners a Treasury Minute?
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: I will consider whether that is the best form or not. I will, however, undertake that in some form or other the views I have announced shall be placed before the Commissioners and the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 27, at the end, add—
  "But this restriction shall not apply to the Chair or Chairs of Hebrew or Oriental languages which may now or hereafter be attached to the Faculty of Theology."—(Sir L. Playfair.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Dr. CLARK: I did not wish to suggest an Amendment on the subject of the amount to be paid to the Scotch Universities until I knew the result of the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Knowing that result, I think it is neces-
  1320
  sary for us to try and modify Clause 27. I would propose that we should do that by leaving out the words "If any past or present professor," in page 19, line 1. I will subsequently move in line 4 to leave out the word "pensions," and in line 9 to leave out "professor," and at the end of the clause to insert the words "save and except the sum necessary to defray any claim for compensation for pensions made by any past or present professor." The object of the Amendments is to make any addition to the £42,000 which may be necessary to defray the claims made and the pensions asked for past and present professors in regard to changes which may be made under the action of the Commissioners. If you are going to carry out the preamble of the Bill, which is to endow the Scotch Universities, you must give them this money for their ordinary working and make other provisions for the compensations. No one knows what will be the amount required to pay the pensions and defray the claims consequent on loss of fees and salaries. I hope that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will regard Scotland as if it were England. If it were Ireland instead of Scotland we should get all we want——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the hon. Member would tend to increase the sum of £42,000, and it is not in the power of a private Member to move to increase a grant.
  Dr. CLARK: I have mentioned no sum.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not matter.
  Dr. CLARK: This is a matter affecting the Treaty of Union. You are going to place increased burdens on the Scotch people, for this £42,000 is to be a full discharge of all past and present claims of the Scotch Universities. What are those claims?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's arguments are quite inadmissible. If he can show that his Amendment will not increase the charge he may persevere with the point. But at present my view is that the Amendment would increase the charge on the Public Revenue, and it is out of the power of a private Member to submit a proposal which would have that effect.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The Amendment would merely have the effect of applying this money in a different direction, and it would not, therefore, appear that the strict rule as to Motions involving taxation applies to this case.
  Dr. CLARK: Under the circumstances I will merely move to amend the clause by striking out the words "shall be deemed to be in full discharge of all past and present claims."
  The CHAIRMAN: If that Amendment stands alone it will make the clause nonsense.
  Dr. CLARK: I would require to make other Amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot possibly hope to avoid the principle I have pointed out by merely playing upon words.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Would not an Amendment be in order which would limit the purposes for which this sum is to be considered a full discharge?
  The CHAIRMAN: Not if it led to other charges.
  Dr. CLARK: Then I will merely speak against the clause. I think it is an unjust one, and I will try to take a Division against it. My argument is that there were certain charges taken over when the Parliaments of England and Scotland were united, and that by this clause it is sought to cancel the obligation in regard to the Universities. If this were an Irish question the Government would not treat it in such a niggardly spirit. They always treat Scotland in this way. They can vote £40,000 for the two Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and £700 for the Irish Science College, but they refuse to vote anything for science in Scotland. As a Scotch Member I refuse to give the Government a full discharge from all its liabilities in regard to the Scotch Universities for this miserable contemptible sum of £42,000.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 40.—(Div. List, No. 10.)
  Clause 28.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 28, page 19, line 28, insert "forty-two" —(The Lord Advocate)—Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 28, "That this clause stand part of the Bill"—(The Lord Advocate)—Agreed to.
  Clause 29.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 29, page 19, line 30, after "report," insert—
  "As to the statistics of attendance on the various classes, details of teaching staff, and such other information as the Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, the Universities' Committee, may from time to time determine, and shall also make an annual Report."—(Dr. Cameron).
  Motion agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 29, page 19, line 81, after "university," insert "and the college or colleges"—(Mr. Baird)—Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 29, page 19, line 32, after "and "insert" the said reports "—(Dr. Cameron)—Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 29, page 19, line 35, after "determine," insert—
  "And to enable the University Court to make such report in respect of affiliated colleges, if any, the governing bodies of such colleges shall make an annual Report, duly certified to the University Court."—(Mr. Baird).
  Motion agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 29, "That this clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—(The Lord Advocate)—Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clauses 30 and 31, "That these clauses stand part of the Bill "—Agreed to.
  New Clauses.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I have now to move the new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), and would point out that he and I omit from it that part which has been involved in the recent discussion, the only question being whether the mode I propose is not the best for accomplishing the object on which we are all agreed.
  Motion made, new clause, page 8, after Clause 9, to move the following Clause:—
  "After the passing of this Act it shall not be necessary for any principal professor or other University officer in the said Universities to make and subscribe the declaration mentioned in an Act passed in the Parliament held in the sixteenth and seventeenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled An Act to regulate the admission of Professors to Lay Chairs in the Universities of Scotland.'"—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to observe that if you content yourselves with dealing with the Act of the 16th and 17th of Her Majesty the Queen, you leave the principals of the Universities subject to the very test from which you are proceeding to exempt the professors. For that reason I prefer the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness which, by repealing also a part of the subsequent statute, affords a complete instead of a partial mode of relief.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I do not agree with that view. I hold on the contrary that this is the preferable Amendment, but under the circumstances I will not renew the discussion or press the matter to a division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FINLAY: I have to propose that the following new clause be added to the Bill; the effect of it being to carry out the arrangement announced earlier in the evening by the Lord Advocate to abolish all religious tests in the cases of Lay Chairs:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following new clause be read a second time:—
  "The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Sections of the Act of the 16th and 17th years of Her present Majesty, Chapter 89, are hereby repealed, and the Act of the 22nd and 23rd years of Her present Majesty is also repealed in so far as it provides that any person shall make or subscribe the declaration set forth in the 2nd Section of the first-mentioned Act.'"
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. HALDANE: The object of the new clause which stands in my name is to secure something like an infusion of new blood into the Board of Curators, and I propose that three additional curators shall in future be nominated by the University Court. In doing this I am not attacking, in any sense, the administration of the curators hitherto nominated by the Edinburgh Town Council.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following new clause be read a second time:—
  "The number of the curators mentioned in Section 13 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, shall be increased by three, and such three additional curators shall be nominated by, and
  1324
  vacancies occurring in their offices shall be filled up by, the University Court."
  MR. WALLACE: I beg leave to object in the strongest possible manner to this clause being added to the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend describes it as a very single measure. I think it is a very double measure. My hon. and learned Friend appears to have proposed it on the suggestion of the Government. But care was expressly taken in an earlier clause not to interfere with the status of the curators appointed by the Town Council of Edinburgh; this arrangement being defended by the Lord Advocate on the ground that it was a matter of honour to carry out the covenant that the patronage exercised by these curators should be secured to them in the future. Yet when the Lord Advocate was himself defending that arrangement the other night, to my astonishment I heard him express wonder that the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire had not done something to alter the composition of the curatorial body, the effect of that being to take away, in substance, what the Lord Advocate professed to retain in form. I never for a moment imagined that my hon. and learned Friend would listen to such a suggestion; he seemed at the moment to be paralyzed by it, for he sat down in silence, but when he has had time for—well, I will not call it reflection, but for a cerebral process in which he bad been indulging—he seems to have yielded to the temptation held out to him by the Lord Advocate; hence he has brought forward this Motion. I have very great difficulty in keeping myself within the limits of Parliamentary language when speaking of this matter. I feel much disposed to exhaust the resources of vituperation on the Lord Advocate and on my hon. and learned Friend for their action in this matter. I think it highly improper, after having retained an acknowledged right for the curatorial body in Edinburgh, that they should consent to an alteration of the constitution of the body which will take away the right professedly retained. At present the Edinburgh Town Council nominate four curators, and the University Court three, the express understanding being that the representation of the Municipality shall have the preponderance. But my hon. Friend now

  1325
  proposes that three more curators shall be appointed, all by the University Court, thus placing the Municipality representatives in a minority, and depriving them of that preponderance which was the very essence of the arrangement entered into by the Government. That is the moral character of the transaction, and I can only say it will constitute a most ungraceful conclusion to the work which the Lord Advocate so well begun during -the last three or four days. In common with, I believe, every other Member of the House, I can cordially say I have found it difficult to say which is most to be admired, the ability, the style, the tact, or the temper which the Lord Advocate has displayed. I think that the way in which he has managed this Bill has been in every way most admirable, and it would be to me a matter of lasting regret if he attaches so ungraceful—I was almost about to say so disgraceful—conclusion to his prolonged and lengthened efforts in connection with this Bill. And now I come to the legislative character of the transaction. My hon. Friend bases his proposal on the benefit which will accrue to the University by the infusion of popular representation, yet he is doing his best to swamp and extinguish that very element of popular representation—as embodied in the municipal representatives—which is now the distinguishing element of the curatorial body. These are the difficulties in which hon. Gentlemen land themselves when they stray into crooked paths; they become not only a source of shame to themselves, but they fall into a position of self-contradiction which is both discreditable and ridiculous. I do trust that this protest which I have felt it my duty to make will elicit from the Lord Advocate a declaration that he does not intend to force into this measure a provision opposed to what he has already declared, in substance, to have been honourably retained in the Bill. I feel sure that the other representatives of the City of Edinburgh will cordially join in this protest. We shall certainly divide against the clause if it is pressed, but I should be sorry if it were necessary to resort to such an extremity.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I hope the Lord Advocate will not agree to this clause.
  1326
  I think that all who have followed closely the discussions in Committee on this Bill would regret very much if, at the end of the discussions, the Lord Advocate should give the slightest reason for believing that he altered the views to which he gave expression a few days ago. I think the case against this clause may be put even more strongly than it was put by my colleague in the representation of Edinburgh. On a preceding clause, the Lord Advocate, after he had had a night to consider the matter, moved an Amendment, specially leaving out all reference to the curatorial body of the University of Edinburgh. At two successive sittings of this Committee we had an assurance from the Lord Advocate, speaking on behalf of the Government, that they would not interfere with the position of the City of Edinburgh in regard to the nomination of curators. The hon. Member for Haddingtonshire says his clause is designed to extend the popular basis of the curatorial body by the infusion of new blood. But that is the exact ground of our objection to it, for if the Government accept this clause they will be adopting a line of action contrary to that pursued in the earlier part of the discussions in Committee. On Clause 5 we had a very long discussion on the constitution of the new University Courts, and the Lord Advocate then agreed on the part of the Government to accept what was evidently the general sense of the House; he agreed that there should be a further infusion of the popular representative element on the governing bodies of the Universities. In consequence of that, he admitted the representation of the Town Councils on the University Courts of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, and Aberdeen. This Amendment will, however, instead of extending the popular element in the Curatorial Court of Edinburgh University, very considerably curtail it. On these general grounds I would urge the Lord Advocate not to adopt the new clause of my hon. Friend, and on personal grounds I ask him to adhere to the terms of the Bill, because we should deem it a matter of extreme regret if at the close of this discussion we should have any reason whatever for suggesting that he had altered his course of conduct.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has moved on educational rounds his Amendment. In reality, it is an anomaly that a Board of Curators should exist in Edinburgh, and that there should not be a similar body in any other University. The reason is, as we know, to be found in the traditions of the University itself. The University of Edinburgh was originally managed by the Town Council, and, on the whole, I think that the Council exercised its rights of patronage extremely well. When the Act of 1858 was passed, the municipal element on the Board of Curators was maintained. If we were now constituting for the first time the Board of Curators, I should agree with the Amendment; but when we reflect that the whole interests of the University were at one time under the guidance of the Town Council, and that there has been for many years an honourable connection between the Municipality and the University—when also we remember that the Council has exercised its patronage well, I think that, on the whole, it would be as well to leave the Court of Curators constituted as it is at present. I, therefore, trust that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK: I thought that this question was finally settled, and I hope that now the Lord Advocate will not give way in favour of this Amendment, and thus give us cause for regretting that he should have changed his policy in the conduct of this Bill. I should have been glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Haddington if he had been able to give any reason whatever for the change, but he did not lay before the House a single reason. He did not complain that the curators had failed to dispense their patronage in the way the way they should have done. He cast no reflection whatever upon them, and, therefore, under these circumstances I ask why we should make such a complete change in the constitution?
  MR. HALDANE: When I moved this clause, I purposely abstained from going into details and thus occupying the time of the House, although I might have spoken at very considerable length upon the question. My reason was that on a previous occasion I had stated the
  1328
  grounds on which I now make the proposition.
  DR. CLARK: At any rate, there was no charge made against the curators. The change is advocated evidently for academical reasons, and with the idea of placing the popular element in a minority in the Court. And I can only say that if the Amendment is adopted, it will be viewed as a reflection upon the Edinburgh Town Council.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should have moved the Amendment which stands in his name. In the first place, it is admitted on all hands that the present mode of administering the patronage in the University of Edinburgh is an anomaly which, on principle, is altogether indefensible. We have had several proposals for laying down general rules as to the body which shall exercise the patronage of the University, and one which received the most general support was that all patronage should be vested in the University Court. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds has said, were we at the beginning of things, one could hardly imagine there could be any objection to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and it struck me as one of the most remarkable facts that the defence of the existing state of things was based on grounds altogether remote from the question of the general advantage to the University. The hon. and learned Member for East Edinburgh has prayed, in aid of the case he supports, some considerations as to what I said at an earlier stage in these proceedings, and hon. Members below the Gangway have followed his example. It has been urged that the acceptance of this Amendment will mean a revocation of the settlement, or rather compromise, come to in 1858. And now, as to my personal position in this matter. I was astonished to hear an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway say that he was amazed to see there was some chance of my acceding to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington, because he held it would be a complete stultification of what I said the other day. But the hon. Member for East Edinburgh saw so clearly the-import of what I said on that occa-

  1329
  sion that he stated to-day it struck him with horror and surprise.
  MR. WALLACE: Not on the same night, but the day after.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Well, what I said to the Committee on that occasion, and what I repeat again to-day, is that I am not prepared to depart from the understanding come to in 1858, so far as the existence of this body of curators is constituted. But I added that I thought the composition of that body was entirely open to discussion, and I was surprised that the hon. Member had not raised a question as to it. We have to consider this question in a practical light. We have, by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, provided that a detailed and reasoned report on the qualifications of candidates is to be furnished to every body of patrons. That I regard as a great safeguard against any possible defects in the decision of any body of patrons. Any body of patrons must stand or fall nowadays according to the exercise of their patronage. By passing from this Amendment we do not confer any right, but merely show a disposition to give a further period of probation to the patrons now fulfilling the duty. I think the best solution of the question is to take that view of the existing situation; but it should be distinctly understood now, as in 1858, that it is the duty alike of the University Court and the Town Council of Edinburgh not to treat their representation on the curatorial body as a property, but that they have a duty to find, in one case four, and in the other three, persons individually qualified by their knowledge, experience, and impartiality to make selections of persons suitable for academic office.
  MR. HALDANE: In consequence of what the Lord Advocate has just said, I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. In doing so I wish to express my gratification that the Government have been quite willing, as regards this point, to make the measure a thorough-going one. It was to me a source of surprise that two hon. Members representing two of the most Radical constituencies in the United Kingdom should have made use of arguments which would have been
  1330
  more appropriate to the Corporation debates of 1832 than to those of to-day. I cannot forget that the University of Edinburgh exists for the Scottish nation, and not for the Town Council of Edinburgh, and that at the present moment 16 of the Chairs of that University are in the exclusive patronage of curators who are dominated by the Town Council. It is a source of satisfaction to me that the Lord Advocate has, at all events, recognized that, in the interests of education and of the public, this condition of things is an anomaly which will be put an end to at no distant date.
  Sir G. CAMPBELL: It is not desirable to look a gift horse in the mouth; but as my hon. Friend (Mr. Haldane) has expressed his gratification at the observations of the Lord Advocate, I must express my dissatisfaction at my hon. Friend's gratification.
  DR. CLARK: I thoroughly endorse every word the Lord Advocate has said. I cannot find fault with a single word of the speech, or with a single idea contained in it. If the Lord Advocate continues to treat the question in the spirit he has just displayed, I have no fear of any future measure that may be brought in to diminish the power of the Edinburgh Town Council. I compliment the Lord Advocate upon having conducted this Bill in a fashion which will certainly add to the gratifying reputation he has got inside and outside the House both for tact and ability.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble.
  Question proposed, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
  DR. CLARK: I will not oppose the Preamble, though I do not think its effect has been carried out. It is said it is proposed to better endow the Scottish Universities, but that has not been done.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, July 11th, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

  BARROW DRAINAGE BILL. (No. 258.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. STOREY: I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. In making this Motion, I do not propose to go over the grounds which I touched on in making a speech upon the rejection of the Bann Drainage Bill; but there are certain special points and figures relating to the Barrow, and certain observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thereupon, which I imagine it would be orderly and pertinent to refer to at the present moment. The House is no doubt aware, although we in Great Britain learn Irish geography slowly, that the Barrow is in the South of Ireland as the Bann is in the North. Upon the Barrow we have as yet spent no money for drainage purposes; but upon the Barrow for navigation purposes we have, up to the present time, spent £239,000, of which no less a sum than £119,000 was a free gift from the Public Exchequer. With what result we have spent the money upon the Barrow navigation I am not at present concerned, although I think it will not be difficult to show that the precise effects of the proposed expenditure on the Barrow drainage will largely be to destroy whatever results have been achieved by the former expense on navigation. The present proposal of the Government is to expend no less a sum than £360,000 upon the drainage of the Upper and Lower Barrow. The area of the district drained by the river is, the Commissioners tell us, 480,000 acres, of which 46,000 acres are at the present time flooded from period to period; and their purpose is that the expense of the £360,000 should prevent either wholly, or in part, this flooding, and so beneficially to improve the district. This is so stated, and this is a purpose not unworthy of any Government and not unworthy of the attention
  1332
  of Parliament. But referring to the engineering aspect of this question, several curious things strike the mind of an interested and unprejudiced onlooker like myself. I find that of the total sum of £360,000, it is proposed to spend £300,000 in draining the Upper Barrow, and £60,000 to remedy the consequent evils produced in the Upper Barrow, so that of the whole sum of £360,000 to be voted by Parliament, no less a portion than one-sixth is to be spent in remedying the very evils which the expense of the larger portion of the money produces. But is it certain that the expenditure of this money for this marvellous scheme will have the effect of producing evil results in the Lower Barrow? On that point I will read two extracts from the Reports of two Commissions who have dealt with the question; because it ought not to be uninteresting to the House, and especially to Members who concern themselves with Irish affairs, to remember that two independent Commissions have reported upon this river and upon its improvement and drainage. I think I am not stating the thing too broadly when I say that, in essential particulars, the recommendations of one Commission are diametrically opposed to the recommendations of the other. But the two Commissions agreed that the inevitable result of carrying out the works in the Upper Barrow will be to create contingent evils in the Lower Barrow. What is the proposal which the Government are supporting? It is a proposal to drain the Barrow by embankments. Now, the universal practice of all peoples who have dealt in this way with the improvement and drainage of rivers and of the districts around them, is that by the natural accretion of detritus carried down the river, the bed of the river is gradually raised, the embankments have again and again to be raised; and in the course of a very limited period—longer in some cases than in others, but still limited at the best—the river is carried at a level above the surrounding country, and the consequence in many countries has been serious and extensive flooding and great destruction of property. Under these circumstances, it is not astonishing that the two Royal Commissions to which I have referred united in believing that the engineer-

  1333
  ing results of this wonderful scheme will be to produce evils in the Lower Barrow, while mending evils for the time in the Upper. The Commission, presided over by Lord Castle-town, and which sat in 1885, reports as follows:—
  "The general evidence went to show that some additional flooding of lands and property on the Lower Barrow might be anticipated from the increased volume of water sent down from the upper districts, consequent on the proposed works. But this injury, if found to occur, can be obviated by removing existing obstructions and providing additional waterway where necessary. It may, however, be requisite to take down and rebuild some of the public road bridges over the river, and in such cases a portion at least of the cost should he contributed by the adjoining counties"
  Is it not apparent that it is to be anticipated that whilst you remedy some evils in the upper districts you are going to create new and additional evils in the lower districts? The second Commission—which I will call the Allport Commission, for Sir James Allport was, if not the President, the chief member of it—reported that, on the whole, they thought there would be some augmentation of the line of flood at Athy, and that some works of improvement would be necessary in the lower reaches of the river in excess of what are now required to avoid flooding. The Commissioners said "some works," and the modest sum they put down, all of which is to be contributed by a free gift by Parliament, is £60,000. We all know of rivers where a very trifling amount of embankment is sufficient to restrain the water from flooding a considerable amount of territory. There are two very curious and instructive quotations which I will make from the Report of the second Commission dealing with this particular point. At page 32 of the Commissioners' Report it is stated—
  "Between Athy and Adamstown there are several tracts of land adjoining the river which are even now flooded, and we remarked that the owners or occupiers of these lands have not thought it worth their while to make such small banks as would be necessary to keep the floods off their lands."
  At page 31 of the same Report it is stated that light embankments have been formed on both sides for the next four miles, but their tops are below the average level, and they are not set back a sufficient distance. The provision,
  1334
  therefore, to drain the land of water is inadequate. What do I found upon these two quotations? I found this conclusion, which is borne out by the experience of gentlemen who know flood districts in other parts—that flooding in itself is not necessarily a bad thing for low lands. [Colonel NOLAN: Winter flooding.] Flooding in itself is not necessarily a bad thing for lands, and it may safely be left to the occupiers of land to judge for themselves whether it is worth while to expend the money necessary to keep out the water. What is the fact as recorded in the Commissioners' Report? It is that at the present time, without the intervention of Parliament or the expenditure of this large sum of money, it would be perfectly easy and competent for a considerable number of the occupiers of the land on the banks of the Barrow, by slight embankments, to restrain the floods and drain their lands, but they do not find it economical to do so. Now, the last time I spoke upon the drainage question I agreed that the Commissioners were men of engineering capacity and experience. A little more inquiry, however, induces me to modify the favourable opinion I then expressed. Sir J. Allport is, no doubt, a competent railway engineer; but his experience of drainage works is of a very limited kind. The criticism I make upon him I am bound to make upon the gentlemen who under him have done the practical work of surveying this river. The practical engineers, upon whose Report this scheme has been sanctioned by the Commission, and the Government, are gentlemen who have not had, either in Ireland or in any other part of the world, any considerable experience in drainage matters. I would like to add that in Ireland there are many competent engineers who have been associated with drainage works, and that in Ireland there is by no means an agreement in favour of the expediency and advantage of these particular works that one would have expected; on the contrary, a very considerable number of the practical Irish engineers who have been concerned in drainage have serious doubts as to the efficacy of these works. I have received a letter from a civil engineer of experience in Ireland, in which he says—I pass over the part

  1335
  where he expresses the belief that in opposing these Bills I am doing good to Ireland—
  "If the Bills pass in their present shape they will destroy the navigation of the Rivers Barrow, Bann, and Shannon, and introduce a bad and dangerous system of drainage by embankment that will injure the agriculture of the whole districts. I trust and hope you will prevent them passing, and that anyhow the navigation of the Shannon and the Barrow will be preserved, as if it is destroyed it will do great injury to the chief traffic of the country."
  I read that letter not so much with reference to the traffic, with which I am not particularly concerned, as with reference to the opinion there expressed that the proposals as to the Barrow are such as are calculated to produce evil. Passing from that, I come to a portion of the inquiry that I should very much like the House to bestow some attention upon. I do not think works of this kind should be undertaken at all unless there is a prospect of their being reasonably remunerative—that is to say, unless there is a prospect of the results to the districts being such as to pay a reasonable and sufficient interest on the capital employed. If there were such a prospect I should say the works might be carried out; but if, on the other hand, it can be shown that they cannot give a remunerative return for the money invested, then, I say, they are not works which would be undertaken by private persons, and they ought not to be undertaken by the Government. On this question I would refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Philipps), and emphasized by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, but left unanswered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The point was this: Will the Government tell us whether these works on the Barrow are going to be remunerative? If they are, the people who are going to benefit ought to pay for them, and if they are not they ought not to be undertaken. I have taken pains to extract figures bearing on this question from Government Returns, Blue Books, and other things of that sort; and I find that under the schemes of 1842 and 1847 the whole sum expended on drainage by the State was £1,827,000. The Govern-
  1336
  ment stated that the increased annual value of the land would be £74,500; therefore, it follows that, upon the whole of the drainage expenditure of 1842 and the following years, the Return in the shape of increased annual value was 4 per cent on the outlay. How was it in the works undertaken in 1863? On those works the total amount expended was £74,700, and the increased annual value is stated to be an amount equivalent to 5½ per cent. Now, I am not prepared to say that 4 per cent is a fair return; but I should say that 5½ is ample, and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite can show me that the works now proposed will yield anything like that return, I will admit that even though the money is mainly supplied by Great Britain it will be useful to Ireland. On the amount it is now proposed to spend on the Barrow 5½ per cent would yield £20,000 a year; but the Commission appointed by the Government state that they expect the return will be £9,800 per annum. On that I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show that he will make anything like a return of 3 per cent for the money expended; and, under the circumstances, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman cannot justify the employment of this public money. Why should we pay the large sum demanded on a scheme which, on their own showing, will do damage whilst it does good, and which cannot be reasonably remunerative? I am told that I am tight about money; but a Member of Parliament has a right to be tight about other people's money. If this will do good to Ireland, and the money were my own, were it 20 times the amount—if I had it—I would gladly give it for this purpose, but the money is not my own. I am here as the trustee of other people's money. I cannot allow myself to be guided by my sympathies, and must do my duty, even at the risk of being called hardhearted. When we are dealing with public money we have to consider what commensurate return we shall receive. Well, but whenever we have been applied to to make grants to Ireland it has always been on the ground of the poverty of the district affected, and the hard conditions under which the people live. Will you, it was said, begrudge this help to these unfortunate people.

  1337
  Such is the tone of the appeals made to us from time to time by Irishmen and by the Government, filled with sympathy for the woes of Ireland, which they were willing to express by grants of our money. But is this a poor congested district, this of the Barrow? On the contrary, we had it stated by the Chief Secretary that the Bann and the Barrow were not in the poorest district of Ireland. Then, I say, if the claim is not supported on the ground of the poverty of the district, on what ground does he ask this large amount of money? Remembering, too, as we must, that this money is to be expended upon works of doubtful utility and producing an in-commensurate return. The right hon. Gentleman, replying to an observation that fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, who asserted that these were landlords' Bills—a statement, I confess, in which I do not altogether join with him—the right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said—"These are nothing if they are not tenants' Bills." Well, I regret that I cannot accept that statement either. I cannot accept it at all in its fullness. Let us examine this point. I have not asserted that these are landlords' Bills, meaning that they are landlords' Bills, and nothing else; but if my hon. Friend rather exceeded the facts when he made his statement, so also I think the right hon. Gentleman erred as moderately on the other side, when he said these are tenant's Bills only. There are certain lands now flooded which are to be improved, and these lands are held jointly by landlords and tenants. The rent is the first charge, and if these lands are improved in annual value by the carrying out of these works, then the security for the rent is improved also. To that extent these are landlords' Bills. I go a step further. If the letting value is improved, and the security for rent improved, then the value of the property for raising mortgages is improved, and so to that extent these are landlords' Bills. Further than that, if the lands are improved in all these particulars, then the chances of the land selling at a higher rate are increased. So, to this extent these are landlords' Bills, and this we taxpayers may discover within a year or two. Look at Clause 17 of the Bill, which the right hon. Gentle-
  1338
  man described, when introducing the Bill, as securing the tenant against the increased value being put upon his rent. As soon as the annuity is paid, as soon as the 40 years are up, the increased value accrues to the landlord. It is not the time to deal with these matters, as they will be dealt with in Committee; but, speaking for myself, and I think for the Irish Members—[Colonel NOLAN: No]—well, for all but one, I say, if this clause is not amended there will be more conflict over it than the right hon. Gentleman will care to sustain. When my hon. Friend called these landlords' Bills I imagine he referred to these matters. It may seem paradoxical if, arguing that these Bills are in the landlord interest, I now proceed to say they are too much tenants' Bills. I take the Barrow figures for purposes of illustration, and I say I hold that if these special tenants are to be benefited, then they should pay a reasonable return for the advantages they receive. In the light of this expression of opinion, let us examine what the tenants pay and what they get. In the case of the Bann they pay 4½ per cent principal and interest for 40 years. Now, the estimate is that the increased value of the land will be 3 per cent—a miserably insufficient return—but say it is only 3 per cent, that is £2,000 per annum. Then what are the tenants to pay? £8,000. So, inasmuch as they have to pay £8,000 and get £2,000 a year, the tenants pay 4¼ per cent. and receive 25 per cent. As guardian, with the rest of the House, of the public purse, I say this is "giving too little and taking too much." There is fair ground, I think, for the district relieving the overburdened British taxpayer. And now how is it as regards the Barrow? The estimate is that the increased value of the lands will be £10,000 a year, and the tenants are to pay £125,000. So that they pay 4½ per cent to the State, while they will receive 8 per cent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. Member include maintenance?
  MR. STOREY: I think I could show that maintenance does not affect the question much. Though there is not so much reason to complain in the

  1339
  case of the Barrow as in the case of the Bann, it is worth noting this: while Ulster gets 25 per cent and pays 4½ per cent, the stiff-necked South—National South—only gets 8 per cent in return for 4½ per cent. There is another curious point I should mention. The right hon. Gentleman has told us on several occasions that he has made a new departure in this Bill. He declares that, whereas aforetime it was the fashion to give to Ireland without consulting local opinion, he has adopted the policy of calling on the district to say aye or no to the scheme proposed. I dispute altogether that he is going to call on the district to do any such thing. Really, I never have seen a more cleverly contrived plan for preventing the wish of the district being determined. I suppose it is a plan conceived by the Commission. Taking the Barrow as an illustration, the Board of Conservators is to consist of three-fourths of the people who will derive benefit from the works, and it is against human nature to suppose they will not say aye to the expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman founds his Bill on the Report of his Commission, but he has ignored the recommendations of his own Commission in several important particulars. As regards the Barrow, I admit that on a former occasion my observations in this regard went farther than the Bill actually warrants; but as regards the Bann the right hon. Gentleman has ignored the recommendations of his Commission in several essential particulars, and both as to method and use of money. If we look to page 53 of the Commissioners' Report, we find that the Commissioners recommended that the Upper and Lower Bann should be treated as one, under one Conservancy Board to carry out the works. This he does not do in his Bill. The Board of Works is to carry out the works, though the Commission and the Conservancy Board has nothing to do with the works beyond saying aye or no to the proposal. Well, in a much more important particular does he ignore the Report of his Commission. The proposal of the Government in money matters is this—
  1340
  £360,000 being needed, the Government recommend that £125,000 should, be given on loans; that £30,000 should be raised on the rates of the area by the cess, and that no less a sum of £215,000 should be a free gift from the State. Well, have hon. Members been curious enough to look at what the Commission recommended, because I find the Commission recommended this—that there should be a grant not of £215,000, but of £75,000. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain that to us. He appointed a Commission by itself, and by its subordinates considered every point and detail of that scheme. The Commission considered the money propositions of the scheme, and made the deliberate suggestion to the Government that £75,000 should be raised on the rates, that £210,000 should be provided by the land occupiers, who were to be benefited, and that £75,000 only should be granted by the State. Yet the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House of Commons without giving in his speech one single reason for the charge.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When I introduced the Bills I took the liberty of referring to my speech of last year, which did deal with this matter.
  MR. STOREY: I was not in the House, being engaged elsewhere, and I admit I have not referred to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. But the Commission recommended a grant of £75,000 only, whereas the Government recommend a grant from the State of £215,000, being three times nearly the amount of the Commission's proposal. Now, I think I have carried the thing so far that I have only one other point to which to direct attention. The right hon. Gentleman the other night, in referring to some observations that were made on this side of the House, questioned the propriety of the charge made on various occasions that the object of Government is not the bonâ fide of carrying out remunerative and advantageous work, but is rather the political object of making things as pleasant as they can in certain districts. I took the liberty of saying on that occasion that

  1341
  the noble Lord the Member for Paddington had been the projector of this new policy—a policy which has been variously described, but which I may venture to describe as the same policy that the inimitable Mr. Wackford Squeers carried out in his school in Yorkshire. When his pupils developed an inordinate appetite for good sound food he gave them a combined dish of brimstone and treacle to diminish their appetites. Now the Irish people have exhibited, and I think will continue to exhibit, a very keen appetite for the sound food of self-Government, and in order to take away their appetite the right hon. Gentleman treats them first to the brimstone of coercion and then to the treacle of Bann and Barrow Drainage Bills. But when I pressed this point upon the right hon. Gentleman and showed him how this policy had a beginning and was now having its issue, he said I ought to remember that the noble Lord who gave utterance to that remarkable exposition of policy had not modified his opinion, and that in any case he is "not one of us," meaning one of the Government. I admit that the noble Lord is not now one of the Government. To parody Walter Scott:—
  "Old times are changed, old manners gone; His friend now fills his Lordship's throne."
  I admit that the noble Lord is not now a Member of the Government, and I admit that he did modify one portion of his statement. We remember, as the right hon. Gentleman reminds us, that that remarkable statement of the noble Lord when he came down to the House and announced on behalf of the Government that their policy was a policy of simultaneity in dealing with English and Irish local self-Government and on economical management of our own affairs was modified, but we remember, too, that the noble Lord never modified and never has modified his views to this day that the way to win Ireland is to buy Ireland. We, on the contrary, hold that the way to win Ireland is to do justice to Ireland. But the noble Lord has never modified his opinion on that point, and if he has on the other we remember that when he came down and announced that policy, which I assure the right hon. Gentleman had many adherents among men who are called
  1342
  Radicals on this side of the House—we remember, too, that so soon as the noble Lord laid down the political purple and retired into that seclusion from which, in my opinion, he too seldom emerges, that Government repudiated the policy he suggested and cast his ideas of Ministerial economy to the winds. My answer now to the right hon. Gentleman, when he says we impute to him an unworthy policy, is this—that I for one should only be too glad if he and those who sit on the Government Benches would advance a new and a better policy. Let them believe, if they can screw their courage to the sticking place, and treat Irishmen as a nation ought to be treated—that it would be on these Benches they would find a number of their staunchest supporters. But as long as he and his Government come to the House and, first, treat the Irish to doses of coercion, and then propose measures which they call ameliorative, but which, I think, I have demonstrated to be corrupt and unremunerative, I, for one, must persist in my opposition to the Bill. I, therefore, beg to move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months"—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MOLLOY: I beg to second the Amendment. On the last occasion when these Bills were under discussion, I stated that they were brought forward with the object not of benefiting Ireland but of improving the political situation of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said this accusation had no foundation, that it ought not to have been made, and that he was glad to notice it had been made only by one Member on this side. Well, Sir, within a few days afterwards the Chief Secretary addressed a large meeting at Birmingham or Manchester, or some other large centre, and in the most energetic part of his speech, after saying that the accusation made by this

  1343
  side against the Government was that their policy was only one of coercion, and denying that there was anything political in the measures before the House, he in a boasting spirit stated that their policy was not only one of coercion but one of conciliation, and he then introduced the whole subject of his Bann and his Barrow drainage. Now, Sir, I object to these Bills on many grounds. I will not repeat the arguments which have been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), but I may point out that the Commission was appointed without any reference to the representatives of the Irish people in this House. Former Commissions had advised that whenever schemes of this character were to be introduced the initiative should come from the population of the districts themselves. If this recommendation was not to be carried out, one would have considered that in a matter of such great importance as this, where a heavy tax was to be laid on the people of Ireland, the first thing to do would have been to consult the representatives of Ireland. No communication of any character has taken place between any Member representing Ireland and the Government. I have no hesitation in stating that my policy is, and always will be, in this House, where such treatment is meted out to the representatives of Ireland, to offer every opposition in my power to every scheme brought forward by this or any other Government. Who are the gentlemen who have taken this matter in hand under the nomination of the Government? One is Mr. Jonathan Buin, a draper in Dublin, a man of the most honourable character, but with not a fraction of experience or knowledge of anything connected with drainage. As a commercial man he stands in the first circle in Dublin, but he has not a single qualification which would render him fit to undertake such a work as this. Then we have Sir James All-port, who is no doubt a most experienced railway manager and contractor, but who as a drainage engineer has never had any experience whatever; so I might say, though perhaps in a lesser degree, of the other two Commissioners.
  1344
  Now, how are these schemes to be carried out? We were led to believe by the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland that the practical management of these schemes was to be carried out by those interested in them in Ireland. But although the Conservancy Board is to be retained, the whole of the schemes and everything connected with them are to be carried out by the four Commissioners, and then when the matter is concluded the Commissioners are to retire upon their laurels, and the Conservancy Board is to take the matter in hand. More than that, under the Barrow drainage scheme, all the old Boards which now have the management of such poor and miserable failures in drainage as exist there, are to be done away with, and the Conservancy Board is to take the place of those who alone are guilty of all the errors, and will have to pay all the debts contracted by the former Drainage Boards in Ireland. As to the point of my hon. Friend about this being a landlords' Bill, not only will the whole of the money be imposed on the tenants in Ireland supposed to be benefited by the schemes, but the whole maintenance of them will have to be borne by the tenants. Financially these schemes are wrong. Financially it is a bad bargain for the tenants, and a had scheme for the State. As we have not been allowed to say a single word until this Bill has been thrown at our heads, I decline to accept these measures of the Government, and will offer them every opposition in my power.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The force of the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, is somewhat diminished in my eyes by the fact that he plainly announced to us that whether the Bills were good or bad, the fact that he had not been consulted in regard to them was a most sufficient reason for offering them his most relentless opposition. Although the hon. Gentleman professed to rest his objections to the Bill on the arguments of the hon. Member for Sunderland, he was, in one of his chief objections, in direct contradiction with his hon. Friend. Whereas

  1345
  the hon. Member for Sunderland objected to the Bill as being too favourable to the tenants, one of the chief objections of the hon. Member was that the Bills would be disastrous to the tenants. I think that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment should settle their little differences before they address the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland on one point. Attention has been called to the wording of the 17th Clause, from which it appears that at the end of 40 years, when the annuity ceases to be payable, the improvements lapse to the landlord. That was not our intention in framing the Bill, and if it should turn out that the Bill bears that interpretation, as I acknowledge it seems to do, I shall certainly move an Amendment in Committee. Our intention is that this should be a tenants' Bill alone, and if, after the tenants have paid up the annuity, the improvements which they have just paid for are to go to the landlords, the intentions of the framers will not be carried out. The hon. Gentleman also declared that the Bill was a landlords' rather than a tenants' Bill. I cannot agree with the hon. Member on that point. The hon. Member asked how the Government could assert that these were tenants' Bills when according to our own showing it is our object to improve the position of the tenant, to give him a better holding, and enable him more easily to pay his rent, and therefore improve the position of the landlord. This is surely hypercriticism. If that argument is to be admitted, it is impossible to pass any measure for Ireland which should not be a landlords' Bill. Such criticism would strike at the root of every Bill, passed by any Parliament, Irish or English, which had for its object the benefit of the great mass of the tenant population of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman also criticized the alterations the Government made in the original proposals. I do not deny that there have been some alterations; but the Government have felt themselves at liberty to depart from the suggestions which have been made. The Commission has been cognizant of every altera-
  1346
  tion made in the Bill; and, speaking generally, they approve the course taken, and have been public-spirited enough to say that they will continue their services so long as they may be necessary for the advantage of the public service. The two points on which we have departed from the recommendations of the Commission to which attention has been called are the degree of control given to the county and the financial arrangements embodied in the measure. Under the proposals of the Commission the plans are not the plans of the locality but of the Government engineer; but the difference is one rather of form than of substance. When the Government are called upon to lend all the money we have lent, when we have given also a great deal of money, we may well insist upon having a considerable measure of control in carrying out the works thus made largely at our expense. The hon. Gentleman then pointed out that in the case of the Barrow especially, we had called upon the public to give a very much larger contribution towards the necessary expenses than the Commission recommended. I will explain that in two or three sentences to the right hon. Gentleman. The Commission, I think, did not pay sufficient attention to maintenance. They practically excluded it from their purview; and we had to take into account the very heavy expenditure imposed upon the locality, and to reconsider the financial proposals of the Commission. We thought that great caution ought to be shown in charging the non-benefited area. If the proposal of the Commissioners had been carried out the charge upon the non-benefited area would have been very much larger than it is in our proposal. We determined to limit the charge on the non-benefited area to the sum of one penny in the £including maintenance. We, therefore, find ourselves in the position of having to charge the non-benefited area less than the Commissioners proposed, and the benefited area more, because we put upon it the cost of maintenance. The Commissioners proposed, roughly speaking, to charge the benefited area up to the value of the improvement. If, therefore, we had put upon the benefited area all that we took off the non-benefited area, and also put upon it the additional charge

  1347
  for maintenance, we really should not have given any benefit to the particular class we desire especially to benefit. Therefore, we were compelled to ask the Treasury for a larger sum than was originally proposed by the Chancellor. I hope that explanation is tolerably clear, of the reasons which led the Government to modify the original proposal. I do care to go into the controversial questions raised by the hon. Gentleman. He really gave the House to understand that we were treating "loyal Ulster" much more favourably than we ventured to treat the "stiff-necked" South. Well, in the case of the Bann we gave £20,000, while the grant to the Barrow is not less than £215,000, so that he should not charge us with any unfairness in the financial arrangements he has asked us to accept. He has told us that to make improvements in the upper part of the Barrow at the public expense would necessitate a further public expenditure on the lower part of the Barrow, in order to do away with the flood which the works in the upper part would effect in the lower part of the channel. It is true that whenever you carry off the flood water from the upper part of any river more rapidly than it has hitherto been carried off, you will strain the power of the lower channel to dispose of the flood water. That is not peculiar to Barrow; it is true of every river. No doubt, therefore, it is a very dangerous course to improve the upper part of the river without dealing at the same time with the lower part. And that is the sole reason why we are prepared to carry out the works over the whole extent of the Barrow. We make our plan a general one, and we hope thereby to make the benefit also general. The hon. Gentleman has criticized the plan of dealing with floods by embankments rather than by deepening the bed of the river basin—a mode of criticism which has been used by several independent engineers. I would point out in the first place that the embankment is only part of the scheme, and, as a matter of fact, the deepening of the river is essentially a part of the scheme prepared by the Government engineers. The hon. Gentleman's criticism, so far as I am able to form an opinion, is based upon the embankment.
  1348
  He says that at the bed of the river we will require to raise the banks on either side, until at last we shall arrive at a condition of things in which the surrounding fields will be lower than the bed of the river. A river with a rapid flow like the Barrow——
  MR. STOREY: It has not a rapid flow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has quite sufficient for the purpose of this improvement. And one advantage of embankments is that if the river is low you confine it to a narrower channel, and give it a greater dredging power than if it were left to meander in a wide channel. Therefore, to widen and deepen the channel, though it may have some advantages, has the accompanying disadvantage, that it diminishes the scouring power of the river when the river is either at or below its normal level. That is the belief of the eminent engineer who has had the preparation of these plans. Then the hon. Gentleman told us that the tenants liked the floods, that the floods did good to the land.
  MR. STOREY: What I said was that it should be left to the tenants to decide whether the floods did good, or whether it was was worth while to prevent them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I concur that if the tenants are really of opinion that the floods do no harm, all they have to do is to reject this Bill by exercise of the power which it gives them, and to reject the benefit which the Government proposes to confer upon them. There is one other criticism, and I think it is the most serious the hon. Gentleman has made. He asked whether any reasonable return was to be expected for the large outlay we are asking the House to sanction. I frankly admit that the return in the shape of an improvement of the land is not such as to give a large interest on the outlay. If it were, national intervention in this matter would not be called for. It is just because the

  1349
  benefit to the Barrow is not of a magnitude which will give a large commercial profit that I think it really proper for the Government to intervene. But nobody, I think, can judge fairly of whether the intervention is proper or not if they confine their attention to the flooded land alone. We think that any consideration of the flooded land alone will justify this outlay, but we entirely deny that the benefits are confined to the special area. If the hon. Gentleman has read, as I have not the least doubt he has read, with attention, the Report of the Commissioners, he will see that they attach very great importance to climatic improvement, and to the general improvement of the country. You must, in dealing with these great undertakings, consider something more than the mere commercial return; and in laying down that principle, do not let the hon. Gentleman suppose we are departing from the traditions of our predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan), whom the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Storey) quoted with approval to-night, himself' committed the Government, of which he was a Member, to a proposal of a similar kind. We do not profess to have started upon a new policy. What we do profess to have done, is to have laid before the country a large scheme, dealing with a large part of Ireland, thought out in considerable detail. We do believe that, if the House consent to the large expenditure which we undoubtedly ask the taxpayer of this country to incur, you will be conferring an enormous boon upon our Irish fellow countrymen; and, whether or not it evokes their gratitude to a political Party or political system, will, at all events, result in the permanent improvement of a country which, I am sure, we all desire sincerely to benefit.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am quite certain, Sir, that any one who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman to-night, or who heard his speech on the previous occasion, will give him credit for the absolute sin-
  1350
  cerity of the last words which ho has used. No one can doubt that in the proposals of which this forms a part, the object is to benefit Ireland. I am glad to think that he has cleared out of our way the only question which aroused, and justly aroused, suspicion. The argument on the 17th clause of the hon. Member for King's County—namely, that the cost of maintenance would be on the tenants, while the profits under the clause would go to the landlords, certainly appeared to be unanswerable I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has relieved our minds on that point. I do not intend to argue this question as a landlords' or a tenants' Bill; I am going to argue it entirely as a taxpayers' Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the precedent of a previous Government, to which I was Irish Secretary. It is quite true I was of opinion, in company with all my colleagues, that Ireland should be exceptionally dealt with. But we looked very carefully to the methods by which the assistance of the Treasury was given to Ireland, and we tried to see that that benefit should be given in a shape which would benefit Ireland in proportion as it called for sacrifices on the part of the general Treasury. I think the right hon. Gentleman can only point to two classes of concessions. First of all, these light railways, which he has supplemented and extended; and secondly, the grant of a large sum of money (though if I recollect aright, it did not come out of the Treasury, but out of the Irish Church surplus) to the tenant on account of arrears, but we never gave anything so far as I can remember to drainage.
  MR. BALFOUR: You proposed it.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: We proposed it? I do not remember it, though I am willing to stand corrected if I am in the wrong. But what I say is, that if he did so it was only under a most strange hallucination as to what was to promote the interests of the two countries. I am willing that every word I now say shall

  1351
  be used against my action in this matter at any future time, and what I do say is, that we are now asked to give £215,000 of the public money on the recommendation of a Commission which, I have no doubt, is endeavouring to do its duty, but which, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, has made a most grievous slip in their calculations, for he has clearly shown that when the Royal Commission only recommended that £75,000 should be given for the Barrow scheme it was found necessary by the Government to give £215,000. The main cause of this tremendous difference was that the Commissioners left out of sight the fact that £3,300 a year would have to be spent in maintenance, over and above the expenditure to be made when the advance is given. In the next place we find that £360,000 is to be spent in draining the Barrow, while it is only claimed that the improvement to the land will be £9,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the improvement of the climate of Ireland that will rise from the drainage of 46,000 acres, and he was cheered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), who is seated near the Ser-jeant-at-Arms; but I am afraid that even my hon. Friend with his magnificent views of what is due to Ireland would, I think, shrink from the sacrifices he would have to demand of the Treasury before he could improve the climate of Ireland by the drainage of blocks of 46,000 acres at a cost of £360,000 per block. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he being a country gentleman, what would he think of a man of his own class who proposed to spend £36,000 in drainage, with a possible increase to his rental of £900 a year? If that would be madness on the part of a private gentleman, why is it not madness on the part of a Government? Now, the Commissioners say in their Report that one or two witnesses feared that in the present state of agriculture no expenditure on the land could be expected to be profitable. There is no one at all cognizant of land who does not know that the agents
  1352
  advise landlords with money that this is not the time to spend it in drainage; and this being so, I say, what madness it is for the Government to propose on a great scale to do that which no sane man would do on his own account. The next point I desire to refer to is the fact that the district is not poor. It is no poorer than ordinary districts in rural England and in many parts of Scotland, and yet the Government propose to spend £215,000 in addition to a loan which will he a loss if the scheme is not a success, because if it is not a success we shall not be able to get even the interest from the people—we should not have the heart to exact it. And yet you are going to spend this large amount of public money on 46,000 acres of land in a prosperous part of Ireland. The Commissioners recommend in their Report that there should be 30 Conservancy Districts in Ireland, including the tributaries of the Shannon, so that there are to be 28 other districts, every one of which has a right to be treated in the same way as the Barrow and the Bann district, while some of them, being poorer districts, have much more right. I do not know that I have anything more to say on this subject. All my objections to this Bill are contained in what I have already placed before the House. I would, however, remind the House that we are in the habit of spending 30, 40, or 50 nights every Session in revising and trying to cut down the Estimates, and that the result is that in the course of the last 10 years we have only cut down about £50,000, whereas we are now asked at one stroke, and after a brief debate, to throw away £215,000, and to lend £150,000 more, in order that a possible advantage of 2½ per cent may be obtained. I would very much prefer to give a certain sum down to the Irish tenants; but I feel that in passing this Bill the House would be doing that for which no defence has been offered by the Government, and the only recommendation of which is the evident goodwill that has prompted it.
  MR. PHILIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has said that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) complained that the Bill was too favourable to the tenants, while

  1353
  the hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) complained that it was unfavourable, but I do not see any discrepancy here, or that the two arguments clashed in any way, because the hon. Member for Sunderland's contention was that the Bill was unduly favourable to the tenants in contrast with the taxpayers, on whom it was unduly unfair. We have to-night obtained an important admission from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. In the debate on the Bann Drainage Bill the Chief Secretary repudiated the allegation that it was possible for the landowners to get anything under these Bills; and said they could benefit no one but the tenant. To-night, however, he says that while the tenants will benefit, the landlords will benefit with them, as it is impossible to benefit the tenant without also benefitting the landlords. The right hon. Gentleman was careful not to answer one question—namely, whether the proposed expenditure will be remunerative or not. He merely said it was not supposed that the expenditure would pay a very large commercial profit. But a large commercial profit might be 20 per cent, and none of us can imagine that any such return as that is in contemplation. I will, however, put it to the right hon. Gentleman again—is the expenditure to be remunerative? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer, even if it only be a nod or shake of the head. Is every £100 that will be spent in the Barrow drainage expected to increase the value of the land to the same extent? The right hon. Gentleman is silent, and I suppose we are to understand that the expenditure is not to be remunerative. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "Divide, Divide."] We have only been debating this proposal, involving a gift of £215,000 and a loan of £145,000, for an hour and a quarter, and hon. Members call out "divide."
  It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [LORDS.] (No. 283.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. [LORDS.] (No. 284.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 14, insert the words "any inhabitant or of."—(Mr. Powell.)
  MR. LOCK WOOD: I have no objection to accept the Amendment. Amendment agreed to.
  Other clauses agreed to.
  MR. CHANNING: I think it is most regretful that newspapers do not come under the operation of this Bill.
  Bill reported as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  WINCHESTER BURGESSES (DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL) BILL. (No. 223.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (REGISTRAR'S ATTENDANCE) BILL. (No. 74.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Motion made, "That the House do now adjourn."
  MR. JACKSON: I wish to give notice that to-morrow, at Twelve o'clock, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury will move the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the Coal Duties (London) Bill to be considered after halt past Five.

  EAST INDIA (LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS).
  Ordered; Address for Return showing the Date of Establishment under Act LXVII. of 1861 (1) of the Viceroy's Legislative Council; and (2) the Legislative Councils of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, and the North Western Provinces and Oudh, and give the following particulars for each year since the Establishment of the respective Councils:—

  Europeans.

  Indians.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  Hindus.

  Mahommedans.

  Other Races.

  Name.

  Appointment, if an official.

  Positions or profession if non-official.

  Date of appointment and length of service.

  1.

  3.

  4.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  And, also—

  Calcutta.

  Simla.

  1862.

  1863.

  1864.

  1865.

  1866.

  1867.

  1868.

  1869.

  1870.

  1871.

  1872.

  1873.

  1874.

  1875.

  1876.

  1877.

  1878.

  1879.

  1880.

  1881.

  1882.

  1883.

  1884.

  1885.

  1886.

  1887.

  1888.

  1862.

  1863.

  1864.

  1865.

  1866.

  1867.

  1868.

  1869.

  1870.

  1871.

  1872.

  1873.

  1874.

  1875.

  1876.

  1877.

  1878.

  1879.

  1880.

  1881.

  1882.

  1883.

  1884.

  1885.

  1886.

  1887.

  1888.

  1. Number of Sittings of the viceroy's Council each year

  2. Acts passed at

  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 119.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Friday next.
FACTORS BILL. (No. 27.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL. (No. 117.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.