Sitting of 25 June 1889

STATE COLONIZATION.
Ordered, Address for copies of any further correspondence from or to Governments of Colonies on the subject of State Colonization.—(Mr. Kimber.)

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSFER OF POWERS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,)THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG, Wiltshire, Devizes) moved—
"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee to consist of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
That Five be the quorum of the Committee."
MR. STEPHENS: I would ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the date for the Bill to come into operation should not be deferred? The powers proposed to be transferred to the County Councils are very large indeed, and certainly require special machinery. I have been requested by the County Council of Middlesex to make this suggestion.

691
They are not at all afraid of taking over the powers transferred to them under the Bill; but at present they have no machinery which would enable them to discharge the duties which would devolve upon them, duties which have hitherto been discharged by the Board of Trade in reference to gas, water, and tramway powers. It is obvious that a great deal of inquiry must be made before consent can be given in regard to matters affecting capital and many other technical questions of the highest importance. At present they feel that they are not in a position to discharge these duties properly. I think that my request is a reasonable one, and I beg to add that the feeling of the Parliamentary Committee of the Middlesex County Council is quite unanimous upon the matter.
MR. LONG: I have no objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend; but this is not the time when any alteration in the provisions of the Bill can be made. It will have to be made by the Committee before whom the Bill will have to go. So far as the Government are concerned, they are prepared to alter the date from the 1st of September until the 1st of April.
MR. JAMES STUART: I have to move—
"That the Order for Committee be read and discharged.
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
That three be the quorum."
The object of my Motion is to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee. The Bill affects a borough with which I am concerned—the borough of Cambridge. The Provisional Order, No. 15, of the Local Government Board refers to the boroughs of Banbury and Cambridge. The Bill itself is an excellent and an exceedingly useful Bill. The 52nd clause of the Local Government Act of 1888 provides for the re-constitution of the Governing Body of the town of Cambridge, and for the introduction into that body of members representing the University. The fact is that the Colleges of the University are now treated as a ward in the borough. The provisions of the Bill, as far as they go, meet with general approval, both in the town and
692
at the University. I do not, therefore, oppose the Bill; but I desire to lay before the House some reasons for inducing it to extend, somewhat, the provisions about to be adopted. For some time there has existed in Cambridge a considerable and growing inequality in the ward representation, and this appears to me to be a suitable opportunity for altering that inequality. Two of the wards contain a population estimated at 21,187, and a rateable value of £88,180.
MR. SPEAKER: If the Motion is opposed, it must, according to the usual rule, stand over.
MR. JAMES STUART: Then I would-move that it stand over until to-morrow.
MR. SPEAKER: I was not aware until this moment that the Motion of the hon. Member was an opposed Motion.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,)I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will persist in making the Motion. I think it is possible that I may make an explanation which will render such a course unnecessary.
MR. JAMES STUART: The Bill had better stand over.
Motion ordered to stand over until Wednesday.

A POINT OF ORDER.
MR. J. STEVENSONpresented a Petition from General Booth, Mrs. Booth, and other officials of the Salvation Army and other persons, numbering 456,500, stating that they had heard with satisfaction that the Bill for Closing Public Houses on Sunday was now before the House, and praying the House to pass the measure before the close of the present Session.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I rise to order. I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, on a matter of some importance. I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman who has presented the Petition can be said to have complied with the Standing Order of the House, which requires that he should have read the document and satisfied himself that it is not printed, and that it concludes with a prayer, and acquainted himself with the genuineness of the signatures

693
attached to the Petition which, I am told, is three miles long?
MR. SPEAKER: This is not the proper place for entering into that matter, which will come before the proper tribunal—namely, the Select Committee on Petitions.
Ordered, that the Petition do lie upon the Table.

QUESTONS.

  FEVER IN THE DUBLIN BARRACKS.
  GENERAL FRASER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that an officer seized with typhoid fever in Dublin Barracks, who might be unable to incur the large attendant expense on his removal to a civil hospital, would have to remain in his quarters, where he possibly contracted the disease; how many officers are at present being treated for enteric fever in civil hospitals in Dublin, and to what weekly expense are they put; and, if the Government is unable to appropriate accommodation for these cases, as is done for the men, whether it would defray the expense, making the authorised deduction of 2s. 6d. from the officer's pay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Officers are not entitled to treatment in military hospitals unless suffering from wounds received in action or from illness contracted on service with an army in the field, and then the only stations available at home are Netley and Woolwich. A Medical Board may, however, recommend the admission of officers otherwise sick to these hospitals, in which case they are subject to the regulated stoppage. By the latest return three officers in Dublin were on the sick list with enteric fever. They were all in private hospitals. Nothing is known officially as to the expense of their treatment.

  THE TROOPS IN NATAL AND ZULULAND.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that all leave outside their own district has been for a long time past refused to the troops stationed in Natal and Zululand; what
  694
  is the reason of this restriction; and when is it to be ended?
  MR. STANHOPE: Long leave only has been stopped, locally, for military reasons. Probably the restriction will continue as long as the troops continue to occupy their present advanced positions.

  IRELAND—WORKHOUSE OFFICIALS—MR. THOMAS MADDEN.
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the fact that the Belfast Board of Guardians, in the year 1888, sanctioned leave of absence from duty, for 15 weeks, to Mr. Thomas Madden, assistant schoolmaster in the Belfast Workhouse, for the purpose of attending a course of divinity lectures in Trinity College, Dublin, and graduating for the Church of Ireland ministry; is there any precedent for such extended leave to an official in good health in any other Irish workhouse; was his salary paid, although absent, and has he resumed his duties; is he aware that Mr. Madden was convicted of drunkenness before the magistrates, on or about 26th December, 1888; were any of the convicting Justices Guardians of the Belfast Union; did the solicitor for the Guardians (Mr. Harper) defend Madden; and, if so, was his fee paid by the Board; and, did Mr. Madden bear a good character previously, and will his services be continued?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It appears that Mr. Madden, assistant schoolmaster of the workhouse, obtained leave of absence from the Guardians from the 11th of October, 1887, to the 26th of February, 1888, for the purpose stated in the first paragraph of the question. Extended leave has been given to school teachers in other unions to enable them to attend a course of educational training at the training colleges in Dublin. Mr. Madden states that he was successful at the examination. His salary was paid to him during his absence, but he provided a properly qualified substitute, He resumed duty, the clerk reports, on the 26th February, 1888. Mr. Madden informed the clerk that he was convicted of drunkenness on the 26th of

  695
  December, 1888, but that he did not appear in Court. None of the convicting Justices were, according to the clerk's statement, members of the Board of Guardians. Mr. Harper did defend Mr. Madden, but not in his capacity as solicitor to the Guardians, Mr. Madden having paid his costs. Since his appointment in 1880 no charge had been recorded against Mr. Madden in their department which called for action on the part of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board are now inquiring whether there has been anything connected with the conviction in December, 1888, and in Mr. Madden's general conduct since calling for the discontinuance of his services.

  THE INVENTOR OF POSTAL ORDERS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to an article in the Western Morning News of 12th June, entitled "Who invented Postal Orders;" if the statements contained in that article are correct; or, if their accuracy is disputed, will he lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence in his possession relating to Mr. W. Cotton's claim to be regarded as the inventor of postal orders; and, if the circumstances are substantially as stated in the Western Morning News, will Her Majesty's Government be prepared to take some steps to mark their appreciation of the value of Mr. Cotton's suggestion?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that I have seen the article to which he refers. Mr. Cotton has, no doubt, taken intelligent interest in the subject of the transmission of small sums through the post, and the Department has received many interesting communications from him. Although his representations have been very carefully considered, my Predecessors appear to have purposely refrained from pronouncing an opinion as to who, amongst numerous claimants, is entitled to be regarded as the inventor of the Postal Order. I do not see how, after the lapse of so many years, I can be in so good a position as they were to decide the question, which I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying does not appear to me to be of transcendent importance, as the inven-
  696
  tion, though doubtless useful, involved no particular scientific attainment; and I do not think any advantage would be gained by laying on the Table of the House the correspondence alluded to, which is somewhat voluminous.
  SIR S. NORTHCOTE: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I will, on a future day, call attention to the subject.

  IRELAND—FORCIBLE ENTRY.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on Wednesday, 12th June, District Inspector Ewart visited the Imperial Hotel, Youghal, and ordered the constables with him to force open the door of the bedroom occupied by Mr. Macaulay of the Bradford Observer, the door being by them forced open accordingly; whether District Inspector Ewart refused to allow Mr. Macaulay to read the document or warrant in virtue of which he claimed to make this forcible entry; what was the object for which it was made; and, have these proceedings the sanction of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the local police had reason to believe that a man for whose arrest they had a warrant, was concealed in the hotel. On production of the warrant, the proprietor of the hotel gave the police every facility in making the search; but Mr. Macaulay refused to allow the door of his room to be unlocked, and it therefore became necessary to forcibly open it. District Inspector Ewart did not refuse to allow Mr. Macaulay to read the warrant. Mr. Macaulay was not present when the door was forcibly opened. He subsequently came up, but did not ask for the production of the warrant. The District Inspector was not acting under any special sanction of the Government, but necessarily broke in the door for the purpose of arresting an offender whom he believed to be concealed there.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Was the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has read supplied by District Inspector Ewart himself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It came from the Constabulary Office; but I should

  697
  imagine that it was supplied by District Inspector Ewart.

  SAVING LIFE AT SEA.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the new Rules under the Saving Life at Sea Act have yet been issued; and, if not, when they may be expected?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Rules referred to by the hon. Member have not yet been issued; but I understand that the Life Saving Appliances Committee have completed their Report, and as soon as I receive it I will lay it upon the Table of the House.

  INDIA—THE GIRL LUCHMIN OF PATNA.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the affidavits purporting to be made before Edwin R. Smetham, Notary Public in Bombay, by the uncle and mother of the girl Luchmin of Patna, who was, against her will and under painful circumstances, restored by the Judge to a man Radakissen on the ground that he was her husband, whose case has been already mentioned in this House, in which affidavits the mother says—
  "When I went to the Magistrate's Court at Patna about my daughter Luchmin, who had gone to Miss Abraham's house, I did not give true evidence, because I was afraid to do so. Radakissen had threatened to beat and kill both me and Gurmukh Naram, my late husband's brother…Being now away from Patna, and able to speak in safety, I now wish to tell the truth as follows: Luchmin was never married to Radakissen….My daughter is very unhappy at Radakissen's house, and cries much. Radakissen is a big strong man, and there is a prostitute living with him."
  And whether he will direct further inquiry into the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the affidavits. The case has been disposed of in the regular manner by the Courts in India. If any fresh evidence upon which reliance can be placed is brought to light, it should be submitted to those Courts.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Has the question whether perjury was not committed during the trial been considered, and do the India Office intend to take any further action in the matter?
  SIR J. GORST: Neither I nor my noble Friend the Secretary of State can sit as a Court of Review. We are not an Indian tribunal.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Will no step he taken to lay the matter, in any sense, before the Government of India?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir.

  THE HYDERABAD (DECCAN) COMPANY.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Times of the 17th instant, entitled, "The Nizam's Government and the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company," in the following terms:—
  "We understand that the arrangement concluded between the Nizam's Government and the concessionaires of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company which has been passed by the Viceroy and his Council, and was described in the Times of the 7th instant, still awaits the final sanction and approval of the Secretary of State in Council, who is considering the question in all its bearings."
  And, whether, under the circumstances, and having regard to the evidence before the Select Committee last year, the Secretary of State for India intends to take on himself the responsibility of reviewing or suggesting any alterations in an arrangement which has been concluded by the Nizam's Government, and passed by the Viceroy of India and his Council?
  SIR J. GORST: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called by the hon. Member's question to the statement in the Times. The second paragraph of the question appears to describe correctly the function of the Secretary of State in the matter, which he is of course prepared to fulfil.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of resolutions adopted at a meeting of tenant farmers held in Downpatrick on the 19th instant, expressing indignation and alarm at the decisions given by the Chief Land Commission in cases of appeal heard there on the previous day; whether he is aware

  699
  that substantial increases of rent were made in a largo number of cases where the landlords had appealed, but that in every instance where the appeal was made by the tenant, the Land Commission confirmed the rents; whether in any case of appeal the Chief Commission at Downpatrick made any alteration in the rent except to increase it; whether all these appeals were decided after any inspection of the farms by the Chief Commission, or by any court valuer on their behalf; and, whether, considering the want of confidence in the Land Commission, expressed in the resolutions referred to, he will take steps to add to the Commission some person having the confidence of the farmers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have seen a newspaper cutting containing resolutions of the kind referred to in the first paragraph of the question; but I have received no Report as yet on the subject from the Land Commission. As regards the last paragraph, I do not think that the fact that a decision has been given adverse to one of the litigants in the case, and that the litigant objects, is necessarily a ground for withdrawing confidence from the tribunal, or for modifying its constitution.

  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 amount of compensation granted to those Regimental Colonels of the Royal Artillery who have been compulsorily retired on account of age, having regard to the several representations made by these officers, and the fact that the awards of the sums already granted have been received under protest?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir. The awards made to these officers have in all cases been re-assessed, on the basis that the emoluments of a regimental colonel of Artillery during his later years in the rank were higher than those he received when first promoted to it.

  RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF DEER ISLAND.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has any information of the occupation by Russia of a new coaling
  700
  station and Naval depôt in the North Pacific at Deer Island?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,)No Report of such an occupation has reached Her Majesty's Government.

  BRITISH OFFICERS IN BURMAH—ALLEGED MISUSE OF JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE POWERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that charges of alleged misuse of judicial and executive powers by British officers in Burmah have been published in many leading newspapers in India, and that Anglo-Indian papers as well as Indian papers join in asking the Government of India to make inquiries into such allegations; whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Times correspondent on Monday that incalculable mischief has been done by the feeling of despair and exasperation engendered amongst the people by the small villages being broken up, and that a general feeling of insecurity has been produced by apparently inoffensive people being transferred to distant and unhealthy districts on the ground of their alleged relationship to dacoits and, whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for India to make any inquiry into such grave charges made on the responsibility of the Times?
  SIR J. GORST: The question is substantially the same as that put by the hon. Member on the 20th instant, to which the attention of the Government. of India has already been called.

  THE LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that "The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883," will expire at the end of the present Session, it is the intention of the Government to continue the same by including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: It is the intention of the Government to continue that Act by including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of this year.

  THE MERCHANT SHIPPING LAWS.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is true that the labour master of the Liverpool Workhouse shipped a number of pauper lads on board the Adriatic to act as firemen; whether it is an offence against the Merchant Shipping Laws to ship as seamen men who have never previously served any time on board a ship; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  SIR M. H. BEACH: It has been stated, but I am not yet aware whether the statement is true, that paupers were shipped on the vessel referred to to act as firemen. An emigrant passenger ship must, according to law, be manned with an efficient crew to the satisfaction of the emigration officer before that officer grants a clearance enabling her to proceed to sea. I have already taken steps for instituting full inquiry into the subject.

  VENEZUELA.
  MR. WATTI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any information as to the reported resignation of General Guzman Blenco of his appointment as Minister Plenipotentiary and Fiscal Agent to the Courts of Europe; whether Dr. Paréjo has been appointed in his room; whether they have now received any information as to the number of the killed and wounded during the riots at La Guayra; and whether it is a fact that these casualties resulted through the troops having been called upon to defend the British residents against the violence of the mob?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have had no official information of an intention on the part of General Guzman Blanco to resign, though we are aware that it has been rumoured. No information whatever has reached the Foreign Office of the nature indicated in the rest of the hon. Member's question.

  THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated in the Financial News of the 19th inst., in a quotation from a circular said to have been sent out by the directors
  702
  to the shareholders of the Royal Niger Company, that the Government bas recognized £250,000 as the sum expended by the Company in obtaining for Great Britain the Protectorate of the Niger Territories, and has given its formal assent to the levying of duties (in excess of those required for current administrative expenses) to the extent of £12,500 per annum, being interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on such £250,000; if so, whether the Government caused inquiry to be made into the items of this alleged expenditure; whether satisfactory proof was given that this sum had been spent within the territory; and, if so, whether an account of it can be laid upon the Table; whether the assumption of a Protectorate, as distinct from annexation, involves the right of levying duties, and the power of conferring that right on others within the Niger district; and when the Report of the Commissioner sent out to inquire into the state of the district may be expected?
  SIR. J. FERGUSSON: In answer to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the hon. Member's question, the Government has recognized the sum named as having been so expended, and has given its assent to the levying of duties to the stated amount as interest on the capital. The recognition was given after a searching investigation had been made by the Crown Agents of the Colonies, who were selected as being absolutely impartial, and who certified that the expenditure was proved. The private accounts of the Commission which were examined cannot be laid on the Table. With regard to Paragraph 3, the assumption of a Protectorate does involve the right and powers specified. With regard to Paragraph 4, the Commissioner has made a preliminary Report with reference to the Oil River region and returns this week to complete his work. He could not ascend the Niger before July. It is impossible to say when his work will be finished.
  MR. PICTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the mode in which the money has been spent? Was it spent within the territory, and upon what objects?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It has been shown that the money was spent by the company in making preparations for trade and the government of the country.

  703
  The sums, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, were legitimately laid out for that purpose, and the company are consequently entitled to reap some advantage from the expenditure.
  MR. PICTON: Is it true that the Company have been allowed to charge duties for the purpose of paying dividends to shareholders?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; quite the reverse. They are entitled to charge duties for the purpose of administration.
  MR. CONYBEARE: What steps did the Government take to ascertain whether the sum spent has been legitimately laid out?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have already answered that question.

  HALIFAX AND BERMUDAS CABLE COMPANY.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the deposit of £15,000 provided under Article 15 of the Submarine Telegraph Contract (Halifax and Bermuda) to be made to the Paymaster General within one month of the approval of that Contract by this House has been made by the Halifax and Bermudas Cable Company, Limited; and, if so, on what date?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; the money was received on the 7th of June, and has been invested in the name of the Paymaster General.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—THE CHILWORTH COMPANY.
  COLONEL EYRE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Standard of 22nd June, stating that during the months of January, February, and March of this year, the Government were receiving from the Chilworth Company considerable quantities of a gunpowder known as R. L. G. 4, said to be manufactured in Germany; and, whether the Chilworth Company are still supplying the Government with the same powder?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: As the case is about to be reheard before the magistrates, I shall feel obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat his question at a later date—say in a fortnight's time.

  SCHOOL INSPECTORS IN BENGAL.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the fact that Babu Radhika Prasanna Mukharji and Babu Brahmo Mohan Mallik, formerly Deputy Inspectors of Schools in Bengal, having been promoted to be Inspectors of Schools, on the ground of long and eminent service, have suffered a considerable pecuniary loss, instead of deriving any advantage, from their promotion; whether this is due to the operation of the rule by which a native officer is only allowed to draw two-thirds of the pay that would be drawn by an English officer doing the same duty; and whether any steps will be taken to exempt the Education Department from the operation of this rule?
  SIR J. GORST: The information in the possession of the Secretary of State does not corroborate the assertion of the hon. Member that the rule referred to operated in the case of the two officers in the manner described. But the rule in question will be dealt with in connection with the changes in the Public Service in India now under consideration.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: Arising out of that answer, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if we are to understand that the Government will see that the gentlemen named in the question have not and will not suffer pecuniary loss from their promotion, and whether any return has been made to the India Office upon the subject?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of the latter part of the question.

  GOVERNMENT GAS STOKERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Gas Companies have conceded the eight-hours day to their men, and that no reduction of wages has ensued; and, whether he can see his way to place the Government gas stokers in an equally favourable position?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I am not aware that such a concession has been generally made.
  MR. CONYBEARE: After having ascertained that it has been granted, will the right hon.

  705
  Gentleman place the Government gas stokers in as favourable a position?
  MR. STANHOPE: I cannot give that promise in a hypothetical case. When I learn the facts I will give them full consideration.

  DEVONPORT AND KEYHAM DOCKYARDS—DISCHARGES OF WORKMEN.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the fact that further discharges of smiths and other workmen from the Devonport and Keyham Dockyards are ordered; over how man weeks will these discharges be spread, and how many men will be discharged; whether, inasmuch as there is plenty of work going forward in the Dockyards, and the shipbuilding programme laid down for the year in the particular establishment affected by these discharges is considerably in arrear, there is any other reason for such discharges than the rule that the weekly expenditure must not be exceeded; and whether he can devise some alteration of the rules which should obviate the waste, and save the men the hardship of being constantly discharged, when in fact there is work for them to do?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): A further discharge of Smiths (20) is ordered. These men will be discharged on Saturday next. The reason for these discharges is not on account of an excess on the weekly expenditure, but because there is not sufficient Smith's work on which to employ these men profitably; and a further reason is the adjustment of Trades, fewer Blacksmiths being required, but more labourers. I see no means of altering the rules to secure the constant employment of any particular class, consistent with the economical administration of the Dockyards.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is it a fact that of the 19 or 20 men about to be discharged, 17 are men who served their apprenticeship in these Yards and are first-class workmen? I will further ask, whether the discharge of workmen under these circumstances does not amount to this—that the special training and education the men have received at the expense of the ratepayers will, in future, be utilized not for the benefit of the nation but of private persons?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Whether they served their apprenticeship in the Dockyards does not affect the matter. If they cannot be profitably employed there is no use in employing them.

  IRELAND—HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION AT NEWCASTLE, COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received a memorial from Newcastle, county Down, with reference to the necessity for harbour accommodation there; and whether the prayer of the Memorialists will be favourably considered?
  MR. JACKSON: I have received the Memorial referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and an answer will shortly be sent to the Memorialists.

  PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IRISH MEMBERS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether warrants have been issued, or applied for, at the instance of the Irish Executive, against the Member for South Louth (Mr. Gill) for a public speech delivered to his constituents during the Whitsuntide Recess, and against the Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox), for a public speech delivered on the same occasion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Warrants have been issued against the hon. Members referred to in connection with speeches they are alleged to have made in furtherance of the Plan of Campaign on the Massereene Estate.

  GOLD AND SILVER ASSAYING AND HALL MARKING IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interests of British industry in, and exports of gold and silver plate, Her Majesty's Government will, prior to the Session of 1890, obtain full information relating to the practice of assaying and hall-marking of gold and silver wares in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Russia, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Italy, France, Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal, including the laws and regulations relating to the exposure for sale of Foreign manufactured plate in those countries respectively, and the Customs duty pay-

  707
  able upon imported plate; and, if such information is already in possession of any Department of the Government, whether he will be good enough to lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If the hon. Member will specify more particularly the exact information he desires. I will communicate with the Foreign Office with a view of endeavouring to obtain it.

  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?
  MR. JACKSON: The question has been under the consideration of the Treasury; but it is attended with some difficulties which appear to be insurmountable. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question on Thursday week. I hope then to be in a position to give a complete answer.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I beg to ask to the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now remove the restriction which precludes visitors passing through Westminster Hall so far as to permit them to pass through when accompanied by Members?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I am glad to be able to say that a new regulation has been approved of by the Secretary of State, to the effect that Members of both Houses of Parliament, officials of both Houses of Parliament, and the friends of Members of Parliament, when personally accompanied by such Members, will be allowed to pass through Westminster Hall, either from New Palace Yard or from St. Stephen's entrance.

  PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the following sums relating to the 12 months ending 31st March, 1889, in the Department of Public Works, Ireland; advanced, repaid principal, repaid interest, remitted; and, when the Report of the Commissioners for the year will be in the hands of Members?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): In respect of Local Loans Fund and Church Fund Loans the amount for the year ended March 31st, 1889, were as follows:—Sums advanced, £557,021 13s. 6d.; principal repaid, £516,562 4s. 11d.; interest paid, £252,986 9s. 6d.; remitted, or rather written off from the account of assets of the Local Loans Fund, but not forgiven to the borrowers, £31,299 2s. 9d. The Report of the Commissioners of Public Works will, I hope, be circulated in about three weeks.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the promised Government Bill for the creation of a Public Trustee and Executor will be introduced?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): It is true that the Government have promised to introduce such a Bill, and it is their intention to deal with the matter if possible. The Lord Chancellor and I have had the subject under consideration, and we find it involves more controversial matter than appeared at first. If it is a subject that can be satisfactorily adjusted, there will be some prospect of our being able to introduce such a Bill; but I am not able to make a more definite declaration at present.

  THE NAVAL REVIEW.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any facilities are to be given Members of this House who may desire to attend the forthcoming Naval Demonstration?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The same accommodation will be given to hon. Members as in 1887.
  SIR J. PULESTON: How is the wish to be formally expressed? I am

  709
  sure that it is the wish of hon. Members.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the noble Lord, with the permission of the Speaker, allow a hook to be placed outside in which hon. Members may insert their names?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I do not think that will be necessary. I will do everything in my power to comply with the wishes of hon. Members.

  TEACHERS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if lie will state the number of teachers in elementary schools who became such, as pupil teachers, students in training, or masters or mistresses under the Pension Minutes of 21st December 1846, and 6th August 1851, respectively; how many have become eligible for pensions under each of these Minutes, and have applied for them; and, how many have been refused, and, on what grounds so refused?
  MR. KIMBERasked how many teachers who became such under the Minutes of December 21, 1846, were still engaged in elementary schools, and what provision was made, or intended to be made, for them as regarded pensions to induce them to relinquish work for which their great age disqualified them.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am unable to state the number of these teachers; but with regard to the limited class who became so between 1846 and 1851, I have promised to grant a Return showing the number who have applied for pensions, and stating how many have been refused. The terms offered to them, I may add in reply to the next question, are set forth in Article 135 of the Code, and are not, as my hon. Friend is aware, fettered by any limitation as to the number of pensions that may be granted.
  MR.GILLIATasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention had been called to the application of Mr. Edmund Heller, who for a period of 34 years was engaged as principal teacher in various elementary schools and had
  710
  fulfilled all the conditions of the Minutes of December 21, 1846; and, if so, whether he could state the grounds on which such application was refused?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: This application was considered as long ago as November, 1884, when Mr. Heller was informed that three of the principal conditions required by Article 134 of the Code were not satisfied in his case. As a matter of fact, he had been employed as traveling agent to a publisher for some years preceding his application.

  THE SOUDAN.
  In answer to Mr. W. LOWTHER (Westmoreland, Appleby),
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid: Reports have been received of the advance of a considerable force of dervishes on Wady Haifa, and although such reports are always regarded with a certain amount of distrust, I believe that the Sirdar (Sir F. Grenfell) is about to go there himself. No British troops have been sent forward; but they are ready to go if required.

  IRELAND—WARRANTS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CLANCYI wish to ask, with respect to the war rants for the arrest of the hon. Members for South Louth and East Clare, why the usual practice has been departed from by issuing a warrant instead of summons?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Member is aware, a summons is not a legal document in this country. I much prefer proceeding by summons, only unfortunately I discovered that when that mode of procedure was adopted hon. Gentlemen have too often taken advantage of the circumstance to evade the summons, and have careered about the country pursued by the police.
  MR. GILL: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if, on the last occasion I was proceeded against, I did not answer the summons and appear?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is rather difficult to make a distinction between those hon. Members who did obey the summons and those who did not. I find that the Members for North-East Cork, East Clare, West Cork, South

  711
  Galway, and West Waterford all disobeyed summonses in 1887. I then reverted to warrants, and afterwards to the original and much more preferable system. The result has been that in 1889 the Members for North-East Cork and Mid Cork and Father M'Fadden disobeyed the summonses.
  MR. CLANCY: Is it intended to execute those warrants in this country before the discussion on the Irish Estimates is completed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The warrants were issued a few days ago.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I have just asked—namely, whether the warrants will be executed in this country before the Irish Estimates have been discussed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It does not rest with me to execute them. I see no reason why the execution should be deferred.
  MR. CLANCY: Then I will put the question to the Home Secretary.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I must ask for notice of the question.
  MR. CLANCY: Certain warrants have been issued in Ireland for the arrest of certain Members in England, and I ask the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to authorize the execution of those warrants before the discussion of the Irish Estimates is concluded?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not heard of the warrants from the police; but if the hon. Gentleman will look at the statutes on the subject, he will see they make no exception in regard to Estimates or otherwise.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straightforward answer to my question?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is my distinct intention to carry out what is required by the law, and to execute any legal warrant that may come into my custody without the slightest reference to other considerations.
  MR. CLANCY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the course I suggest was pursued last year?
  No answer was given to the question.

  FAIR RENTS.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  712
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether be is aware that a number of appeals from fair rents fixed by the County Antrim Sub-Commission at Larne in May 1885 were only listed for hearing at the last sitting of the Chief Commission in Belfast en 27th May 1889; whether he is aware that the revised list for that sitting contained 179 cases, and, notwithstanding that a considerable number had been settled, the Court concluded its sitting on reaching Appeal No. 108, thereby leaving upwards of 70 cases unheard, and that the farmers concerned in these unheard cases were put to great expense and inconvenience by having to attend with their witnesses for several days before they were told that their cases would not then be heard; whether arrangements will be made not to list a greater number of cases than the Commission can dispose of at a sitting; and when the Chief Commission will next sit in Belfast?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the appeal list alluded to contained 179 appeals, of which 38 were cross-appeals, reducing the number to 141. Of these 35 were in respect of cases in which the decisions of the Sub Commissions were delivered in 1885, but the list comprises all appeals from the county Antrim in respect of decisions by the Courts below up to the last day of Apri1, 1888, and of the 70 cases which the Appeal Court was unable to hear during the week appointed for the sitting in Belfast, 10 only are in respect of decisions by the Court below delivered prior to the year 1888. In consequence of what occurred on the occasion referred to at Belfast, and at previous sittings, the Commissioners have recently had under consideration the question of revising their rules with regard to appeals, as they have experienced very great difficulty in settling their appeal lists, owing to the conduct of the appellants, some of whom lodge appeals without any bonâ fide intention of prosecuting, while others fail to notify to the Commissioners the settlement of cases in respect of which they have lodged appeals. A notice has been printed, and will shortly be issued by the Commissioners, stating conditions with which appellants will in future be required to comply, and which they anticipate will facilitate the hearing of appeals.

  WELSH EDUCATION BILL.
  In answer to Mr. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: I have no doubt it will be in our power to furnish hon. Members with copies of the proposed Government Amendments in the course of to-morrow.

  THE SULTAN.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: May I ask whether, seeing that the evidence before the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Sultan has been published, the Admiralty propose to give publicity to the Report by laying it on the Table of this House?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It has not been the practice hitherto to make public the proceedings of any Court of Inquiry; but the proceedings and finding of a Court Martial are published in the Press. In the present instance this Court of Inquiry investigated questions which should have formed part of the charges against Captain Rice, the captain of the Sultan, to be decided by the Court Martial held upon the stranding of that ship. Owing to the absence of material witnesses it was necessary to omit temporarily this part of the Inquiry from the jurisdiction of the Court Martial. The Court of Inquiry has therefore been held with open doors; and as the evidence given before the Court has been made public, the Report of the Court will also be sent to the public Press.

  THE SUNDAY CLOSING BILL.
  SIR W. LAWSONgave notice of his intention to move the suspension of the Six o'clock rule to-morrow in order that the Sunday Closing Bill might be proceeded with, but——
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: It will not be competent for the hon. Member to make that Motion.

  IRELAND—PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR. TANNER.
  MR. GILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, eight weeks after his imprisonment began, a fresh prosecution, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, has been instituted against Dr. Tanner, M.P.;
  714
  and, whether, although the case had been fixed for hearing for 4th July, the Crown seek an adjournment till three weeks later, in order that the honourable Member may complete his present sentence, and the possibility of a concurrent sentence be thus obviated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Notice of the question is insufficient. A Report has not yet been received. It has been called for by wire this morning.

MOTION.
  THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM, Member for the North Western Division of Lanarkshire, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the instructions to be furnished by the Government to the British Delegates to the International Labour Conference to be held in September at Berne, which preclude them from entering into the discussion of an International limitation of the hours of labour and restriction of output;
    But the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
    Mr. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen—
    MR. C. GRAHAM: I know that the course which I have taken is considered an extreme measure; but I cannot help thinking that I have on many occasions known the adjournment of the House moved upon matters which, to my mind, were of much less importance than the subject I propose to discuss. I wish to point out that when the late Lord Beaconsfield was accredited as the British representative to the Conference at Berlin his hands were not tied, so far as I am aware, in any respect whatever. He was allowed to go and discuss the affairs of this nation with the most plenary powers. In my opinion, the matters which Lord Beaconsfield was empowered to discuss were not so important to the great masses of the working classes as are the questions which will come before the British representative

    715
    at the international Conference at Berne; and as the British Government have for the first time accredited representatives to meet the representatives of other nations to discuss purely labour matters, it is to be regretted that full and absolute powers have not been given to them. What will be the position of the British representatives at the Conference, when the representatives of other nations are engaged in certain discussions? The British representatives will be precluded from entering into questions in connection with which this country has hitherto led the way in bringing about reform. The subjects for discussion named in the Circular which has been sent out by the Swiss Government are—the prohibition of Sunday labour; fixing a minimum age for the employment of children in factories; the limitation of working hours for young people; the prohibition of employment in unhealthy and dangerous industries; the limitation of night work; and the adoption of a State plan for the attainment of these objects. I do not see one word in the circular about the limitation of the hours of labour or about any principle having for its object the restriction of output. Her Majesty's Government have gone out of their way in order to throw down a direct challenge to the representatives of labour in this House and to slight the wishes of a large section of the working classes of this country by giving definite instructions to their representatives at Berne that if these questions of limitation of hours and the restriction of output happen to crop up they are not to discuss them. It seems to me that this is a very curious proceeding; I do not know that Her Majesty's Government have had a more striking opportunity of late of making themselves popular with the working classes of this country, but they have preferred to lose the chance and throw the opportunity away. I cannot help thinking, when I look at the Treasury Bench, that the instruction could not have emanated from any right hon. Gentleman sitting there, but it must have come from some permanent official who would conclude that in consequence of the large number of the employers of labour, who are to be found on both sides of the House, he would be certain to receive support, while the measure of
    716
    support which I would receive would not be very large, I would ask the House whether it is wise in such a juncture as the present to attempt to put a stop to questions that are engrossing so considerable amount of attention. I know that this is not the proper time for arguing these questions at length, but I think I may be allowed to explain the reasons which actuate me in taking up the time of the House by moving the adjournment. I know that these questions are growing, and that they will become greater and more important than they are at present. Two years ago I was the only Member who drew attention to the question of the limitation of the hours of labour, and I was received with contumely on the one side and silence on the other. So far from that being the case, now, I had not the slightest difficulty in obtaining the support of 40 Members to my proposal to move the adjournment of the House. There are even Members on the Conservative Benches who make no scruple in supporting me on this question. It is somewhat remarkable how, of late years, the principles which I desire to enunciate have gained ground. The working people had been made so much use of by political economists that in many instances they were taught to believe that no state interference in the hours of labour can conduce to their welfare. At the present moment there is no question, apart from the Irish question, upon which so large a meeting can be held, and so much opinion expressed as this of the hours of labour. I happen to have returned recently from a short tour in Scotland and the North of England. I found that these questions are engrossing a large amount of attention in the industrial centres of the country and in the North unanimous resolutions have been carried by large meetings in favour of the principle of the limitation of hours and the restriction of output, because the working classes believe that its adoption would enable them to better their condition of life, and obtain a larger share of the wealth they create, than they are able to do at present. I do not think that the Trades Unionists in this House will contradict me when I say that ever since the formation of Trades Unions in this country the restriction of output has formed part of their programme. Trades

    717
    Unions at this moment are in the odour of sanctity, although it is not long since both sides of the House had no words too hard to throw at them. They were incendiaries of setters of class against class, and they were the objects of much oratorical claptrap. They are now in the odour of sanctity, and there are no words too high to express approval of them. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) upon the straightforward and courageous attitude which he has assumed in reference to the matter. I esteem that attitude the more highly because the right hon. Gentleman is an opponent of the limitation of the hours of labour, and his utterances the other day were most probably in compliance with the feeling of irritation which was growing up in his constituency. A deputation of Socialists, headed by Messrs. Laidlaw, Stewart and Hill, waited upon the right hon. Gentleman. The deputation spent a couple of hours with him, and employed them in discussing very warmly this question of the limitation of the hours of labour. When the right hon. Gentleman, acting according to the dictates of his conscience, expressed himself as being unfavourable to State interference, the deputation manifested considerable impatience and considerable regret at the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman felt himself compelled to take up. That feeling of irritation is not confined to Newcastle. There is a growing feeling which is becoming very general among the working classes in favour of an eight hours' day. The Liberal candidate who is now soliciting the suffrages of the mining constituency of West Fife, at a recent meeting of miners, pledged himself on this subject, and among the members of many trade societies a plebiscite has been taken, which in almost every case has been favourable to the proposal to limit by legislation the working day to eight hours. I am afraid that questions of this kind which deal solely with matters affecting the daily life of the working classes of Great Britain and Ireland could not be made interesting, even by a Demosthenes, because the daily life of the working classes is uninteresting and dull. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members say "No," but I maintain that the life of a man who stands for 16 hours a day on the
    718
    platform of a street car cannot be otherwise than uninteresting and dull. Hon. Members will not dissent from me when I say that the life of a man who spends 16 or 17 hours a day in a railway signal box, or of a gas stoker who has to stand perspiring in a temperature above 100 before a retort for 12 hours a day, during six days a week, can be otherwise than uninteresting and dull. I will, however, pass from that subject, and lay before the House the result of the year's plébiscite which has been taken upon this eight hours' question. For two years the question did not greatly engross the attention of Trades Union Societies, but now although a few have been unfavourable, I find that a large number comprehending representative societies have been favourable. The National Union of Boot and Shoe Rivetters and Finishers voted 505 for eight hours, and 107 against; while in favour of legislative enactment, 409 voted against 6 who were in favour of individual effort. The Birmingham Miners Conference were unanimously in favour of eight hours by legislative enactment. The London Society of Compositors voted 2,201 against 1,411; the Typographical Association, 1,269 against 1,144; and several important and popular members, such as Mr. John Burns of Battersea, have been returned to the London County Council distinctly or mainly owing to the importance which was attached to their pledges in regard to the limitation of the hours of labour. There are Members of this House who, while feeling in the highest degree the position into which skilled labour in this country is being forced, still express themselves unfavourable to the idea of legislative enactment. One of their strongest arguments is that of internationalism. It is asserted that it would be unfair to expose the trades of this country to the competition of other countries in which limitations of a different character have been passed by law. But if the serpent of internationalism is to lie in the path or if foreign competition is to be the difficulty, surely this is the moment when it ought to be dealt with. The assembling of a conference of the Representatives of all countries should be the occasion for the Government to express a desire to elevate the lot of the working classes, by

    719
    whose exertions we are fed and clothed; but so far from that they have expressed themselves unfavourable even to the discussion of the question. Internationally, the question is assuming vast proportions. An international conference was held in Newman Street, London, a few months ago, and the delegates of every foreign trade, with two exceptions, were in favour of the reduction of the hours of labour by a legislative arrangement. The votes of the delegates were much more largely in favour of the limitation than any one had hitherto supposed would be the case. Among those who voted with the foreign delegates were Clementina Black, Miss Simcox, John Burns, Andrew Sharp, the miners' agent at Whitehaven, the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick), Mr. Keir Hurdie, and others representing a remarkable consensus of opinion. So far as Australia is concerned, only six weeks ago the working men of Victoria met in their thousands to celebrate the 24th or 34th anniversary of the inauguration of an eight hours' day of labour. Although we have been unable to pass a legislative enactment here, that course has been taken by one of the Australian Colonies without any lamentable result having followed. I believe that it is the purpose of the working men of the United States to inaugurate an eight hours' day of labour next year. It is a subject which is engaging the attention of every working class society and of every commercial country abroad. Even in Spain instructions have been given to the delegates attending the Conference to signify the adhesion of the great body of the working classes of that country to the principle of a general reduction of the hours of labour. I do not know whether the Rules of this House preclude me from saying a few words about the miners of this country, seeing that I have introduced a Bill upon the subject. I may, however, be permitted to say that in two districts, represented by hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me, I am aware that the adhesion of the miners has not been generally favourable to this principle. After all, these two Gentlemen only represent some 60,000 or 70,000 miners, whereas the whole body of the wining population amounts to something like 600,000. In the course of three or four weeks I ob-
    720
    tamed 38,000 signatures to a petition, showing the opinion of the mining population of Scotland on this matter. Now I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government if they have any special reason why they have instructed their delegate not to enter into a discussion on this subject. I suppose that they have not done it out of pure cussedness, but I anticipate that they think that they will get support from some section of the community in return for their action, and that they will catch the votes of those who always go about saying that there can be no reduction in the hours of labour without a corresponding reduction of wages. That seems a very fair argument on the face of it, but when we look at the facts, I do not find that a reduction of wages in this country followed on the adoption of the nine and ten hours' movement. Indeed, skilled mechanics in this country now get higher wages than they received fifteen or twenty years ago, prior to the introduction of this movement. I know that considerable jubilation was expressed by the junior Member for Northampton, with reference to a recent return on labour statistics, and with respect to the reduction of hours of labour in the United States. He stated that the limitation of the hours of labour there had produced a great reduction in the rate of wages, but I find that the very reverse is the case, according to a return issued in 1880. Six years after the passing of the ten hours law in Massachusetts, Mr. E. Atkinson, a prominent Free Trade advocate, stated that it had injured workmen by making wages one-eleventh less than those obtained by similar labourers in other States. An investigation was at once ordered by the Massachusetts Labour Bureau, and in 1881, a Report was issued from which it appeared that the average worker in the State of Massachusetts, in which the ten hours' law operated, worked nearly six hours less, and received nearly three shillings more per week than the workers in the five adjoining States. I will trouble the House with a few figures in support of this. In Maine the average working time was 66⅛ hours a week, and the average of wages $7·4. In New Hampshire the hours were 66⅛, and the wages $7·44. In Rhode Island, 66 hours, and

    721
    $8·61; Connecticut the hours were 65¼, and the wages $7·57; and in Massachusetts the hours were 60, and the wages $8·25. I would ask the Member for Haddington, when next he addresses a section of his constituents, who are mainly miners, if, in the face of these statistics, he can tell them that invariably a fall of wages follows a reduction of hours of labour. As I know him to be a man eminently fair-minded and always willing to take the trouble to inquire into such matters, and not likely to condemn opinions without having made inquiry, I beg him to look into this matter, and see whether he cannot himself support me on this question. I trust that hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will find it possible to afford me a considerable measure of support, for there can be nothing damaging in the smallest degree to Her Majesty's Government if they promise to re-consider their decision upon the matter. I presume that no one thinks that the long hours to which I have referred are willingly worked by tramway men, gas stokers, and railway men, for they are forced to work these long hours by the pressure of economic circumstances. The working classes themselves wherever this question has been placed before them have always given their adhesion to it in a very marked manner, and I presume that is accounted for by the fact that they are thoroughly dissatisfied and discontented with the present system; and that they are determined, with the help of this House, to secure for themselves a little more time to enable them to take some part in our boasted civilization. But they cannot attain this end unaided. It has taken 50 years to enlist 10 per cent of the working classes of the country in the Trades Unions. It would probably take another two or three hundred years to enlist the remaining 90 per cent. They are not anxious to wait all that time for the accomplishment of this object, and I can assure the Government that if they will only re consider the decision they have arrived at in reference to the conference they will lay a debt of gratitude on the working men of this country, which I feel sure they will not readily forget.
    MR. BAUMANN: I wish to second the Motion, in the first place, because I think the action
    722
    of the Government has been very regrettable, and I hope they may yet reconsider their decision. I hope also that the division which is about to ensue will not be a Party division. I am very anxious that the Conservatives as a Party should not close their ears upon the question, and that they should not show that they are wanting in sympathy or in interest in this matter. I trust that the House will allow me, in the first place, in order to ascertain the position in which the question stands, to refer to the correspondence that has passed between the President of the Swiss Federation and Lord Salisbury. I must apologize if I have but inadequately mastered it, for, although the correspondence was promised us this morning it was not delivered with our Parliamentary Papers, and I only obtained a copy of it on coming down to the House this afternoon. The President of the Swiss Federation, in a dispatch dated 51th March, 1889, reminds Her Majesty's Government that so long ago as 1881, the Swiss Federation endeavoured to convoke a European Conference on this subject, but finding there was great difference of opinion upon legislation affecting labour, and not very much interest felt in it at that moment, they abandoned the attempt. But the President goes on to say that during recent years, so much progress has been made in legislation, and so deep and universal is the interest in the subject of labour legislation, that he ventures to invite our Government to co-operate in this conference in the year 1889. Now, the point which I wish to impress upon the House is this, that the President of the Swiss Federation in this dispatch, does not for one moment propose any regulation of the hours of adult male labour, as a subject for International legislation. On the contrary, he specificially excluded this subject from the International question. If the House will allow me, I will read one or two sentences from the despatch. The President says that in his opinion the Conference should be based upon a programme adopted in advance, and then he enumerates the parts of the programme which ought to form the basis of an International Convention. The point of the programme I think the House will realize when I read a portion of Lord Salisbury's reply.

    723
    "It must be understood that Her Majesty's Government only accept the invitation which the President has done them the honour to forward for the purpose of discussing the five matters specially proposed for their examination—namely, the prohibition of Sunday labour, the fixing of a minimum of age for the admission of children into factories, the fixing of a maximum limit of a working day for young persons, the prohibition of the employment of women and young persons in specially unhealthy or dangerous callings, and the limitation of night work for women and young persons. It is necessary to make this reserve, because in other parts of the President's note allusions are made to projects for regulating the hours of adult male labour and imposing restrictions upon production, and these are questions which in any case the representatives of this country would not be instructed to discuss."
    This places the House in possession of the position of the Government and names the points Her Majesty's representatives would be instructed not to discuss. Mr. Speaker, the Government might have refused the invitation altogether. They might have declined to send a representative to the Conference at all, and though such a course would, in my humble judgment, not have been politic it would have been logical, consistent, and quite intelligible; but to send representatives to the Labour Conference and to withdraw them when the question of the hours of labour comes on for discussion can only mean one of two things. Either it means that the hours of labour question is too perilous and prickly a topic for our representative to handle—which is to treat our artizans like babies: or it means that the question is so futile and so absurd that although it may be very well for foreigners to discuss it, our superior British wisdom declines to argue it, which is to offer a gross impertinence to the Continental artizans in whose Conference we propose to participate. Now, is that a wise or a candid attitude for the Government to take up? Does it show any openness or flexibility of mind? If there were any considerable number of persons who doubted the rotundity of the earth, the best way of meeting them would be to discuss the matter. The day of authority in political economy has passed. Demonstration, not dogma, must be the basis of our belief. If the regulation of the hours of labour is so foolish, and so absurd and so dangerous, our working classes are quite able to see it; and, moreover, nothing is more calculated to popularise
    724
    and promote discussion on this subject than the attempt to boycott it. A forbidden speech, like a forbidden writing, is thought to be a certain spark of truth, that flies up in the faces of those who seek to read it out. This leads me to another question. I should like to know who are to be our representatives at this labour conference. Who are to be represented? The Government technically, the working classes really. What is the Government, if it is not the organ and the mouthpiece of the working classes, the guardian of their interests, the guide of their ideas? If Mr. John Burnett is to be one, I shall be glad, but I should be sorry to hear that he was to have for his colleague a fanatic for theory or a statistical machine. I hope sincerely that some Board of Trade official will not be appointed, but that a gentleman will be chosen who has knowledge of and sympathy with the condition of the working men of this country. This subject of the hours of labour is profoundly agitating the Trades Unions and working men's clubs. At the Trade Union Congress the question occupied a. prominent part in the president's address, and a special debate on the subject was afterwards initiated by Mr. Maudsley, of Manchester. Statistics have been collected from the organised trades of the country showing that opinion was very much divided on the question, therefore there is all the more reason for discussing it at an international congress. What question is occupying the attention of the Sweating Committee of the House of Lords at the present moment? It is almost exclusively the question of the hours of labour, and if this be not an arguable question then Lord Dunraven is an elaborate trifler, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is a reverend farceur. In conclusion, let me point out that the Government are not called upon to express an opinion on this subject, and they might have instructed their delegates to have gone into the Conference, and at the same time have especially safeguarded themselves. They might have pronounced an adverse and decided opinion against anything like an eight hours' day, but at the same time they might have allowed our representatives to discuss any question coming before the Conference. If anything is likely

    725
    to augment the influence of extreme men, I repeat, it is this attempt on the part of the Government to burke discussion. And, therefore, I do hope that, in the interests of free and open discussion, and in the interests of the working classes themselves, the Government will consent to re-consider their decision. If the regulation of adult labour be wrong let it be proved so in open forum. I beg to second the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham.)
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The mover and seconder of this Motion have based their objections to the action of the Government more or less on the ground of sympathy with the principle which we have excluded. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire traverses the conduct of the Government on the ground that it is not usual or reasonable in accepting an invitation to an international conference, to take exception in the first place to possible subjects for discussion. But I venture to say that the hon. Member is quite wrong in his contention, and that the representatives of this and other countries have gone into conferences perfectly free. It has been the invariable rule, not only of this country but of every other country, first to be satisfied with the basis of discussion on such occasions. In some cases exception has been taken to the subjects for discussion, and in other additions 'have been made to the subjects. At the great Congress at Berlin, which Lord Beaconsfield attended as one of the British Plenipotentiaries, the greatest care was taken that the terms of the invitation might be such as this country could accept. That precedent is, therefore, entirely against the hon. Member. I do not know how the hon. member learns the representatives of other countries are free to discuss Socialist principles at the Berne Conference, and it is certainly beyond my knowledge that they are so empowered. The hon. Member went on to say that if Her Majesty's Government desire popularity among the working classes they would not shrink from an inquiry in which the working classes are so greatly interested. The hon. Member knows the pleasures of popu-
    726
    larity, and naturally supposes that ethers share his feelings. But those who are charged with great responsibilities must have regard to other motives, and must not for a moment trifle with principles they regard as essential. We must not be supposed to regard as open questions those which from our point of view do not admit of discussion. When the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) said Her Majesty's Government should show flexibility of mind in that respect, that may be so, but Her Majesty's Government should not show weakness of back.
    MR. GRAHAM: My whole argument was to the effect that this measure would, in my opinion, conduce to the well-being and comfort of the, working classes.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I quite understand that, and give the hon. Member the fullest credit for the motives with which he has brought the question forward. I hope the hon. Member is not alone in the interest he takes in the welfare of the working classes. There are some who take upon themselves to claim a certain platform and standard as representatives of the working classes. We are all, now a days, representatives of the working men. No Member of the House represents a more purely working. class constituency than I myself do, and I have not heard any such expression of opinion as the hon. Member referred to. Nor have Her Majesty's Government heard from any trade societies that they hold opinions such as the hon. Member indicates. On the contrary, the only indication the Government have received from any trade society upon the subject was from the London Trades Council, who desired the Government to favourably entertain the invitation given to them, because they thought the Conference would have a beneficial effect in assimilating the factory laws of other Europern countries to those of our own.
    MR. GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman think those trade societies, the votes of whose Members I had the honour to lay before the House, are heartily in favour of this measure?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think I am called upon to argue with the hon.. Member upon proceedings which took place at meetings attended by the hon. Member.
    MR. GRAHAM: I beg leave to again interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Order."] When Mr. Speaker orders me I will sit down.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. GRAHAM: Certainly, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House. If he does not choose to yield, the hon. Gentleman has no right to interrupt.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I give the hon. Member the fullest credit both for the motives with which he has brought the question before the House and for the faithful reporting of what took place elsewhere. I do not think the hon. Member has any right to say the House regards questions affecting working men as uninteresting. No questions of late years have more conspicuously attracted the attention of the House than those affecting the working classes, and the measures passed have been acknowledged by the representatives of working men in this House to have received the most careful attention possible. But it is quite another thing with regard to questions which are put forward nominally in the interests of the working men, but which I, for one, regard as empirical and open to dispute. Against the restriction of the hours of labour and the limitation of production, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) has taken a strong position, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that Her Majesty's Government should have gone into the Conference ready to discuss those questions, so that they might say anything that could be said in answer to the propositions put forward and bring to bear on the discussion any facts derived from experience in this country. That was the view also of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann). The representatives of this country are to represent at the Conference the views of this country; but surely they would not do so by treating as an open question a proposal to which we are altogether opposed. The Conference is not a mere debating society to discuss academically questions of principle, but is a meeting for the purpose of discussing questions which the Governments represented consider are open, and of arriving at conclusions to which the Legislatures of the respective countries way proceed to give
    728
    effect. Her Majesty's Government think that the questions of limiting the hours of workmen's labour and the limitation of production should not be discussed as practical questions which they can submit to Parliament. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Graham) has mentioned the case of the tramway men, and said that ought to be discussed. That may be so, but are we prepared to submit to the Conference the conditions under which these men are employed? Questions of that kind arising in this country can be discussed without going to Switzerland or anywhere else. In this country by good sense, aided by legislation, many of the difficulties formerly affecting capital and labour in times past have been happily got over. We have passed some measures which interfere with the freedom of individuals, but those cases are regarded as exceptions. The general adoption of such measures as the hon. Gentleman advocates would limit and cramp endeavour, would reduce the efforts which are made by the educated classes in this country to advance science, to improve industry, and to stimulate and develop our resources. We are asked to accept as a principle that which has hitherto been regarded as an exception, and to do so would have anything but a beneficial effect. The hon. Member says this question should be discussed in open forum. What is the forum where we ought to discuss matters affecting the interests of the people of this country? Why, the forum of this House. If hon. Members wish to introduce Socialistic measures let them bring their proposals to the test of discussion in this House. What have the Government done? They have accepted with good grace the proposals made by the Swiss Government to go into Conference to discuss certain definite questions. They have gone a step further than their predecessors. In 1881 a similar proposal was made to the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) and it was declined, because, as it was said, we had dealt with such matters in this country as far as we thought judicious, and it was for other nations to adopt our legislation if they thought proper. Her Majesty's present Government have gone beyond their predecessors in this respect because they

    729
    have reason to believe that it would be agreeable to the people of this country that they should be represented, and that, having placed certain restrictions upon the labour of the helpless, it would be very desirable if other nations were to adopt the same wise restrictions, which might, in the first place, reduce production, but which might in the end produce better work and greatly improve the comfort and welfare of the industrial populations. They have, however, declined to go beyond the principle which Parliament has always adopted and to enter into questions affecting the labour of adult males and the extent of production. The hon. Member for Peckham says that the Government had no need to assume that such matters would form the subject of discussion at the Conference, and he read some passages from the letter of invitation. The letter of the Swiss Government, however, showed that further proposals were within their intentions with regard to adult labour and production. But it was not only these expressions which showed that this was so. In February last M. Droz, the distinguished Foreign Minister of Switzerland, published in the Bibliothèque Universelle et Revue Suisse an article signed by himself upon "The International Legislation of Labour," wherein he examined the possibility of giving effect to the aspirations of international Socialists, in the best sense of the term, who were advocating the necessity of an international agreement with regard to legislation for the protection of labour, in order, if possible, to regulate the effects of competition, which, in their opinion, threatened to crush the working classes. Her Majesty's Government could, therefore, have no doubt that the "ulterior measures" indicated direct proposals for an agreement to legislate in restriction of male labour and production. The five points which the Government have stated their readiness to discuss have been described as being subjects for preparatory conference, but ulterior conferences are contemplated at which these other questions will be taken up. It is impossible to ignore the clear indications of such ulterior conferences, and Her Majesty's Government could not do less than make due reservations in their acceptance.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) stated the case against the Government so fairly and temperately that I should not have felt myself called upon to make a few remarks had not some observations been made as to my motive in supporting the hon. Gentleman in moving the adjournment. I supported the hon. Gentleman not, as he supposed, because I am getting more inclined to agree with him—I am as little inclined to agree with him and his friends as I ever have been—but because I believe that discussion under the greatest possible variety of circumstances is the best means of expressing to the working men of this country the entire fallacy and delusiveness of this proposal. The hon. Gentleman said he supposed I supported the Motion for adjournment because I have found in my constituency some irritation at the line which I took up a few weeks ago. He also stated that he had been making a tour in the North of England, and he wished the House to believe that he had attended meetings supporting his views. The hon. Gentleman has referred to what passed between my constituents and myself at Newcastle. I should like for a moment to tell the House what happened, and then hon. Members will be able to take the measure of the hon. Gentleman's tour. I was approached by a number of Socialists in my constituency, who desired a discussion with me. Unlike the Government, I did not shrink from a discussion. I said what I had to say to the deputation, and we parted on perfectly amicable terms, each thinking the other entirely wrong. But since then I have had two large meeting of my constituents.
    MR. GRAHAM: Open?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Certainly. The meeting in the Town Hall the hon. Member himself might have attended. It was my annual address to my constituents, and anyone, Conservative or Liberal, had access to it. I have since met a meeting of the 500 or 600 at Newcastle, and all hands were held up in favour of my view except three. So much for the hon. Gentleman's imputation of motives. I have nothing to fear from my constituents. I have often thought it a great pity that people who profess

    731
    such a love of mankind in general should always be so ready to impute bad motives to particular individuals.
    MR. GRAHAM: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thoroughly understands what I said? I imputed the very best of motives to him—namely, that he wished to comply with what I considered was a rising feeling in his constituency; and I ask him whether that is not a good motive?
    MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir; I do not think it is.
    MR. GRAHAM: Then you do not represent your constituency.
    MR. J. MORLEY: If I think that in my constituency there has arisen a feeling for something which is wrong and mischievous it is not a good motive to fall in with it. I repeat, that I think it is a great pity that professional philanthropists should be so misanthropic.
    MR. GRAHAM: A professional philanthropist is, I presume, a man who receives money for what he does; and I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to presume on his position as an ex-Cabinet Minister and to put me down and pass an insult upon me by terming me a professional philanthropist?
    MR. SPEAKER: Mr. John Morley.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not wish to insult the hon. Gentleman. He has insulted me, but I pass that over, and I do not wish to insult him by calling him a philanthropist.
    MR. GRAHAM: Professional philanthropist.
    MR. J. MORLEY: But the hon. Gentleman went further, and made more serious misrepresentations. He referred to the plébiscite that had been taken among the Trade Unionists. I have taken a great deal of trouble for some weeks and months to ascertain the drift of the answers given to the questions that were submitted by the Trade Union authorities. There were given in this week's issue of a paper called Engineering the answers to the questions; and all I can say is that, for my own part, I am unable to detect any clear conclusion as to the drift of the answers except one, and that is that there is an immense difference of opinion amongst the Trades Union members on this subject. It is quite possible to analyze these answers in such a way as to show that,
    732
    with the exception of two trade societies, there is a majority against legislative interference in restricting hours of labour. Thirteen societies are against legislative interference and 11 in favour, and these include the great and important Society of the Amalgamated Engineers. The Trades Council of Warrington declared that an Eight Hour Bill was impracticable; the Ipswich Trades Council would like to see nine hours tried first, which I think showed very great sense; Edinburgh was in favour of each trade deciding for itself; Wolverhampton thought the time inopportune; Norwich thought it inexpedient to appeal to Parliament; Liverpool expressed the opinion that overtime should be abolished first. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment first of all denounced the House as a place where labour questions were neglected, in which I do not agree with him; and then he said it was a Parliament of capitalists, and he proposed to place in the power of this House of capitalists the restriction of the hours of labour of the working classes. I cannot imagine a. more extraordinary proposition. We cannot on this Motion discuss the question of the restriction of labour to eight hours. I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out that the House does not hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman proposes. Is it proposed that all industries should be restricted to eight hours? Are sailors and season-trade men to be restricted to eight hours? Why does not the hon. Gentleman say something about that before making accusations?
    MR. GRAHAM: Those questions were not before the House.
    MR. J. MORLEY: They were not before the House, but the hon. Gentleman brought other questions forward, and he ought to have brought these. The hon. Member did not deal with the all-important question as to whether, when the hours had been restricted to eight, it was expected that wages would remain at the same pitch. I was told the other day that in a municipality in the North of England, when the members of the council had a proposal brought before them restricting labour under all contracts and work given out by the council to eight hours, it was received, as the bare proposal would always be received, with enthusiasm. The men, however, when consulted on

    733
    the subject, strongly asserted that of course they would have to be paid the same wages for the eight-hours day. And this being found to involve an addition to the rates of 1½d. or 2d. in the pound the enthusiasm among the ratepayers and their representatives dwindled down, and the proposal came to nothing. Therefore, those in favour of legislative restriction of the hours of labour to eight must tell us if they expect wages to be kept up or not. Another point I should have expected the hon. Member to deal with is overtime. Are you going to allow overtime? No, I suppose not. Bnt how are you going to stop it? It is one of the great points of complaint by the Trades Union leaders that they cannot persuade their own friends not to take advantage of overtime when they get the chance. I am sorry to make these personal references to the hon. Member; but as I am following and opposing him I am bound to deal with one more point. The hon. Gentleman referred to the International Trades Union Congress held in November last, and I understood him to lead the House to believe that the English delegates at that Congress were in favour finally of legislative restriction upon the hours of labour.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: No, I said nothing of the sort. I said a percentage of them. This is a matter that affects the welfare of hundreds of thousands of working men, and I hope the House will allow me to make the matter clear. What I said was that a much larger percentage of the delegates voted in favour of it than I supposed possible, and I instanced names.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Of course I am perfectly sure that if the hon. Member says so he did say this; but the impression made on the House was that the feeling of the English delegates—otherwise I do not see the force of the hon. Member's argument—was in favour of legislative restriction. But this was not so. Upon the last vote taken in the Conference, there were of 49 English delegates 32 who voted against a resolution in favour of legislative restriction, and 9 who voted in favour of it. The foreign delegates, I know, were almost unanimous in support of it. But whatever the intention of the hon. Member may have been, the House must not be under the impression that the attitude of the
    734
    English delegates was an attitude in favour of legislative restriction. Now, I turn for a moment to the remarks and the defence made by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. I confess I thought he took up an extraordinary position. He talked about Socialistic proposals, and using that expression again and again said it would never do for Her Majesty's Government to advocate Socialistic proposals. Now what is this Socialistic proposal? It is a proposal to limit by legislation the hours of adult male labour. Her Majesty's Government repudiate that, and yet they are going into a Conference to discuss the question of Sunday labour. Is that not a question of the restriction of adult male labour? Do you not admit this famous Socialistic principle when you enter into such a discussion as that? The fact is that it is now too late in the day for any Government to talk about Socialistic principles. Our whole legislation for a great number of years—certainly since the Poor Law—has been founded on Socialistic principles. In no country is there more Government regulation, supervision, and interference, more so-called Socialistic legislation, than in our own. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman has put forward a very idle plea. I regret that Her Majesty's Government should in any way have vetoed this discussion, for reasons that I will ask the House to listen to. The Under Secretary says what good will you do, by going to Berne, to the poor and miserable whom the hon. Member for Lanark talked about. Why, if the right hon. Gentleman had had time to consider this question, he would have known that the English working classes are well aware that limitations of the hours of labour and other labour regulations on the Continent of Europe are of vital importance to the improvement of their own condition. That is a reason why we should go to Berne with a perfectly open mind, I do not say ready to vote for any proposal, but ready to discuss any proposal of the kind. There is no doubt anybody who considers the subject will allow that the uniform depression of trade in certain countries in France, in England, in Austria, in Germany, has a general effect on trade generally. The economic circumstances of one country affect those of another.

    735
    I may claim to know something of what is passing in the minds of the working classes of this country, and I know that they hold that they are concerned with the labour regulation in foreign countries as a matter closely connected with the improvement of their own condition. Is there anything in the interests of humanity which we should desire much more than that the hours of labour in Belgium, France, and on the Continent generally should be shortened? But upon this most important question the mouths of our representatives are to be sealed. What harm would it have done if our representatives had discussed this question, which is one which will be discussed in this House year after year? It is perfectly clear that we cannot know too much about this question, and it would rather strengthen the hands of the Minister of the day to be familiar through the Reports of our representatives with foreign feeling on this subject. And we ought to be ready to meet the arguments that were urged against our own views. The hon. Member for Peckham has asked who our representatives will be? That is a very important point. I do not in the least wish to press the Government if it is inconvenient to give the information now. I have heard it said that we are to be represented by our diplomatic representative in Switzerland, and that I know would be very disappointing to our constituents. It is also said that an official will go from the Board of Trade, and that also would be very disappointing; and thirdly—and this is the least unfortunate proposal—that an official should be sent from the Home Office. If a Factory Inspector were to go, there is no doubt he would carry a great deal of experience. But this is not enough. You want a representative, not merely of the point of view of officials—I do not in the least speak disparagingly of them—but of the view of trades representatives. I do hope, therefore, that the Government, whether they give way or not in the matter of this I think most absurd reservation, will be very careful not to make an appointment that will debar the members of the Congress from having the best opinion they can get, and, on the other hand, giving a proper impression in England of the bearing and scope of what is done at the Congress. I
    736
    regret anything that at all discourages any disposition to International action. Whatever the subject may be, within reasonable limitations, not including, of course, matters affecting our national existence, any subject that can be dealt with by International intercourse and communication should be so dealt with to the great gain of European civilization and humanity. I am glad the Government have gone so far as they have; but I regret the reservations they have attached to their assent.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): My right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has so fully dealt with the speech of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire that I should not have considered it necessary to add anything were it not for some observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. With the greater part of those observations I need hardly say that the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government entirely agree. They feel as completely as he does what the results would be of any attempts to limit by legislation, production, or the hours of adult male labour. We consider that if any shortening of the existing hours of labour is required by the working men of this country they are quite able to deal with the matter themselves. Far from thinking with the hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject that legislation in this direction would make our working classes more manly and independent, we think it would have just the contrary result. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle seemed to think we shrink from the discussion of this question. He was strong in advocating this discussion as the best possible means of dispelling the delusions of those Gentlemen who adopt the programme of the hon. Member for Lanark. We entirely agree with him that the more the question is discussed the more the fallacies of the proposition advanced will be proved. The only difference of opinion between us is as to the arena in which such discussion should take place. We think that in connection with this and any other questions that may be agitating the public mind in this country this House is the best arena for discussion. We therefore decline to assent to the proposition that for an adequate dis-

    737
    cussion of them we must go to Berne. The right hon. Gentleman is opposed to shortening the hours of adult male labour by legislation, and the Government agree with him; but we part company when he asks us to go into a solemn conference with the Powers of Europe gravely to discuss questions the settlement of which in a certain sense might imperil the industries of this country and bring disaster upon our working classes. It would not be in accordance with diplomatic usage that this country should go into a conference with reference to a question as to which we have absolutely made up our minds that it would not be to the interest of the people of this country that one of the proposals to be put forward should be accepted by the conference. The right hon. Gentleman said it was desirable we should go into discussion with the view of demonstrating to the Powers that it was desirable that other countries should adopt our shorter hours of labour; but that is not at all the view with which we are asked to go to the Conference. One of the leading features of the invitation is that there should be a restriction of output. Although in this country we have again and again legislated upon the employment of women and young persons, we have always considered it undesirable that legislation should take place with reference to the labour of adult males; and there is no doubt that if we had gone unreservedly into the Conference we should have been called upon to discuss the hours during which adult males should be employed. There is no evidence that the working classes of this country are in favour of any restriction of the hours of adult male labour. The discussion at the Trades Union Congress showed a great division of opinion. I quite admit the report is not altogether satisfactory, and the cursory reader does not readily get at the facts; but Mr. Maudsley, in submitting the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, said the result of inquiries had been anything but satisfactory. Only a small proportion of the societies answered questions that were put to them, and the majority of their members voted against an eight hours' agitation being undertaken. What tells more strongly than mere numbers is the small proportion of trade unions who replied to the questions, while the largest unions gave no vote on
    738
    the subject at all. If probably only 10 per cent of the working classes of this country belong to trade unions, and not more than 10 per cent of the trade unions gave a vote upon this question, it is perfectly idle to talk of their being any indication that the trade unions and the working classes of this country are in favour of restriction on the hours of labour. We are under the impression that any attempt to deprive working men by enactment of the liberty which they enjoy of disposing of their labour in the best way they can would be scouted by the majority of the House and of the people of the country. I cannot conceive anything more fatal to our prosperity than the adoption of such a principle by the House of Commons. That being so, are the Government to be blamed because, being perfectly willing to discuss every specific point raised by the Swiss Government, they thought it right to point out that there were two questions the discussion of which they would not enter upon—namely, artificial restriction of production and the limitation of the hours of adult male labour. It has come upon the Government with something like astonishment that there should be any large section in the House who think that the Government would have been justified in assenting to enter upon the discussion of matters when they believe, and think the country believe, that such a solution as that pointed at would be antagonistic to the best interests of the country. I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. I admired the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman when he was cross-examined by some of his constituents on various points of the Socialistic programme and the emphatic and uncompromising replies which he gave; and I am astonished that the hon. Member for Lanark should have made this the occasion of levelling any kind of aspersion or blame against the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I never did.
    MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the attitude he then assumed because he was afraid of his constituents. No man who was afraid of the opinion of his constituents would have given the replies

    739
    which the right hon. Gentleman made to the deputation that waited upon him; but one of those replies would appear to debar him from taking the attitude he has now adopted in the House; for he distinctly said he was not in favour of making an eight hours' working day by Act of Parliament; and as to International negotiation for an eight hours' day, the right hon. Gentleman deemed it to be an impracticable proposal, and he was sure we could never come to an arrangement with foreign countries on that point.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Quite true; and I say that now: but the Government is invited to consider proposals in which that is not included.
    MR. RITCHIE: If it is not included, why does he blame us for saying it must be excluded?
    MR. J. MORLEY: You may discuss it.
    MR RITCFHE: But the right hon. Gentleman must take up one position or another; either it is advisable to discuss a proposal as a practicable one, or it is an impracticable one, and therefore idle to discuss it. Can the right hon. Gentleman seriously contend that we should enter into a grave discussion with foreign Powers on what we have publicly stated to be an impracticable proposal? Certainly the Government could not take such a view of their duty; and if we had not guarded ourselves in the way we did, we should have considered we were deceiving the Swiss Government, leading them to think we were prepared to go into the Conference with a view to bringing about a result which, in our opinion, is absolutely impracticable. The right hon. Gentleman finds fault with my right hon. Friend, the Under Secretary, because he referred to this proposal as socialistic. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is one of the great planks of the socialistic platform. The right hon. Gentleman said it was an absurd reservation seeing that we did restrict the hours of labour on Sundays. I think he used the word "idle" in respect to the argument of my right hon. Friend, but I think he cannot be offended if I retort with the same word when he declines to see any distinction between labour on Sundays to other days of the week. It is part of the law of the land that
    740
    there shall be no labour on Sunday, so I cannot for the life of me see why that should be any argument against us for not going into a conference with a view of discussing the employment of male labour on week days. We believe we should have been blameworthy if we had entered into a discussion of a matter which we regard as settled so far as this country is concerned, and we consider we should have been deceiving both the people of this and other countries if we had not carefully safeguarded ourselves in the way in which we believe every gentleman would have done.
    MR. A. ACLAND: I think there are many Members of the House who would say "If you cannot send a representative to the Conference without fettering him in the way proposed, for Heaven's sake do not send one at all." What necessity is there for the Prime Minister to go out of his way as he has done to allude to certain subjects which are not included amongst those which it is proposed to discuss? Why could not the noble Marquess be content to send a representative and simply instruct him to discuss the questions named. How are we to keep the question of adult male labour out of consideration? Assuming the Sunday question to be dealt with the remaining four points referred to questions affecting the labour of women and children. Send any intelligent representative of England and what must he tell the Conference? He must tell them that in a large number of our trades where the labour of women and children is restricted by law, indirectly most certainly adult male labour is restricted in the same way. Does any one doubt that in the great textile industries adult male labour is indirectly restricted because the labour of women and children is directly restricted by law? If any representative sent to the Conference was told he must not touch upon adult male labour, he would be in a perfectly ridiculous position. It has been suggested, and it is a very reasonable suggestion, that the Labour Correspondent, Mr. Burnett, might be sent to represent us. I think Mr. Burnett would be a very fair representative, but just consider his position if he has to leave the Conference if this question comes up in any way. A man who can

    741
    tell the foreign representatives how we have hitherto dealt with some of these questions, a man who himself was Secretary to the Amalgamated Engineers during a great strike in the North of England, when they obtained by their energy and persistency the nine hours a day, and when they did, as our Trades Unions have done, more by their steady-going self-denial than all the Socialists had done and taught by all their writings,—I maintain that a man in Mr. Burnett's position ought to be free to take a view which no doubt would not be shared by many of the foreign delegates, and tell them how these things are managed in England. To talk of withdrawing male adult labour from consideration is really to stultify us in the matter. To stifle discussion in a matter of this sort is to encourage the Socialistic opinions which alarm so very much hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has said it is obvious the mover and seconder of the Motion desire to advance socialistic views. It looks as if the Government themselves are by this stupid action actually desirous of encouraging an agitation in this country about the very principles which they do not wish our representative to discuss. I hope that if the Government persist in this view, those who do in this matter better represent the labour interest in this country than the Government do—the Trades Unions, the Parliamentary Committee, or some other representative body—will make it quite clear to our friends in Switzerland that the great mass of the labouring people in England are with them. Either let us keep clear of the Conference, or send a sensible man and give him a free hand. In the proposal which comes from Switzerland it is said that the resolutions of the Conference will be submitted to the various Governments in the form of simple propositions binding no one. Of course, they cannot bind anyone in this House or in the country, and whoever we sent could not represent all opinions in the country. But any sensible man whom we sent would say opinions varied in this country. I hope the Government will withdraw their proposition rather than send it to Europe in this feeble and foolish manner. At any rate, we have not hitherto believed in this grand-motherly
    742
    policy in relation to these questions. Bring them out in the light of day, and discuss them freely, for the more they are discussed both here and in international conference, the better we shall learn to understand them.
    MR. C. DARLING: As the representative of a constituency which includes a large number of the men interested in this question, I claim the indulgence of the House while I say a few words. It is proposed to censure the Government because they have simply safeguarded themselves from instructing their representative to discuss points which are not amongst those deliberately selected by the Government of Switzerland fur discussion, and because they have received, perhaps, with abundant caution, the despatch of the Swiss Government, and finding in it one or two expressions which would lead any one to suppose that beyond the five selected points, two other points may be discussed, they have said that our representative shall not be instructed to discuss them. The Government do not say that our representatives shall go with their mouths closed, or that they must withdraw from the room if the question comes on. The Swiss Government is told not that our representatives must be silent, but that as to two questions, our representatives will in any case not be instructed to discuss them. That is very different to saying they will be instructed not to discuss them. The hon. Member (Mr. A. Acland) has contended that these questions if they came up incidentally could not be discussed by our representatives. I maintain they could. Suppose it was necessary to discuss the question of granting protection to young workmen. How could you discuss that without referring to the employment of adults? Then there is the question of the entire interdiction of work on Sundays. How would it be possible in such a question not to discuss the interdiction of work of certain kinds on other days. If it is necessary to discuss these questions incidentally, our representatives are not forbidden to discuss them, and they must discuss them. If I thought the Government had precluded our representatives from arguing these questions in case they came up incidentally, I would vote against them,

    743
    but I do not consider the Government have taken up that position. One of the questions our representatives should not be instructed to discuss is the proposal to limit the production in our factories to suit the views of foreigners. I think our Government would have failed in their duty to our workmen had they allowed this to be considered an oven question.
    MR. BROADHURST: I interpose in the debate because of the references which have been made to the Votes of Trade Congresses on the eight hours' question. It is perfectly true a vote was taken and reported upon at the last Congress, but it was so very inconclusive, that it was resolved to take another vote this year. The Vote is not yet complete, and the decision of the trades cannot be known until September next. The hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Cuninghame Graham) quoted the decisions arrived at by one or two trades. It is possible that some hon. Members may infer from the hon. Member's remarks that the trades of the country, as a whole, have decided in favour of one line of action. The hon. Gentleman gave certain figures—400 or 500 as voting for eight hours, as against a lesser number against eight hours. The hon. Gentleman ought to have completed his statement, by saying what were the total memberships of the Trades Unions he referred to. I have in my mind one Society with more than 10,000 members. 350 of these have voted for an Eight Hours Bill, and, I think, 150 against. Only 500 members of the body take a sufficient interest in the subject to vote one way or the other. Another reason why I interpose is that I desire to say why I shall take no part in the decision upon this question. Holding the official position I do in connection with the Trades Unions of the United Kingdom, I think it is well I should make no public statement as to my views on this subject, while it is under the consideration of the trades, in order that I may be free from the charge of wishing to bias any of the trades societies in any vote they may ultimately take. A second reason for abstaining to take any part in the decision is because the result of last week's debate of the Parliamentary Committee, of which I am Secretary,
    744
    was one which, perhaps, I may best interpret by not voting on the present occasion. I have only one more word to add. I hope I have expressed no opinion for or against the Eight Hours Bill. In conclusion, let me request that the Government will issue the Report in the language with which we are best acquainted, and not issue a Paper which deeply concerns the labouring classes of the country in a foreign language.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: I think the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cuninghame Graham) has been a great deal misunderstood. I submit that my hon. Friend cast no improper imputation upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley). As I understood, he gave great credit to the right hon. Gentleman for the line he took in connection with the subject before the House, but he said that the right hon. Gentleman afterwards had reason to see from the action taken by his constituents, that his conduct was not so much in accordance with their views as he had before supposed. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to remember that my hon. Friend embraces the doctrine, that a Member is rather a delegate than a representative, and therefore from his point of view, he was surely imputing no improper motives to the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the right hon. Gentleman had reason to change his position. I am entirely, and strongly, and emphatically opposed to the views of the Member for N.W. Lanark on this subject, but I think it right to make this explanation on his behalf, although I do so without communicating with him.
    MR. COURTNEY: I shall not trouble the House more than a very few minutes, and I shall not enter into the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has foreshadowed in his remarks. But I venture to ask the attention of the House for a few moments, because I have the ill-fortune to differ more or less from everyone who has already spoken upon this question. I am not one of those who regard legislative proposals respecting the hours of adult male labour as absolutely without the sphere of political thought. It would be foolish for any-

    745
    one to hold that opinion, in face of existing circumstances. I do not accept the view of the President of the Local Government Board, that my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Morley) entered upon an idle suggestion when he passed horn the question of regulating the hours of labour to the question of Sunday observance. If you could get such a moral unanimity as to eight hours' labour per day being the regulation of a workman's life—such moral unanimity, for instance, as you have with respect to the observance of Sunday,—you would go a very long way indeed towards establishing the condition of things you seek, and might, under a legislative Act, bind together the opinions which have grown up in the community, and give them a practical and real personal character. But that involves a reflex action in the life of the working man himself, of which it appears the hon. Gentleman the Member for N. W. Lanark (Mr. Cuninghame Graham), still has not the most distant dream. It would re-act probably in the first place on the wages of labour, and then it would re-act on the conditions of celibacy and marriage. I do not attach a great deal of importance to the views of the Government or of other Members of the House, who think that this is a matter which involves what is called socialistic legislation. I do not think that the realization of this object would involve anything of the kind. It may be very far away, it may be a dream; but all the same, it is a possibility of the future, which, at all events, we may entertain in our dreams. It is something to contemplate as a possibility, but I entirely concur with the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) in repudiating the second subject talked about—namely, the restriction of output, as a thing wholly inconceivable in any scheme of social polity, and wholly inconceivable in the interests of the working classes. That being the position which I entertain with regard to the question and the dispute, the practical question arises, the Government being invited to join in the Conference at Berne upon certain propositions with respect to what may be called the organization of labour, and especially with respect to six propositions, whether they were justified by precedent or by the reason of the thing, whilst giving their assent to the
    746
    Conference on these six points, in instructing their Representatives at the Conference not to discuss these other points. I confess I do hold that the Government are entirely justified in the course they have taken. They are acting in strict accordance with the conduct of previous Governments, and in accordance with what is required from Governments. I distinguish very much between a Conference of the Representatives of the Powers and what is called an International Conference to discuss certain questions which may be summoned, and which is summoned year after year. They discuss these questions with perfect freedom, and there are representatives there of the different societies who more or less express the opinions which may he entertained by the members of the societies they represent. In a Conference of that kind I say there is the greatest freedom. There is no immediate implication of persons outside the Conference in what takes place—at all events, they have a freedom from responsibility which cannot be predicated of a conference of the Representatives of governing Powers. The Representatives of governing Powers called together in Conference, are called together for some practical results; but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton that any conclusion arrived at would not bind any Power represented at the Conference. Still, they are to arrive at conclusions which will be considered by each Power represented, with a view to its being embodied in the legislation of each country. These are the intended conclusions on the six points enumerated, and which are intended to form the basis of projects of legislation to be considered by each Government who sends a Representative to the Conference; and it appears very necessary in such a case that the Government who sends Representatives to the Conference should consider the possibility of their accepting any particular course with respect to any particular subject as a possible basis of legislation. If they are not prepared to accept any of these conclusions on any of these points with a view to legislation then on any particular subject they are justified in saying, our Representative cannot enter into discussion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle,

    747
    who holds much more strongly than I do the opinion that these things could not be considered with a view to a basis of legislation, will see that it is impossible therefore to allow the Representatives of this country to engage in the discussion of a formal project, which would have to be considered and brought here with a view to legislation. That appears to be a reasonable deduction from the position as put forward in the State Paper emanating from Switzerland, and to which the reply of Lord Salisbury has been sent. That entirely agrees with what has been done at many successive Conferences. I think I remember that Conferences were called over and over again by Napoleon III. with respect to the state of Europe, and as to certain alterations of boundaries which might happen in consequence of the debates and decisions of such Conferences, and I think the representative of this country was specially engaged to hold himself free from any discussion which would result in any such suggestion. I am quite certain that with respect to another matter that has been referred to quite incidentally by the hon. Member for Deptford—with respect to the Sugar Duties Conference—there were many Conferences on the subject, and it was made a condition at more than one of the first Sugar Duties Conferences, that if any question arose as to the imposition of counter availing duties, our representative was to refrain from the discussion precisely because whatever agreement was come to in respect of the subject would have to be brought here, and the Government here could not look upon it as the positive basis of legislation. Well, that is the situation here. Our representative is instructed to engage in the discussion on these six points, but in reference to the other points which the Government do not regard as at present the possible basis of legislation, the representative is instructed that he is not to engage in any discussion which may result in a proposition which would have to be considered as an invitation to legislation. I think the Government is entirely warranted in the line they have taken. I do not understand my hon. Friend who spoke just now to be right in his view that our Government is to withdraw the moment that subject is raised. I think the hon. Member for Deptford was right
    748
    in supposing that our delegate would not necessarily be silent on such a question, for our representative having command of valuable materials, drawn from our own experience, would not be entirely warranted in doing so. But the moment a question arises as to a discussion where international agreement would be involved as a basis for action in the different countries on the part of different Governments, then he will withdraw and say, "I have no mandate from my Government, which is not prepared for legislative action; and as it is, not prepared for legislative action I am not prepared for discussion." The action of the Government appears to me, as I have said, entirely in accordance with precedent. It appears to me to be prudent, and I feel bound to vote against those who regard this matter as one of urgent public importance, and I must decline to go into the Lobby with them.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am extremely sorry that the extremely rational premisses, which the right hon. Gentleman laid down, have not led him to a rational conclusion. He spoke of the possibility of moral unanimity in this country with regard to the question of eight hours a day. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would consider with me that if that moral unanimity could be obtained without legislation it would not be in itself an undesirable thing, in fact that it would be a highly desirable thing. One of the great obstacles to the reduction of the hours of labour is the enormous number of hours of labour in other countries; and until that obstacle is removed I think my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Graham) will find considerable difficulty in carrying out some of his views. The enormous length of the hours of labour in Continental countries, together with the small amount of wages paid, give such advantages in competition with this country as to make the reduction of the hours of labour here a matter of considerable difficulty. I put this question to the Chairman of Ways and Means: If the Conference would agree to a resolution of moral unanimity as to the eight hours' day for labour in Germany and France, are not we, who are in favour of a similar reduction in England, to welcome such an expression of opinion on the part of the Conference? And I would like to know

    749
    what possible harm there can be in a discussion, when we are safe-guarded from even a Resolution embodying the views of the Conference in reference to legislation. I think the Government have done a most unwise thing for the interests of this country. I have pointed out the obstacle that foreign hours of labour and competition are to a reduction of hours in this country, and does any Member of this House deny that large portions of our population are suffering from overwork? I think my hon. Friend for North-West Lanarkshire considerably damaged his own case by the probably unintentional slights cast upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle. I would observe to ray hon. Friend that the outspoken criticism of those who do not agree with him is a great deal better for any cause than the lip service of hypocritical persons. I am sure my right hon. Friend in place of estranging from himself the feelings and affections of the working men of this country has only entitled himself to greater admiration and respect by the manly courage with which he has expressed his views on this matter. No doubt many portions of our populations suffer from overwork. Do not tram men and railway servants not suffer? I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means whether our hands would not be greatly strengthened in reducing these excessive hours, if there was a resolution from this Convention pledging the people of Germany and France as well as of England to a declaration in favour of the reduction of the hours of labour. This social question is one which cannot be avoided much longer. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs represents free institutions and perfectly open combination among our working men. In Germany that free combination does not exist, but the Emperor of Germany has pledged himself over and over again in public addresses, that the Social question is the question which the Government will have to consider. And the obstacle to open discussion and perhaps n most useful discussion in favour of a reduction of the hours if labour, comes not from a despotic Government of the Continent, but from a representative of democratic institutions.
    MR. DE LISLE: I am very glad to find that I am able
    750
    to be very brief in the remarks I beg leave to offer to the House, because I almost entirely agree with what fell from the Chairman of Committees. I think it would not be wise or expedient to extend the programme to be discussed at the Conference at Berne. On the other hand I certainly do feel much sympathy with the ulterior objects which are foreshadowed in the letter to the President of the Swiss Confederation, especially that paragraph which was animadverted upon by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That paragraph expresses the opinion that it is not merely the welfare of the labouring classes on which legislation is demanded but rather a Social question which is to be taken into consideration, with a view to a well organized endeavour to restore to more natural conditions the industrial occupations and the habits of life of the town populations of the civilized world. These are my views, and the concluding paragraph of the despatch of the Marquess of Salisbury appears to me at the present moment most right and opportune, and, therefore, I am able most cordially to support the Government with this reservation, that I do look forward to see in the very near future the date approaching when these foreshadowings will be practically discussed, for I hold that the present long night hours of labour are destructive not only to the health but to the physique of the nation. I believe that public opinion in these islands and in other civilized countries will come to the view that as production becomes more easy it will be proper to limit the hours of the working of engines and machinery as well as of men, and that neither should be worked during eight hours at night. Machinery and factories ought, metaphorically, to go to bed for eight hours out of the 24, just as we do. That, of course, would ultimately bring about a restriction of output, but I think better results are likely to be achieved by restricting the hours of machinery than by restricting the individual liberty of the labourer or artizan. In the present condition of society the power of capital has been abnormally exaggerated, while the power of the individual has been minimized. His health and working capacity is the working man's only capital. This is quickly and unfairly exhausted by

    751
    night labour. While cordially supporting Her Majesty's Government, I believe the subject of restricting the hours of labour through the night will be discussed at some future day, and that the people will be glad to see a consensus of opinion arise which shall dedicate, so far as factories at least are concerned, eight hours of the night to sleep and rest, as religiously as the Christian instincts of this country have preserved to us the one-day-in-seven rest—the healthy, the homely, the holy English Sunday.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: I rise not for the purpose of censuring the Government, but with the view of appealing to them if possible to change their opinion in this matter, and to untie the hands of the gentleman that now are tied, and to open his lips and his ears to the discussion of the questions that will be brought before the Conference. I am not prepared to enter into the merits of this matter nor to go to the root of it, still I would be untrue to the men I represent here did I not explain to the House their opinions on this matter. As one of the representatives of the miners in the county from which I come from I attended a meeting at which 75,000 miners were represented by 150 or 155 men who were unanimously in favour of reducing the hours of labour, especially those of miners, to eight per day in this country. It is well know n that the "bogey" of foreign competition is invariably brought forward were we have had to deal with employers of labour who are against advancing wages or reducing the hours of labour. The working people of this country were in hopes when they knew that this Conference was to take place that their opinions would be made known through the Representatives of the Government to other nations. It is well known that the working people in other nations look up to those of this country whom they set before themselves as examples to be followed in regard to the question of wages as well as the question of hours. The position already obtained by the workmen of the United Kingdom is such as foreign workmen make it their constant endeavour to reach; and if we are unable to carry it further all the aspirations of our own people will be disappointed and all the efforts made by
    752
    the working classes in foreign countries will be discouraged. I think we have a right to ask the Government to change its opinion on this matter. We are told that if the trades of this country choose to limit the hours of labour they can do so without legislative interference; but unfortunately our experience has been otherwise, especially on the question of overtime, in regard to which we have entirely failed. I am sorry to be obliged to admit to this House that. Trades Unions, powerful as they are in this country, have entirely failed to put an end to overtime; and it has been shown that they are not able to change the skin of the Ethiopian nor the spots of the leopard with regard to age of our fellow workmen. The consequence is that we find that the good of the many is being sacrificed to the greed of the few. I should like to call the attention of the Government to the fact that the argument generally against the interference of the Legislature in these matters has no force when the assistance given is such that while it benefits the individual by stimulating industry and promoting hope, it also confers great advantage on the public at large without creating competition with their neighbours. If by legislation we can succeed in reducing the hours of labour and put down overtime we shall prevent the evils arising from our people competing one with another and will be able to give them work all around. This country is already mulct to the tune of £10,000,000 per annum in the cost of supporting its pauper population in idleness, and it is stated that charity adds another ten. Surely it would be much better to spend this money in enabling the pauper population to become an independent, self-supporting, wealth creating, and industrious portion of the community. What we want is, to do away, if we possibly can, with overtime, and to reduce the hours of labour, especially on the part of the miners of this country. The hours now worked are at present far too long, and although this House does not seem to be quite in touch with the proposal, I would remind hon. Members that the Chancellor of the Exchequer once said, it appeared to him that political economy had been destroyed in that House, and that philanthropy had been allowed to take

    753
    its place, political economy being the bugbear of the working classes and philanthropy their salvation. On this question the House to-day leans to another view of the case, and certainly does not seem to be in great sympathy with the working classes, otherwise it would come to the rescue and reduce the hours of labour.
    The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 189.—(Div. List, No. 153.)

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) [GRANT, &c.]
Resolution reported.
"That it is expedient to authorise a Grant out of the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish University Commissioners, to be applied for the purposes of the Universities under any Act of the present Session for the better Administration and Endowment of the Universities of Scotland; and also the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to the secretary, clerks, and officers appointed, and of all expenses incurred under the provisions of the said Act."
Resolution agreed to.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL [LORDS] (No. 249.)
Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.

BANN DRAINAGE BILL (No. 257).
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th June]:
"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
Question again proposed.
MR. STOREY: As I understand, this Bill, when relegated to the Committee to which it is proposed to refer it, will be entirely removed from the purview of the whole House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact of the Bill being sent for consideration to a Select Committee will not remove the necessity of its coming before the whole House.
MR. STOREY: I took the opportunity of consulting a high authority on the question before deciding on taking the course I now propose.
MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that after the Bill has been considered by the Select Committee it will come back to the whole House.
MR. STOREY: Then, although I have strong and serious objections to the Bill, I do not think I will, under the circumstances, put the House to the trouble of a division at the present stage of the measure. Of course, in saying this I understand that after the hybrid Committee has dealt with the Bill we shall be in the same position as if it had not been so dealt with.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I only desire to say that in my opinion a measure like this does more injury to those whom it proposes to subsidize than upon those who have to contribute the funds.
Question put, and agreed too.
Bill committeed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against this Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)

UNIVERSITIES SCOTLAND BILL (No. 137.)
Order for Committee read.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I do not intend to detain the House at any length, as I have already addressed the House on the same matter in reference to another Bill which was discussed only a short time ago. I think, however, that we should not allow this opportunity to pass without making a practical protest in the sense of this Resolution, because if there ever was a measure that ought to be sent to a Committee of the kind suggested it is the one now before the House. The subject moreover is one that is not understood by those who belong to other parts of the kingdom than Scotland, so that it will be generally admitted that it would only be a proper step to send the Bill to such a Committee

755
as is provided for in my motion. I shall now be content to rely on what was said on the previous occasion, and will merely move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Motion made, and Question proposed:
"That the Order for Committee be discharged.
"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee composed of Scottish representatives and Thirty other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
"That the provisions of Standing Order 50 shall apply to all Bills reported by the said Committee."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I gather from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that it is not intended to press this Motion on the House as a matter of great urgency. I quite recognize that the hon. Gentleman feels the necessity of entering his protest with regard to a Bill which he considers one of so much importance, and which is of very great importance in the view of the whole House. At the same time, I must say I think the Bill is not of that complexity or speciality which required the detailed investigation of a special Committee. In referring the measure to a Committee of the whole House, I think it will be found that it was not necessary to resort to such an expedient as the kind of Committee the hon. Gentleman proposes, in order to bring to a high degree of perfection a Bill which I hope will pass through Committee without material modification.
The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes .—(Div. List, No. 154.)
MR. W. A. HUNTER: I wish, Sir, to ask if it is competent for any Member to move the instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, who is not in his place. Otherwise we shall be placed in a difficult position, for unless the instruction is moved we shall not be able to make certain Amendments of the Bill in Committee. I wish, therefore, to move the instruction.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not competent for the hon. Member to move the instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: I wish to direct the attention of the Lord Advocate to the desirability of postponing this, the Definition Clause, till the end of the Bill is reached. I think it is usual in Acts of Parliament to take the Definition Clause at the end. I shall have to deal with a difficulty which arises as to the definition of the words "Universities Committee," and, as I think some modification is necessary on this point, I would suggest it would be convenient to take the Definition Clause last.
Amendment proposed, "That this clause be postponed until the other clauses in the Bill have been considered."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should, of course, be glad to take any course which would further the object which the hon. Member has in view. But I would point out that Clause 9 is the clause which constitutes the University Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds has a competing proposal on that clause, which the Committee will have to decide upon, so I think there is no need to postpone this clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HUNTER: I have now a small matter which I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to deal with in the manner suggested in my Amendment. It has reference to the definition of the word "college." The clause provides that this shall mean any institution established on a permanent footing for the purpose of teaching the higher branches of education. I submit that that is sufficient, but in the clause as it now stands the words are added—
"And which shall be sufficiently endowed in the opinion of the Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, of the University Committee."
I hold that those words are quite unnecessary, because if an institution is of a permanent character, it ought to satisfy the Government, and the retention of the further words as to a sufficient endowment might lead to a considerable difficulty.
Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 9, leave out from "which," to end of sentence.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen will not dissent from the view which I have already expressed that it is desirable we should not encumber the existing Universities with affiliated colleges, which would be a drain on their already too narrowed resources. I think the clause as drawn will best secure that end.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5.
Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, after line 31, insert:—
(c.) The principal of St. Mary's College, and the principal of University College, Dundee, if and when the said college shall be affiliated to and made to form part of the University. (The Lord Advocate.)
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I desire to ask the attention of the Lord Advocate to the phraseology of this clause. It provides that the Principal of the United College, the Principal of St. Mary's College, and the Principal of the University College, Dundee, if and when the said college shall be affiliated to and made to form part of the University, shall be members of the University Court. It was, I think, recommended by the Royal Commission that there should be but one Principal for the two colleges, and in the series of Bills, introduced both by Liberal and Conservative Governments, there has been a proposal to empower the Commission to incorporate the various colleges of the University of St. Andrew's. I would suggest whether the phraseology of this addition proposed to be made to the clause is not inconsistent with the practicability of that scheme being carried out. With respect to the University of Dundee, while it has so eminent a principal as it now has, it is natural he should be a member of this Court. But it may be well worth considering if it would not be better to leave greater elasticity in the choice of a representative, and if that view should find favour with the Committee of that College the object sought might be secured by the next Amendment on the Paper, which is in the following terms:
"The head of each College presently existing in the University, and an assessor elected by the governors of University College, Dun-
758
dee, if and when the said College shall be incorporated therewith."
I think it would be wiser to give a larger amount of latitude in the selection of a representative.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the question of free choice stands somewhat apart from that of efficient representation. The theory of the Government Amendment is that these three colleges—the United College, St. Mary's College, and the University College, Dundee—should each have its Principal sitting on the University Board as a right, and I should deprecate the putting of the University College, Dundee, upon a different footing from its elder sisters. I have carefully considered the matter, and I think the course which the Government have taken will best conduce to the creation of an efficient and representative Court. I should like to add that the proposal to incorporate and fuse the two colleges is now out of date. It was contained in the recommendation of the Universities' Commission of 1878, but that was before University College, Dundee, had risen to its present importance.
DR. CLARK: Let me point out that you will if this is carried have this condition of things. The principals of the affiliated colleges connected with the University of St. Andrew's will each have a right to a seat in the University Court, while the heads of other colleges affiliated with the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen will not be members of the Court. I think there ought to be uniformity in this matter. Why should you make an exception in the case of St. Andrew's?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The position of St. Andrew's University of the last few years has been a very peculiar one. We must draw the line somewhere so as to prevent the addition of an indefinite number of members to the University Court.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I agree with the Lord Advocate that the position of St. Andrew's is unique in Scotland. Dundee College is extremely well equipped in various branches of science as well as in medicine. It has also a function to perform as a technical college. None of the other colleges in Scotland so far as I know have at all the position of this

759
college, and it is therefore right under the circumstances to give it a particular measure of favour in the Bill.
Amendment put and agreed to.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I did not desire to take any considerable part in the discussion of the academical portion of the Bill, but I want very much to press upon the House the importance of the introduction of what I may call the lay element into the government of Universities. In my opinion, there is nothing so bad for education or for the management of these institutions as that they should be controlled entirely by academic people, who are sometimes the most conservative and sometimes the most reactionary people in the country. I attribute much of our backwardness in educational matters to the fact that academical people manage their own affairs without lay assistance. I not only wish to have a strong lay element, but I also wish to have a local element, and I hope the day will come when local funds will be contributed for the purpose of improving higher education in Scotland. Allusion has been made to the Zurich school, to which people flock from all parts of Europe. Now, that is a local school, established, equipped, and maintained in a small town, the population of which is less than that of many of our towns in Scotland. I know that there is a great disposition on the part of modern academicians to pooh-pooh the idea of management by a Town Council, and they say that the Edinburgh Town Council is not fit to manage a great academic institution. But the fact is that in the Middle Ages the City of Edinburgh did exactly what the Canton of Zurich is doing in these days. They established a great school, which was so successful that all Europe flocked to it, and up to the beginning of the present century the school was a most famous school, and many great men attended it. Now, that was a school locally established for the city of Edinburgh. It may be said of it now that it has outgrown the capacities of its mother and cannot properly have its management entrusted exclusively to the Town Council of Edinburgh. Still the Council retains some share in its management, although I think that share ought to be more ex-
760
tensive. Now, the Government are also extending this principle to the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, and I wish to see them in addition introduce the lay element in the case of the University of St. Andrew's. That is not a large city, but it is an ideal place of education; it is a city of culture, and I do not see why it should not be represented in the University Court. I want to bring into the management of the Universities the popular voice and popular ideas, and I say that the more you introduce of this lay element the more you will break down that academical conservatism which is responsible for Scotland being lagged behind other countries in the matter of education. I do not propose to hand over the management of the Universities to the Town Councils, I only ask that those bodies should be represented in the University Courts, and the concession I am seeking is not a very large one. And there are special reasons why this should be done in the case of St. Andrew's, for there University life is very much mixed up with local life, and it would be a great advantage if the University management were brought into closer touch with the administration of the town. St. Andrew's, too, is a town which abounds in schools, in the management of which the Local Authorities have a large share, and I think it would be well for those who represent these schools to also be represented on the management of the University. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment proposed, at the end of last Amendment to insert the words
"(c) An assessor nominated by the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of St, Andrew's."—(Sir George Campbell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING,): The hon. Gentleman has said that St. Andrew's is an ideal place of education. There I perfectly agree with him, and I rather think it is chiefly because the town is small. St. Andrew's stands distinguished in that respect from all the University seats of Scotland, and that, I think, affords some indication of the reasons which have influenced the Government in not including a repre-

761
sentative of the municipality in the University Court of St. Andrew's. The hon. Member knows very well that the position of Edinburgh is quite peculiar. The connection between the Municipality and the University is an old one, and an honourable one to the Municipality; and the size and importance of Glasgow and Aberdeen seem to make it proper to include the Lord Provosts of those cities in the University Courts. It is otherwise with St. Andrew's.
MR. ANSTRUTHER (): I am not at all sorry that the Amendment I have put on the Paper should have received the additional advantage of being moved by my hon. Friend (Sir G. Campbell), and I hope the Government will see their way to concede this small point. No doubt the Lord Advocate feels that if he gives way on this Amendment he will have to give way on all the Amendments which have for their object the extension of popular representation on the University Courts. Let me point out, however, that the Amendment, of which I have given notice, would merely have the effect of putting St. Andrew's upon the same footing as the other University cities of Scotland. The first Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) drew, I thought, too hard and fast a line, and, therefore, I though it a wiser and perhaps a more moderate demand to ask the Government to accede to my request—that there should be a municipal representative nominated by the Town Council, though not necessarily one of their own number. I do not maintain that St. Andrew's is in the same position as Glasgow and Aberdeen; and I acknowledge the argument of the Solicitor General that the previous connection which has existed between the Municipality of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh University draws a distinction in that case in which it offers from the case of St. Andrew's. At the same time I would remind the Solicitor General that the Municipality of Edinburgh is to have two representatives, whereas the other Municipalities are only to have one, and I only ask that St. Andrew's should be placed in the same position.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not think the Solicitor General has given a very conclusive reason why this Amendment should not be adopted.
762
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the City of St. Andrew's is small. As a set-off against that we may say that the University of St. Andrew's is a very small one. I prefer the original form of the Amendment to the present. By the Amendment in its original form we should not only interest the lay element in the University, but pro tanto add somewhat to the dignity of the Chief Magistrate of the City. I am in favour of the Amendment, because I believe that the City of St. Andrew's has a very important interest in the University, even more than Edinburgh and Aberdeen have in their Universities, and also because I have an eye to another Amendment on the Paper to allow the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Dundee, to elect a representative to St. Andrews University Court. I do not think the Government will be acting wisely if they persist in refusing this very small concession.
MR. WALLACE: I do not think the Solicitor General for Scotland has put this matter upon the right ground. The only valid ground is the utilitarian one, that it will be useful to the Court of the University, and to the University itself through the Court, to have representation upon it of popular feeling. The best representatives we can get are those who have been selected by the people themselves to manage their affairs. If, because of the smallness of St. Andrews, it happens that the Lord Provost is sometimes a very efficient representative, that would seem to be rather an argument for giving the Town Council the right to send two representatives than for taking away one. It is unfair to describe the representatives of the people as uneducated. They may be uneducated as regards specialisms, but they are not uneducated as regards what is best for popular education. They are really practical men whose opinion is of immense value.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: As an old graduate of St. Andrews, and for long its representative, I have a word to say. The Solicitor General said there was nothing in the traditions of the Provosts of St. Andrews to justify any addition to the University Court from the municipality. I differ from him in that. I will recall to his recollection that there was quite a Napoleon of Provost, who bore the same name as

763
I do myself. He was long Provost of St. Andrews, and under his active reign the new University buildings were created. He was instrumental in introducing various useful reforms into the schools of the city as well as the University. If there was once a Provost like this there may be again. I think it is very desirable to interest the Civic Authorities in the prosperity of the University, and for that purpose I intend to support the Amendment.
DR. CLARK: I hope the Government will, if they persist in their opposition to the Amendment, give some practical reasons why St. Andrews should be treated differently from the other University cities.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The principal reasons have been given by the Solicitor General. It is well-known that the Lord Provosts of Glasgow or Aberdeen are invariably men of prominence and position, representing a large variety of interests, and are, besides, good business men, whose presence on such a Board as the University Court is valuable. Without implying the smallest disparagement to the Town Council of St. Andrews, I cannot say the same with reference to that body. It would have been agreeable to the Government to have given way in favour of St. Andrews in this respect, but all the considerations point in the other direction.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I should like to point out that the Amendment provides that an assessor should represent the Town Council, and that being the ease there is no doubt the best man would be found—a man of practical good sense, and probably with the highest education and the greatest interest in education that the locality could muster. It is extremely important to have at least one representative of the town where an educational institution is situated on the governing body of that institution, for a good feeling between the University and the town would be thus maintained.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: The Lord Advocate has not sufficiently distinguished between the two Amendments. The objections which he has raised are, no doubt, pertinent to the first Amendment suggested—namely, that the Lord Provost of St. Andrews should be an ex officio member of the Court. It is quite possible there might be occasions
764
on which the Lard Provost might not be the best possible man for such an office; but I think the suggestion that the whole Town Council should have power to nominate an assessor rests upon an entirely different basis.
MR. C. S. PARKER: I should be the last person to wish to introduce in the University Council a non-educational element which would be embarrassing to them; but I think there is a great deal in the argument that it is not necessarily the Provost of St. Andrews who is to be a member of the Court. The proposal is that a representative he nominated by the Town Council. It is probable that the Town Council would take pains to find one who would be of assistance to the Court. Remembering how closely the Universities of Scotland are connected with popular education, I think it would be safe, on the whole, that we should have a representative nominated in the way suggested.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a great deal of force in what the Lord Advocate said regarding the position of public officials—such as the Lord Provosts of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen. He is right in saying that such persons are generally men of business capacity, and of important position in the localities. But let us recognise what we are doing in this matter. We are practically constituting St. Andrews a University for Dundee also. In Dundee we have one of the four largest town in Scotland, and therefore we have a Lord Provost ready to hand, and analagous to the Lord Provosts of Glasgow, Aberdeen, or Edinburgh. We might get rid of the difficulty by having two representatives of the municipalities on each of the University Courts. Under that arrangement, while it would be better that in the case of St. Andrews the Town Council of that town should be represented by an Assessor rather than by the Provost, the Lord Provost of Dundee might be the second municipal representative for the University of St. Andrews.
MR. CALDWELL: I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I approve of the Amendment, on the ground that the principle of representation extended to Glasgow and Aberdeen should

765
be given to St. Andrews, with the difference in the latter case that an assessor should be chosen to give strength and dignity to the University.
MR. CRAIG SELLAR: It appears to me that the only objection to the Amendment is the danger of unduly increasing the number of the Court. If that danger be overcome I do not see why the lay element should not be represented in the case of St. Andrews as in the case of the other Universities.
MR. BRYCE: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, I would remind him that there are Amendments on the Paper by which it is proposed to make the Courts smaller by reducing the number of representatives of the Senatus Academicus and of the General Court.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would point out that St. Andrews will, even if the Amendment is accepted, be placed in an exceptional position, because it is impossible to put a representative of the St. Andrews Town Council on the governing body without having a representative of Dundee as well. This means that, as compared with Aberdeen and Glasgow, it is proposed to give St. Andrews two lay members as against one in the case of the other towns. The Government, though not averse to adding the lay element where it can be added conveniently, are averse to putting two members on this governing body, especially when it is recollected that though St. Andrews University is connected with the town, it is not connected in the same close way as are the Universities of Glasgow or Aberdeen with those towns.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I hope the Government will pause before pressing this matter to a Division. It will be an unfortunate omen for the future proceedings of the Bill. The Scotch Members, save the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, are unanimous in supporting the proposal in the Amendment. If the Lord Advocate is going to conduct the Bill in this spirit we have a miserable prospect before us.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 68.—(Div. List, No. 155.)
MR. HUNTER: I beg to move, in line 31, to insert the Amendment standing in my name. I hope that the Government, having told us, with
766
regard to the last Amendment, that it was too small, will not object to mine on the ground that it is too large. I will discuss this proposition in respect of the Town Council of Dundee. All the members who are suggested as members of the Court form a united whole, and the arguments which support a separate and particular proposition like this necessarily relate to wider topics; and I hope that without violation of the rules of order I may be able on this Motion to indicate the grounds on which I think that, at all events as regards Dundee, the Government should give way. The selection of the persons to form the University Court should very much depend on the work the Court has to do, and the relation of that work to the Senatus Academicus. The powers of the University Court under the Bill will be mainly these—it will be a Court of Appeal for the Senatus Academicus, and to it will be entrusted the appointment of the examiners who are not appointed in any sense hostile to the professors, but who are appointed because it is considered that the professorial examination alone is not sufficient to create public confidence, and, therefore, the examiners are in a sense appointed for the purpose of watching these examinations as representing the public. And I find also that there is ascribed to the University Court the power of granting recognition to individual teachers for the purpose of graduation. So that we find, in respect to these three great powers, the position of the University Court is this—that it is absolutely essential if the Court is to be anything real and valuable in the administration of the University, that it shostld be entirely independent of the profeusorial element. There can be no tasks more difficult or more invidious for the University Court to perform than that in regard to extra-mural teachers. It was a duty which puts them at once in conflict with the interests of the professors. So also as to the appellate power of the Court. It is a mockery to appeal from Philip to Philip, which will be the case if you appeal from a body purely consisting of professors to a body substantially governed in its decisions by the professorial element. Therefore, I think that in order to have a really efficient University Court it is

767
essential that a larger number of members of the Court than is proposed should be altogether outside academical intrigue and professorial manipulation. I attach no value, comparatively speaking, to a University Court in which the professors are able, directly or indirectly, to carry whatever they please. That is to defeat the primary purpose of the University Court. Now, Sir, as the Bill stands, to any one who is at all acquainted with the practical working of the existing system it is perfectly obvious that the assessors are so selected as practically to put the University Court under the control of the professors. On paper, no doubt, the professors have not a numerical majority; but some of the members of the Court may be relied on to be occasionally absent, and the effective power of the majority is to be estimated not by the number which you can show on paper, but by the numbers you can actually bring to a division. Those absent from the Court are, to all intents and purposes, non-existent. Therefore, in looking through the list we should not have regard to those who are named as members of the Court, but to those who in practice actually attend it. The University Court of Aberdeen at the present moment consists of six members, and frequently it has happened that the principal of the University and his brother-in-law have formed the majority in a Court of four, the principal having a casting vote. Thus the principal and his alter ego have on many occasions practically formed the Court in the University of Aberdeen. It is true that, so far as this alter ego is concerned, the graduates on a recent occasion took the opportunity of making a change. But that is what we shall be liable to under the Bill as framed; and if you look at the University Court merely from the point of view of academic efficiency, the Lord Advocate will find that a Court which is to be a Court of Appeal, and to exercise functions of a delicate character, frequently hostile to the interests of the professors, cannot be controlled by the professorial element, but must have predominant on it a wider interest than that of the professors. The Bill, as drawn, practically takes no account of the public at all. In the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen one person only who may be
768
said to represent the public of Scotland is nominated for the University Court; but the constitution of this Court is characterized by an entire absence of any persons who could be said to represent the general public. Now, I consider that that is a very unfortunate state of things. In the first place, I consider it is bad for the University. It is bad for the University, because when you have got a small close Corporation running in a certain Conservative groove without any impulse from the public outside, it is difficult to obtain anything like reform in the somewhat stagnant waters of the interior. But the University loses a great deal more than that. It loses in popular interest. In spite of a great deal that has been said here, I am confidently of opinion that the people of Scotland take excessively little interest in the Universities. This Bill, which has been described as one for which the people of Scotland would die, has been before the House two years, and I have never received a single letter, or direction, or suggestion, or hint from any one of my constituents in reference to it. Whether it was that they considered that my opinions were so sound that it was unnecessary to fortify them, or whatever may be the reason, I do not know, but at any rate it does not indicate very lively interest in the Universities Bill. The reason so little interest is taken in the Bill in Scotland is, that the Universities have become divorced from the life of the people. They have got out of the running. They have got into an antiquated groove, and it is most important in the interests of the Universities themselves that they should be brought into living contact with the people of Scotland. Now that would benefit the Universities in two ways. In the first place, I think it would benefit them in a pecuniary sense. If you have representatives of the great public bodies members of the Courts they would receive an education in respect of the wants of the Universities; they would receive an education in respect of the work done by the Universities; and as most of these persons will almost inevitably be persons of some position and wealth, I cannot doubt that the effect of introducing such representatives as I propose in this Amendment will be to awaken an interest that at present does

769
not exist in University work, and to create an appreciation of the work done and a keener criticism of the work not done. I believe, therefore, so far as the Universities are concerned, it would be of the greatest possible advantage to get outsiders introduced into the administration. I am the more emboldened to make the proposition from this fact—that the elections of the rectors and the appointment of their assessors have been the most successful features of the work of the Universities. I joined the University of Aberdeen in the year the new system was introduced, and I have followed very closely what has been done in the matter of the composition of the University Courts. Strange as it may appear, I will venture to say that the element which has been introduced by the students in Aberdeen has been by far the most beneficial. I feel sure, therefore, that the effect of introducing public bodies, such as the Town Council of Dundee, will be on the one hand to promote the benefit of the University, to increase the efficiency of the Court, and, at the same time, to awaken what is very much needed—an interest in the welfare of the University amongst Scotchmen. On the question of the interest Scotchmen take in the University, I think there is no better test than the amount of money contributed. We find in the North of Scotland that it is hopeless to ask people to subscribe to the University. They will not do so unless they see that the money is to be applied in a satisfactory manner. There are many arguments which I must advance in support of the proposition of giving a large share in the University Court to public bodies; but I think I need hardly trouble the Committee with further observations of this kind. I beg to move the Amendment on the Paper.
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member was as follows:—Clause 5, page 2, line 31, after subsection (b.)to insert—
"(c.) An assessor nominated by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Dundee; (d.) An assessor nominated by the county council of Fife; (e.) An assessor nominated by the county council of Forfar; (f.) An assessor nominated by the county councils of Clackmannan and Kinross; (g.) An assessor nominated by the county council of Kincardine; (h.) An assessor elected by the General
770
Council; (i.) An assessor elected by the Senatus Academicus."
THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Amendment contains a number of distinct propositions, which will have to be put and dealt with separately.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: It is true that the Amendment involves a number of propositions, but I had no intention of treating them as one Amendment; it is a mere matter of the way in which they have been printed. My remarks now are intended to apply to the case of Dundee, and my object is to prevent the professional element being too largely represented. If the Court be looked at from the point of view of efficiency it ought not to be controlled by professional influence, as it has often to act contrary to professional interests. The constitution of the Court is characterized by an entire absence of anybody who can be said to represent the public interests.
THE CHAIRMAN: I shall put the first part of the Amendment marked (c).
Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
"(c.) An assessor nominated by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Co until of Dundee."—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is quite plain that there is one main principle involved in all these Amendments, and that is the introduction of the municipal element. In my opinion it is manifest that we should be wasting time if we were to discuss them in detail; and with regard to the Amendment now before the Committee I can hardly suppose that it is intended to give exclusive representation to the municipality of Dundee when it has been denied in the case of St. Andrews. I am, therefore, under the necessity of resisting a proposal which would give an invidious preference to a town which is not yet associated with a University.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: For my part, I should prefer that the Lord Provost should himself be a member of the University Court; but I think it most desirable that there should be some representation of the lay feeling of the locality, especially in the case of one of the largest towns in

771
Scotland, and one of the four great cities of that country. If any town is deserving of representation it is Dundee.
MR. BARCLAY: The question is whether there is to be popular representation in the University of St. Andrew's, and I hope the Scotch representative generally will not be led to vote against this Amendment in consequence of what has been said by the Lord Advocate. The real question to be decided on this Amendment is whether the public are to be represented in the University Court? It seems remarkable that various bodies not specially interested in the University should have special representation, and that those whose sons are sent there, and who are therefore specially interested in that institution, should have no representation at all. The professors have at least six votes out of the 16, and this preponderance will enable them to resist public opinion in the future as in the past. That probably is the reason why the Universities do not occupy in the public mind the position they held some years ago. I speak more particularly with regard to the north of Scotland. At one time the Universities did provide an education such as would enable men to make their way in the world, but there has since been a great change in this respect, and it is now generally recognized that they do not provide the kind of education which at the present day is necessary for that purpose. If education were really felt to be of the importance it ought to be, and the students found in the Universities the best education they could have to fit them for the battle of life, the people of Scotland would be ready and willing to make sacrifices to provide that education, I would make an appeal to the Leader of the House in this matter to accede to the wishes of the Scotch Representatives in this matter. Ample provision is made for the representation of the graduates, and for my part I fail to see on what ground they are entitled to the representation they get, except so far as their opinions are of value on general questions of education. I also fail to see any valid or sufficient reason for rejecting the proposal now before the Committee, and believe that it would prove of great advantage, particularly in the case of Dundee. I should not desire to tie the Government to any special form of
772
representation, but I do think there ought to be reasonable and adequate representation of the public in the Universities.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am greatly disappointed at the action taken by the Government in this matter and surprised at the argument used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Dundee is the third great city in Scotland, and is certainly entitled to some consideration from the Government. I do not know whether the Lord Rector of St. Andrew's knows the local circumstances sufficiently well to be aware of the fact that Dundee does now and always has supplied the largest group of students to the University. The opening of Dundee College, I believe, has not altered that fact in any degree whatever. I venture to say that Dundee contributes as large a proportion of students to St. Andrew's as Glasgow. But the Lord Advocate scouts the notion of the representation of Dundee on the University Court of St. Andrew's because he says Dundee is not a University city at all. You only propose to make it a University city by this Bill. The University College of Dundee is already admitted to a place in the University Court of St. Andrew's, and I therefore hold that it is illogical to say that because Dundee is not yet a University town it is not to have a representative, yet that the University College of Dundee is to have a representative. I support the appeal to the Leader of the House, whose unfailing courtesy the Scotch Members would be the last not to recognize. He knows the situation in which the Committee is placed. He knows the disastrous division which has just taken place, a division in which took part the entire force of Scotch opinion on the one side, and only the official opinion of the Government on the other, backed by the silent votes of the English Members. Not only that, but three or four of the most stalwart and indefatigable and most unfailing supporters of the right hon. gentleman joined their voices to ours in this case. Let the right hon. gentleman trust to his own sound sense, let him do-that which in his heart he wishes to do, and give effect to that which is no destructive movement on our part; let him give bold way to his authority, and let this Amendment be carried without a

773
division, and do not let him drag his followers into such a disastrous and pitiful victory as that which the Lord Advocate headed on the last occasion.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I desire that it should be universally known that the Scotch Members join in that appeal to the Government on this point. One of the main advantages of this Bill is that it will bring the large and prosperous city of Dundee into sympathy with the University of St. Andrew's. The Government having said that the Lord Provost of Glasgow shall form part of the constitution of the University, and having done the same with regard to Edinburgh and Aberdeen, I think there is no argument which can be advanced against the prosperous and growing city of Dundee being represented on, and brought into sympathy with the University of St. Andrew's. Why, when no principle is involved, and when the same thing has been conceded to Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen, should not the University of St. Andrew's be brought into sympathetic relations to the prosperous city of Dundee by giving its Chief Magistrate or some one else a seat in the University Court? If this is not conceded, I am sure it would be taken as an indication that the Government are determined to resist the popular feeling in regard to the Universities of Scotland. There is no jealousy in the matter. The people all over Scotland concede the principle, and I would appeal to those who have charge of the Bill also to make the concession. I hope the appeal will not be in vain, and that Dundee will not be left in this exceptional and peculiar position, which, I believe, would operate greatly against the interests of the University of St Andrew's.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I do not think we ought to approach this Amendment in a controversial spirit. The University of St. Andrew's is placed by the Bill in a position peculiar and different from the rest. In the case of the other three Universities, the Chief Magistrate of the town in which each is situated is made a member of the University Court. In the case of St. Andrew's it is not proposed that that shall be so. The Committee have decided, by a small majority, that the Chief Magistrate should not be a member of the University Court. There are
774
certain reasons in favour of such representation which apply to the other large towns which do not apply to St. Andrew's. St. Andrew's is not nearly so large nor so important a municipality, and it is impossible to say that the same proportion of students is drawn from St. Andrew's that is drawn from the other large towns. In that case, it would be natural to look to Dundee, a near neighbour and a feeder of the University, and very suitable to be put in the same position as one of the great towns of Scotland. There is only one objection which requires serious consideration, that the Bill itself creates special relations between the University College of Dundee and the ancient University of St. Andrew's, and if the effect of this Amendment were to duplicate the influence of the University College of Dundee, and to give it an unfair representation, I do not think it would be a reasonable Amendment. Although the ease is not without difficulty, I am bound to say my opinion leans to the opposite direction. I do not think that by making the Chief Magistrate of Dundee a member of the University Court you would increase the influence of the University College, and on the other hand it would be of great consequence to the University that the municipality of Dundee should be interested in its welfare. But I think this Amendment would have to be followed by consequential Amendments, reducing the number of the Court and dealing with the question of the representation of country districts. It would probably strengthen the Court of the University of St. Andrew's if the Convener of the County Council of Fife, who would be popularly elected, were a member of the Court also. In voting for this Amendment, I do so with the desire that we should make the Convener of the County Council of Fife a member of the Court, and that we should reduce the number of the Court considerably.
MR. CRAIG SELLAR: The question is rather one of whether we are to have a municipal assessor at St. Andrew's or not. That question was very fairly raised, stated, and discussed on the last Amendment, and a majority of the Committee decided against appointing this assessor to the St. Andrew's University, to be elected

775
by the Town Council of St. Andrew's. The Committee having done that, though I regret the decision I cannot see my way to supporting the Amendment, and I shall vote against the Amendment.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think my hon. Friend behind me throws up the game very easily. On the contrary, it seems to me that the Government have now a very good opportunity of re-considering their position of an hour and a half ago. It is quite true that every Scotch Member, except those on the Government Bench, spoke in favour of the Amendment divided upon, but the Government could not be certain until the division took place, whether they represented the enormous preponderance of Scotch opinion. The division has taken place, and it is quite plain that Scotch opinion is entirely in favour of giving local lay assessor at the very least to the University of St. Andrew's. The Government can now, with a good grace, revise their attitude either on Report or now in Committee. It is quite evident that this is no obstructive Amendment. If the Government repudiate what is the almost universal feeling of Scotch Members, really the measure might as well not have been presented to Parliament at all. As far as the last division is concerned, this Bill is the ipse dixit of the Government; and Scotch opinion in the House has nothing whatever to do with it. On this side of the House, there is an eager disposition to get the Bill through. My own intention is to move, with as few words as possible, the Amendments which stand in my name, and if one of them if defeated by a general expression of Scotch opinion, and with the evident approval of the Committee, I shall withdraw all kindred and supplementary Amendments. I think that other hon. Members on this side of the House have a similar intention, but it will be extremely difficult to carry out that intention in face of what appears to be the resolution of the Government to ignore Scotch opinion on matters in which it ought to prevail.
DR. CLARK: I did hope that the Lord Advocate, when he appealed to Members on this side of the House to assist the Government in getting this Bill through, would have done something himself to shorten the discussion. We have done all we could
776
in that direction; we took a division on a very important question after a debate of less than five minutes, and now on this point, although Scotch opinion is almost all on one side, the Government, with the aid of a few unofficial English Members, intend to go against the Scotch opinions, and they will call to their aid other English Members who know nothing of the subject under discussion, but who will vote as the Whips dictate. If we are to be treated in this way we must meet the Government in the same fashion. I hope that even now the Government may be induced to pay some attention to Scotch opinion, and will allow the municipal element to be introduced into the University Court of St. Andrew's. Of course, if the Government intend to depend upon their purely mechanical majority and persist in ignoring Scotch opinion we cannot help it. So far as I am concerned, all I can say is that I am glad of it, because it will help forward immensely the cause of Home Rule for Scotland. Still, I will even now appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to intervene and put an end to the present state of affairs.
MR. BRYCE: With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire, I may point out that he seemed to think we were precluded from arguing strongly in favour of giving the municipality of Dundee representation in the University Court because we have not given similar representation to the borough of St. Andrew's. But the privilege was refused to St. Andrew's on the ground that the municipality was too small to justify granting it the privilege. But that argument does not apply to Dundee, which, on the score of population, has an equal right with Aberdeen and Glasgow to be represented in the University Court.
MR. FIRTH: I notice that, although the municipal element is introduced by the Bill in the case of three Universities, it is not granted to St. Andrew's. Now Scotch opinion is to-day unanimously in favour of granting it to St. Andrew's, and I think we cannot possibly have a stronger illustration of the remarkable character of Scotch legislation than is presented by the fact of the Scotch opinion being all on one side, and yet being defeated on a

777
division. Is there any reason, having regard to the strength St. Andrew's receives from Dundee, why the municipal principle which is applied in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Glasgow, should not be extended to St. Andrews? The Government are to be congratulated on having taken up the advanced position of conceding the principle of University representation in three of the Universities, and I submit that in ordinary fairness St. Andrew's should be placed on an equality with them by acceptance of this amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the Committee, on the part of the Government, that we are extremely anxious to meet their views. We frankly admit that the argument has been conducted in a fair spirit. But I wish the Committee would bear in mind the position in which we are placed. The Committee have rejected the proposal that the town of St. Andrew's should be represented on the governing board of the University. The proposal now before the Committee is that the city of Dundee should be granted that representation. But is it possible to reject the principle of municipal representation with respect to the locality in which the mother University is situated, and yet accept it in regard to the city in which one of the colleges is situated. I observe that under the Bill, as it at present stands, there is power granted to the Commission to give representatives to the number of four on the governing body in respect of the affiliated colleges, and if you carry the present Amendment the affiliated College of Dundee will not merely be represented by the four persons selected by the Commission, but it will have in addition the municipal element from Dundee, which would, if associated, be more associated with the affiliated College than with the mother University, I think the Committee will therefore see that it is in no spirit of senseless or blind opposition that we feel we cannot accept the Amendment now under discussion. But I would, on the general question, ask the Committee whether it is wise in unduly emphasizing and exaggerating the question of the local element in University Education in Scotland. I entirely admit that it is desirable wherever it is practicable to introduce the municipal element into the Government of the Universities. But
778
the Scotch Universities are not local institutions; they are institutions to which people come from all parts of Scotland, from England, from Ireland, or from the Continent, and even from America. By all means give municipal representation up to a certain point, but are you really serving the interests of popular representation in University Government by giving an undue porportion of power to the particular locality in which it happens that this great international institution is situated?
MR. CALDWELL: I am surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should have found fault with the representation of local interests, seeing that it is the Government themselves who have introduced the principle as regards the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen. Now, the population of Aberdeen is 120,000, while the populalation of Dundee is 160,000, and therefore Aberdeen has no more claim to have its municipality represented in the University Court than has Dundee, which has a considerably larger population. The principle of municipal representation is really the basis of the Government Bill, and by this Amendment we are simply asking to have that principle extended to the University of St Andrew's. It is said that the last decision arrived at by the Committee has prejudged this question, but I cannot agree with that. The objection which was raised to giving the town of St. Andrew's representation on the University Court was that it had a population of only 7,000. Now that objection cannot apply to Dundee. The only other objection which was raised in the case of St. Andrew's was that if you give that town representation you must also give representation to Dundee, and that the University of St. Andrew's would thereby have placed on its governing body a larger proportion of municipal representation than any of the other Scotch Universities. But the Committee have already decided that the town of St. Andrew's shall not have this municipal representation, and therefore the question of duality does not come in now, and we are now only asking that Dundee with its 160,000 inhabitants shall be placed on au equal footing with Aberdeen with its 120,000 inhabitants. Remember that Dundee

779
represents the East of Scotland as much as Aberdeen represents the North-East. We must also bear in mind the necessity of having regard to the future welfare of the University in bringing students to it. The Lord Advocate told us in his opening speech that the attendances of University students had more than doubled in number since the year 1868. It is quite true that if you take a period of twenty years the attendances have increased, but if you take only the period of the last two years you will find that the number is going back. Now we want to encourage attendance at the Universities. The best way to do that is, I think, to have some link between the great body of the people in particular districts and the University, and that link will be afforded by municipal representation. Now, we have to-day another illustration of the difference between English and Scotch legislation. The English Local Government Bill was hurried through the House on account of the concessions that were made from time to time, but in regard to the Scotch Bills the position is that the Scotch Members find themselves opposed to the Lord Advocate, who is by profession an advocate, and who naturally fights for every inch of his Bill, and will make no concessions whatever. It is the natural result of his training. But I think it is to be regretted that the fate of this Bill should be entirely at the mercy of one man. I am a supporter of the Government, and of their Unionist policy, but I am bound to say that there is a feeling in Scotland, not merely in the Liberal and Radical Party, but also in the Liberal Unionist party, that Scotch opinion is being far too much beaten down by the introduction into the Division Lobby of the Government majority. I think the Government will do well, in matters which really do not involve vital principles, but which are matters of detail that cannot possibly prejudice the administration of the Universities, if they will accept some Amendment which is favoured almost unanimously by Scotch Members, and I therefore appeal to them to accept this Amendment, which I intend to support.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I do not understand the anxiety of the Secretary for Ireland that the local element should not be unduly represented on the University Court. I think he need not
780
fear that there will be any undue representation, for I find that the Court is to consist of 19 members, as provided for under the Bill, and yet the Government refuse to give representation either to the town of St. Andrew or to Dundee. Now, similar proposals are to be made in regard to the counties of Fife and Forfar, and I would ask the Government to tell us at once if they intend to concede any local representation at all in the case of St. Andrew's University. Will they let us know if they intend to take their stand upon the simple ground of "no surrender?"
MR. WILLIAMSON: I hope that the Scotch Members will practically stick to the clauses of the Bill. In the case of Edinburgh University the local element is practically duplicated, and surely as this is the Government proposal, it is an argument for at least permitting the introduction of the same element into the constitution of St. Andrew's University Court. No better method of doing that can be found than that contained in this Amendment.
MR. ANSTRUTHER: I should like to correct a misapprehension which may arise from the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee. He said that Scottish opinion on this matter was unanimous. Now, during the debate on the last Amendment I urged strongly, and not without a measure of success, that the Town Council of St. Andrew's should be in a position to nominate a representative on the University Court, but as the Committee has now decided against the representation of that royal and ancient burgh, I certainly cannot vote in favour of giving it to the comparatively new city of Dundee.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: The Chief Secretary for Ireland has told us that the Scotch Universities are not local institutions, but that they are international institutions. I do not know whether he ever was in a Scotch University, but if he had been he would have known that there were no institutions so intensely local as a Scotch University. Every bursary belonging to Aberdeen Universary is the result of local subscriptions; and because we extend a liberal hospitality to students from every quarter of the world, is it to be said that the people of Scotland are to have no voice in the management of their Universities?
MR. BARCLAY: I very much regret the conclusion at which the Government have arrived, because this is a point on which the people of Scotland feel very strongly. I base my support of this Amendment on the ground that the public have a greater interest in the University than any of the bodies which you propose shall be represented. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland objected to what he called the local element. But let me point out that the representation on the University Court is purely local under the Bill. We know that the Scotch Universities have long been suffering because they have not been open to popular influence, and now that this Bill has been brought in with the object of improving matters I think the people of Scotland will have great reason to be disappointed if effect is not given to their views. I object altogether to the local character of the University Court, and I have supported the proposal that the Town Council of Dundee should be represented on the University Court for the express purpose of taking from it the local element. I do not at all understand the position taken up by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, surely he might have sunk his local interest in the ancient borough for the sake of the University itself. One reason why St. Andrew's borough need not be specially represented is that the Court consists almost entirely of professors and others living in St. Andrew's. I hope that the Government will yield on this question for the sake of making progress with the Bill. It will be the duty of the Scotch Members to express their sense of the injustice that is being done to them by pressing further the consideration of these matters.
MR. C. S. PARKER: I would join in the appeal to the Government to make this concession, the unanimity of the Scotch Members on this Amendment being nearly as great as on the last Amendment. The exception proves the rule. No one would expect my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's to give this representation to Dundee until he sees it conferred upon St. Andrew's. I think I can promise him, however, that if this concession is made to Dundee the Scotch Members will make every effort on subsequent stages of the Bill to get St. Andrew's placed in an equally
782
favourable position. The Secretary for Ireland based his arguments mainly on the ground that St. Andrew's was not to have representation. As St. Andrew's was not to have it, therefore Dundee should not have it; but there is no reason why they should not both be represented. I hope that on the early stages of this Bill the Government will consider what the position is becoming. There is no great principle at stake. They themselves are giving local representation to three out of four of the Universities, and they are refusing it to the fourth on account of local differences. Is it well to afford the spectacle of the Scotch 'Members voting in a body for an Amendment touching no great point of principle and being over-ruled by the Votes of Gentlemen who come in when the Division Bell is rung, but otherwise take no interest in Scotch. questions. I am not one of those who believe in the existence of a strong demand in Scotland for Home Rule, but I must say that if anything would create such a demand, it would be the conduct of the Government in a matter of this kind which is so eminently fit to be dealt with exclusively by Scotch Members.
MR. SINCLAIR: I hope the Government will give way, because, speaking from my experience of the University College, Liverpool, I can say that where the popular element has been introduced into the University Court, it has called forth from the public a wonderful recognition of the claims of University education. I need only say on that subject that University College, Liverpool, has received something like a quarter of a million from the citizens of Liverpool in support of that college; and I venture to say from that experience if the popular element is introduced to a large extent in the Scotch Colleges and Universities, you will find largely increased support given to them by the public.
DR. FARQUHARSON: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrew's would lead the House to suppose that the constituency he represents are opposed to the present proposal, but I think the hon. Member must have evolved that out of his inner consciousness, for I believe they would welcome this proposal and the co-operation they would obtain, if it were carried, from the young

783
and growing town of Dundee. I do not believe the Amendment would do harm, therefore I would urge upon the Government as strongly as my colleagues have done, or whatever side they happen to sit, to accept this very reasonable proposal.
SIR A. ORR-EWING: I think that, in view of the unanimous opinion expressed, the Government ought to consider the whole question on the Report, with a view to meeting both the claims of St. Andrew's and Dundee.
MR. A. ELLIOT: My opinion is that we should not divide on the question now, as we are clearly not in a position to deal with the whole question. If we did divide I should feel bound to vote with the Government, as we have rejected the claim of the municipality of St. Andrew's; but I think it would be well for the Government to deal with the matter on the Report stage. I am surprised at the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Caithness and others about the purely local character of Scottish Universities. Those remarks were certainly wide of the mark. If the muncipalities are to he represented it will be hard to exclude the County Councils.
DR. CLARK: The hon. Member, who has just sat down, is altogether mistaken, as I have never made the statement he gives me credit for. I would suggest to the Government that instead of wasting an hour and a half on obstruction on the question under discussion, they should consider the question of appointing an assessor jointly for the two municipalities of St. Andrew's and Dundee.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I venture to think it is almost time the Committee came to a decision. The main thing the Government have to provide for is the efficiency of the Universities, and we are bound to see that the constitution of these Courts shall be such as will maintain the ancient reputation of the University. I will undertake that between the present time and the Report the Government will consider whether it is possible, with a due regard to efficiency, to introduce some such dual representation as is desired by the hon. Member who has just spoken.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I must say I think the Amendment before the
784
Committee is worthy of being dealt with on its own merits. I am sorry the Government have not conceded the claim of St. Andrew's. University College, Dundee, which is a well-equipped institution, presents some conditions which might bring it into antagonism with St. Andrew's. If an assessor were appointed from the Town Council of Dundee, any animus of this kind would be likely to be diminished. I hope that the Committee will now divide on the question.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 127.—(Division List, No. 156.)
MR. W. A. HUNTER: The next Amendment on the Paper is so like that which has just been disposed of, that it is hardly necessary to trouble the Committee by repeating any of the arguments already used. I will, however, point out with respect to the County Councils, that it seems to me that they furnish the very constituency which Scotchmen have been looking for to supply the University Court with the element in which it is most painfully wanting. Prior to the Local Government Bill, it would have been extremely difficult to suggest any form of constituency, which would at once fairly represent the public interest in the University, and at the same time insure general confidence; and I do not think the Government before the divisions we have just taken, could have been aware of the strong feeling on this matter existing amongst Scotchmen. On the Second Reading I stated that the Bill was framed by persons more or less associated with the professors of the Universities, but that it did not represent the public, and that the public entertain very different ideas of what is wanted in the Universities. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether he will not consent to report Progress, so as to be able to consider the position which ought to be taken up. The Government, I think, must be aware that they have recognized the claims of the public to representation, only to give them a representation totally inadequate and insufficient in amount. It is, therefore, well worthy the attention of the Government to consider the propriety of giving some representation to the County Councils. I am not wedded to my own proposal, and if the Government will themselves introduce some arrangement by which,

785
in addition to the burghs, the counties may, as they would, contribute most valuable elements to the University Court, an adjournment of the debate would be convenient to all parties. I beg to move to insert after subsection (b) "An assessor nominated by the County Council of Fife."
Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment to insert the words,—
"(d) An assessor nominated by the County Council of Fife."—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I have a suggestion to make in a single word as to this Amendment. I think my hon. Friend has very fairly explained that he is not wedded to his present proposal, although there is a good deal to be said for it. It is, however, perhaps too much to expect that the Government can concede so large a representation of the County Council on the University Court, but I would suggest they might have the Convenor of the County of Fife upon it. The Convenor will be a gentleman of very high position and he will have this advantage among others that he will be elected by a large body of electors within the county. He would be a valuable addition to the University Court, and it is a proposal to which I hardly think the Government can have any objection in principle.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said he was not wedded to the County of Fife, but I am wedded to the County of Fife. The argument adduced by the Government against previous Amendments does not certainly apply against this, the objection on the ground of size urged against the Burgh of St. Andrew's cannot be urged against the large and distinguished "Kingdom of Fife." The University of St. Andrew's is situated within the county, and draws a large proportion of its students there from, and I think it is perfectly reasonable that there should be this local representation on the University Court, and the claim of the county of Fife is above all others. If any concession is to be made I hope it may be made in this direction. Fife contains a large population, urban and rural, and I can we no argument against their repre-
786
sentation except one that would deny any outside representation at all.
SIR A. CAMPBELL: I regret that the Government have not been able to see their way to give a representative of the Municipal Authorities of St. Andrew's and Dundee. We now come to a new crop of Amendments of which I will say that it appears to me utterly inadmissible to suppose that every county in Scotland is to find representation on the Scotch Universities. If you allow that you will get together a body of men from whom it would be impossible that the work of University education would be carried on as we desire it should be carried on. I am quite sure that the opinion of the Scotch people would not be in favour of any such proposal. Certainly I shall oppose any proposal of this nature, for I am convinced that its adoption would not conduce to the educational success of the Universities.
MR. BARCLAY: I do not think the argument of the hon. Gentleman carries much weight. We are contending for the principle that there should be some sort of popular representation in the University Court, and this principle I trust the Government will see their way to accept. I am inclined to support the suggestion that we should report Progress, because I think it might conduce to an economy of time. If the Government had the opportunity of thoroughly considering this matter, they might offer us some form of popular representation that would be acceptable and that would facilitate the progress of the Bill. I do not think this particular proposal can be considered open to the objections with which we have hitherto been met. Clearly the Universities of Scotland were in the first place intended for the benefit of the people of Scotland. We are glad to see students from other parts of the world taking advantage of these institutions, but certainly they exist primarily for the people of Scotland, and the people may well claim a voice in the administration and management. Various suggestions have been made of means for providing representation of popular opinion, and I cannot say that I have heard any formidable argument against the principle. The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, does not seem to understand the character of our municipal institu-

787
tions, and is afraid to trust the administration of the Universities in any degree to the representatives of the people. He wishes the administration to continue to be of an academic character. But I could show the right hon. Gentleman by historical references that the Universities in past times were much more under popular control than is now the case. I have not the slightest doubt that a municipality or a County Council would return a representative who would be an acquisition most useful in the University Court, would be an advantage to the University, and bring the University system more into accordance with popular wishes and feelings.
MR. C. S. PARKER: I hope the suggestion to report Progress will not be entertained. I am sure it would he the cause of great dissatisfaction in Scotland if we lost even half an hour's progress with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment seemed rather to favour the proposal to report Progress, for this reason. He frankly admitted that his proposal was the work of a single mind that he had had no consultation with his colleagues on the subject, and that further consideration might induce him to modify his views. I would suggest as an alternative to reporting progress that as the expression of Scotch opinion might induce the Government on reflection to make a concession, we should accept the Government assurance that they will consider the matter with a view to Amendment on Report stage, the Committee passing over the rest of the clause without Amendment now, and the Lord Advocate taking an opportunity of consultation with Scotch Members with a view to its future modification.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The question at present before the Committee relates to the proposal that an assessor shall be nominated by the County Council of Fife, and, to a certain extent, this question has been mixed up with the question of the local representation of the district within which the University of St. Andrew's is situated. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has undertaken that the question of the representation of the University seat, so to speak, shall be considered before Report; but the question involved in the
788
present Amendment raises a much more general one. It is a most delicate and anxious question to determine how far there should be in an academical body a represention of what may be called the popular political interest, unconnected with the responsibility of academical government. Our primary duty is to make sure that the University Court which has the responsible Government of the University should be specially qualified for that function. It is therefore right to say that, having carefully considered this subject the Government do not think that the University Court should be recruited by any such general representations of municipalities as is suggested by the pages of Amendments before the Committee. Accordingly, the proposal is one which the Government cannot entertain. It has been one of the characteristics of the Scottish Universities that there has been an admixture of the municipal element in the large towns, Edinburgh for instance. The Government propose to continue that representation, and the great City magnates at Glasgow and Aberdeen will sit in the University Court, but we do not propose to do anything to lessen the responsibility attaching to the administration of a University, which should pay due regard, not to external politics or influences, but merely to the promotion of education. The wide proposal thrown out that representatives of Town, Councils and of County Councils should sit by right in the Court of the University is one that leaves out of sight the primary object we ought to have in, view. I ask hon. Gentleman seriously do they consider that by the method of selection proposed the community would send to the Court a representative specially qualified for the work the Court will have to discharge? The expression used by the hon. Member for Forfar was significant: he assumed that we desired that the administration should be conducted in an academic manner. Certainly I adopt the phrase, and do say Universities should be managed in an academic (which is another name for University) manner.
MR. BARCLAY: What I intended to say was that the First Lord did not seem to believe that the municipal bodies or the County Councils would elect a man who could be trusted with academia administration.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think my right hon. Friend said anything at all like that, and that point has not been raised in the present discussion. No doubt they could find men apt and suitable for County Councillors, who would manage University affairs very well, but the question is whether a man popularly elected to the County Council would not find himself in an altogether alien region in the University Court.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: The speech we have just listened to is in every way more amazing even than the speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier in the debate. To show the utter misconception under which the right hon. and learned Gentleman labours, he talks of the position of the University Court as being an alien region, and an assessor appointed by the County Council of Forfar or any other county.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No. I said an alien region of the County Councillor.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: But the proposal is to appoint an assessor; it is not proposed to transport the County Councillors into an alien region. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have got into confusion as to the functions of the Senatus, which are, strictly speaking, academical, and the functions of the University Courts, which are not academical at all. The principal functions of the University Courts as described in the Bill are "to administer and manage the whole revenue and property of the University, and the college or colleges thereof"; to appoint factors or collectors, to grant leases, and draw rents. Can these functions be described as partaking of an academical nature, or as those which a business man could not discharge as well as or better than a member of the University? It appears to me these functions rather present an alien region to the academically qualified member of the Court. Let me point to another of the duties of the University Court, the appointment of professors. I am not at all sure that the duty of appointing professors is best discharged by a strictly academic body. We know in English Universities the professorial appointments are in the hands of a professorial ring, and this is very apt to be the case when the appointments are left
790
to an academic body entirely. There are many non-academic functions that could be best discharged by representatives such as we suggest as holding a neutral position. But I rose more especially to call attention to the situation in which we find ourselves in reference to the state of this Bill. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) made a suggestion—I do not know that it was a very felicitous one—that St. Andrew's and Dundee should for representation on the University Court be combined in one constituency; it was not a felicitous suggestion; but it drew from the First Lord of the Treasury a promise that some consideration should be given to the claim for more popular representation. I suppose we may take it from the Lord Advocate, though he was not very precise on the point, that similar consideration shall be given to County representation?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I said nothing of the kind.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was not very precise.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: But I was.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I can only speak of the impression made upon Members sitting on this side, and it might be taken as logically following the promise of the First Lord in reference to St. Andrew's and Dundee that similar consideration should be given to the question of the representation of Fife, Forfar and other counties. We are now told the Government do not intend to do anything of the kind. I think in regard to this Bill, the Scotch Members are not treated with fairness. I cannot help recognizing the fact that two officials, Law Officers of the Crown, sit there face to face with us, they represent a miserable minority of the Scottish people, yet they refuse to yield one inch to the repeated representations we as representing the great majority of the Scotch nation make. I feel this so strongly that I will give practical effect to the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend, and move that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson).
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I believe we are all at one in our wish to improve the organization and usefulness of the Universities; and the way to do it is to make progress with this Bill. The principal impediment to its progress has been the attitude of the Government in declining to give any sort of promise to consider favourably Amendments that have been urged and supported by the majority of Scotch Members. The general opinion of those Members, of those who support as well as those who oppose the Government in general politics, is in favour of some more extended system of local lay control in University matters. We have heard a great deal about academic control and academic methods, but I do not bow down and worship before the academic system of management, and I think the majority of people in Scotland are somewhat distrustful of arrangements left mainly in the hands of academical persons, as I suppose we must call them. As I look down the list of those who are to constitute the University Court, I am bound to admit that eminent persons, as they are they are not likely to command the full confidence of the community interested in the welfare and prosperity of the Universities. Two proposals have been made for the representation of St. Andrew's and Dundee City, and now we have a proposal for the representation of the County Council of Fife. I do not wish to go into the merits of that question on a motion to report Progress, but I may say that although at first sight I was captivated with the idea of representation of the County Council, yet I saw that the proposal was open to two objections on the face of it—first, that it would make the governing body much too large if every county returned an assessor; and, secondly, I cannot allow that the County Council represent all the active intelligence of the county. I can speak of Fife particularly; part of it I have the honour to represent, and I maintain that the Burghs are as much deserving of a voice in this matter as the County. I do not think, therefore, that we ought to insist on this Amendment; and I understand it is not the intention of my hon. and learned Friend to do so. What we want is an explicit undertaking that between now and the next
792
meeting of Committee, not only will the Government take into consideration the question of Local Representation, but that they will do so with a distinct desire to meet our wishes. That is an important difference from a vague and general undertaking. We do not merely ask that they should consider it in what I may call an "academic" manner, but with the actual desire to devise some means of carrying out that which they find to be the general wish of Scotch Members. If that promise were made more explicit in this sense I should be disposed to hope my hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion.
Mr. W. H. SMITH: I have listened with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. He has very fairly stated that he does not agree with the proposal of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Hunter), and he has pointed out the grave objection there is to admitting, other counties under the Amendments hon. Member desires to introduce. Then he makes an appeal to me that I should adjourn the discussion. There is nothing the Government desire more than to meet the reasonable wishes of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The desire of the Government is to present a measure to the House and the country which shall benefit the Universities of Scotland and the people of Scotland generally. We must, however, adhere generally to the provisions which we believe to be necessary for the efficiency of the Universities. I have already indicated that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to consider whether they can by any means consistently with the general lines on which this Bill is framed give local representation, and such as will not interfere with the efficiency of the institutions we are dealing with. We do not believe that that efficiency will be improved by a representation to the extent proposed in the Amendment on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman opposite does not himself believe it will be improved by it, and objects to the length to which the proposal is carried. All I can say is, that we desire to improve the Bill, and that we will consider, in the terms of the undertaking I have given, if we can do so with due regard to the efficiency of the University. I, however, hold out no promise whatever to

793
extend the representation to such a degree as to impair the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to point out to the Committee that the Motion is to report Progress.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I hope that before the Report stage the Leader of the House will consider in what way the local element may be introduced without affecting the proper academic supervision of the Universities. Under the circumstanses we can probably allow the Bill to be proceeded with, especially as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Amendment respecting County Councils has, I believe, no intention of proceeding with them on this occasion.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will consider the representation of the territorial element—the element of the county or counties circumjacent to the University—as well as that of the towns? If he will do that I think we may fairly put ourselves into his hands, but if he takes up the position of Lord Advocate who, in a speech worthy of an old monk, or an old schoolman, defending his institution from the inroads of outer barbarians, tells us he will on no account interfere with the management of the institution by academic people, I think the Motion had better be pressed to a Division.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: I hope that, after what has occurred, the Motion to report Progress will be withdrawn. I intend to take a division on the principle of my Amendment, and then, if the Government, having heard the opinions of the Scotch Members, will be made aware that if they do not discover some means of giving an effective voice in the University Court to the public, they will probably have a renewal of the struggle on the Report stage.
Question put and negatived.
MR. W. A. HUNTER: I should not have troubled the Committee again if the Lord Advocate had not rather misrepresented the position in which we now stand. The only question raised by this Amendment is whether any representation whatever is to be given to the counties in Scotland. As to what form and what extent that representa-
794
tion should be given, I should be glad to leave that entirely to the Government. I thought it was only fair to the Government that I should put down a general scheme in order to shadow forth the views which I think might be properly carried out. But I desire the Committee to remember that the only question in this Amend-is whether any representation is to be given to the counties. The form of the Amendment is that the County Council should elect a representative. Under ordinary circumstances the Convener would be elected, but it might suit the convenience of the Convener that somebody else should be appointed for this special purpose. That is, however, entirely a matter of detail.
MR. HALDANE: There is one point to which I wish to draw attention. In the cases of the Universities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, you have large cities surrounding them, and the result is that the General Council has a considerable civic element infused into it. In the case of the University of St. Andrew's the facts are different, and the very people who constitute the Senatus in point of fact control the General Council. Under the circumstances I shall feel bound to support the Amendment, although I do not think it by any means a perfect one.
Original Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 162.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
MR. BARCLAY: The next Amendment on the Paper relates to my own constituency, and in order to give the Government time to consider the question of popular representation I beg to move, Sir, that you now report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Barclay.)
MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not wish to oppose the Motion if persisted in, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have not shown any indisposition to consider the question raised in the Committee.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have no desire to hinder in any way the progress of the Bill, and if anything

795
could be gained by going on for five minutes I should be glad of it, but as it is now five minutes to twelve I do not see that there is much advantage in going on.
DR. CAMERON: I am certain that business will be facilitated if the Government will be guided by the opinion of the Scotch Members in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will look at the Division List published to-morrow morning, I am certain we shall get along very much better by reporting Progress than by going. on wrangling to-night.
MR. BARCLAY: I do not think I can be accused of obstruction, but as the Government have disregarded the opinions of the Scotch Members, I must persist in my Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the Government do not intend to carry through the Scotch Local Government Bills this year. A good deal of countenance has been lent to the report by the fact that they have put an unimportant Bill like the Private Bill (Procedure) Scotland Bill in priority to the Local Government Bills.
The Question was not answered.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

BUILDING SOCIETIES.
Return ordered—"Of an Abstract of the Accounts furnished by Building Societies incorporated to the 31st day of December 1888, including Great Britain and Ireland, under the Building Societies Acts, in pursuance of the Act 37 and 38 Vict., c. 42, s. 40, under the following heads:—
Register Number.
Year when Incorporated.
Name of Society, and Chief Office or Place of Meeting.
Year of the Society's Existence.
Date to which Accounts are made up.
Number of Members (where stated).
Total Receipts during the last Financial Year.

To the Holders of Shares.

Liabilities

To Depositors and other Creditors.

Balance of Unappropriated Profit.

Balance Deficit (if any).

Balance due on Mortgage Securities (not including prospective Interests).

Assets.

Amount Invested in other Securities, and Cash.

(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 260, of Session 1888.")—(Sir Robert Fowler.)

POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACT (ORKNEY).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Contract dated the 27th of March, 1889, for the conveyance of Mails between Scrabster, Scapa Pier, and Stromness, be approved"—(Mr. Jackson.)
DR. CAMERON: One of the contracts which came before the House some time ago was so varied after it was approved by the House, that the contract as approved was rendered absolutely null and void. I should like to have an assurance that if this contract be approved by the House, the Treasury will not alter its most specific and important provisions.
MR. JACKSON: I have no hesitation in giving the House the undertaking and assurance asked for; but I am not prepared to admit that the contract the hon. Gentleman has referred to was varied in any important particular. I assure the House I have just as strong a desire to adhere to the strict terms of our contracts as any hon. Member, and I have endeavoured to meet the views of the hon. Member by laying on the Table a Treasury, minute in which it is distinctly laid down that there shall be no variation of any contract, as to which there shall not be laid before the House full information.
Question put and agreed to.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. [LORDS.] (No. 284.)
Read a second time, and committed for Tuesday, 2nd July.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL. [LORDS.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 1st July, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]
House adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

DELAGOA BAY.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, I desire to ask a question of the Prime Minister which was on the Paper yesterday, and refers to a matter of great importance. It is an International question, and largely involves the interests of British subjects. I desire to ask whether there is any objection to any Papers that may exist on the subject of the dispute between the Delagoa Bay Railroad and the Portuguese Government being placed on the Table, and to urge Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary steps to prevent any precipitate action being taken by the Portuguese Government which may in any way imperil the large British interests concerned at Delagoa Bay, or cause damage or injury to British property within the territory of Lorinco Marques.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): With respect to the first part of the noble Lord's question he will see that, as the matter is still the subject of communication between this Government and that of Portugal, the time has hardly arrived when we can properly lay Papers on the Table. Of course, we shall be happy to produce them when these communications are at an end. With respect to the subject-matter of dispute I cannot speak very fully, for the same reason; but I may say that we have made very earnest representations to the Portuguese Government to urge
  646
  them to take no hasty steps, but to give time enough for negotiation in order to settle this considerable difficulty. We are advised that the Portuguese Government would not be within its right to refuse arbitration. Beyond these two statements I do not think it is at present desirable that we should go.

LAND TRANSFER BILL (No. 8).

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I am afraid I must trouble your Lordships with a few observations, as I find that it is encountered by a somewhat unexpected opposition. The question of cheap land transfer is not a new one, either in this House or in the country. This is now the fourth year in which a Bill on this subject has been announced in the gracious Speech from the Throne. On the 21st of January, 1886, it was announced in the Speech from the Throne that a Bill "for removing the difficulties which prevent the easy and cheap transfer of land." would be laid before Parliament, and from that time down to the present Session that assurance has been repeated. The Bill was introduced in 1886, but the change of Government prevented the measure from being proceeded with. On the 31st of March, 1887, a Bill was introduced, which was read a second time without a Division on the following 25th of April. There were Amendments moved and Divisions taken in Committee; but ultimately, on the 12th of July, the Bill was read a third time without a Division. The Bill was re-

  647
  introduced in 1888, and was read a second time without a Division and referred to a Select Committee. I hope your Lordships will bear in mind the constitution of that Committee. Although it was a matter very deeply affecting the law of real property in this country, it was by no means composed exclusively, or even in the majority, of lawyers. That Committee sat and devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject, and I think I may appeal to every member of it, whatever their views, whether every question raised was not carefully and deliberately debated, and the objections of every noble Lord, whether layman or lawyer, considered with care and respect. Of course the Bill could not be formally re-introduced last Session; but the course which was taken was this:—The Committe reported the extent of their labours, and in the present Session another Bill was introduced and referred practically to the same Committee. One noble Lord was unable to attend it, but another noble Lord was put in his place, and the Committee proceeded to take up the work that had been performed by the previous Committee at the point where their Report closed. The Committee have now reported, and although there were one or two questions of principle upon which I do not at all deny it is perfectly fair and reasonable for those noble Lords who were overruled by the majority of the Committee to raise the same questions in the House, I must say I am a little surprised at the terms of the circular, which, I see, has been distributed, in which questions not debated, not raised even in that Committee, are made the ground upon which the very noble Lords who attended that Committee ask your Lordships to reject the Bill. Now, my Lords, in the first place I think it is absolutely necessary that your Lordships should determine whether or not there is to be a cheaper transfer of land, and, if so, if any noble Lord will suggest any mode by which that object can be accomplished, which does not in some way or other interfere with vested interests, well and good. I never joined, and I never will join, in the idle cry against solicitors for the charges that they make. They have done their duty extremely well, with great care and with great success; and if you will render
  648
  it necessary to have an investigation into the history of every piece of land for the last 40 years, which you are conveying to somebody else, and if people are trained to perform, and do perform, that work, you must pay for that work so done. The whole question is whether you cannot get rid of that enormous burden upon the transfer of land by making the transfer of land more simple, and not open to the objections which now exist, and which over and over again this House has affirmed to exist, and has affirmed the absolute necessity of doing something to remove. My Lords, the details of the Bill I will not trouble your Lordships with. They have been through the Select Committee to which I have referred. I will not speak of myself; but when I look at the names included in that Committee, I think I may say that a stronger Committee, more competent to deal with the particular question on which we are now engaged, it would be very difficult to find at any period in the history of this country. That that Bill has passed with the assent of the noble and learned Lords who sat upon that Committee, and that they, by their Report, recommended it for your Lordships' adoption is, I think, no small circumstance in its favour. Of course, it is late in the day to argue the propriety and necessity of some system by which land can be transfered cheaply and easily. It may be that the nature of the subject-matter is such that it would be an exaggeration to say that you could always do that; but, at all events, you could attempt to clear the titles and render the investigation which I have spoken of unnecessary. Now, how is that to be done? The system which has been devised under this Bill is a system which has aroused hostility on the part of some persons who, I cannot help saying, are not unnaturally affected by their own interests; it is no imputation upon them that that should be so; it is what necessarily happens to all men: but they are extremely anxious I see in some papers that the landowners should not be put to unnecessary charges, and that they should be allowed to remain as they at present are in the hands of their solicitors. An article was published in the Economist, not a paper usually devoted to such subjects, in which the writer pointed out that

  649
  "The causes of the failure of past attempts to establish a system of registration of title to land in England are not easy to define with certainty; but prominent amongst them must be placed the universal advice of solicitors throughout the country against registration of any kind and the general timidity and conservatism of landowners."
  Now, of course, if things do not require any alteration, if things ought to remain as they are, there is no necessity for this Bill at all, and the paragraph which I have quoted in the gracious Speech from the Throne ought never to have found its place in the Queen's Speech at all. But I think it is competent for us to ask those noble Lords who are about to move the rejection of the Bill, what kind of cheapening of land transfer do they propose? Wherein lies the difficulty at present? What is it that makes the transfer of land dear? Can they point to any other source than the legal expenses by which that transfer is necessarily accompanied? And, if so, and if cheapness must be in diminishing the solicitors' charges it is not too much to expect from any body of men that they will advise that which necessarily involves a loss to themselves. I have said that I think that this is no imputation upon them; it is but natural; it is idle to suppose that they will not be affected by their own interests. And then I understand the alternative is that it should be left entirely voluntary for people to register or not. Well, there has been a voluntary registration already in existence, and I should observe that each and all of the gentlemen who write on this subject regard it with a degree of satisfaction—which, no doubt, they are entitled to enjoy—that the efforts of the noble and learned Earl near me (Earl Selborne), and the efforts of the late Lord Cairns and the late Lord Hatherley and the late Lord Westbury, have all been in vain. I do not know what the consequence to be derived from that is. Are we to allow the very things which have operated as grievances still to exist? Are we not to apply some form of compulsion in order to induce all the great landowners in the country to join in this great operation? Now, my Lords, I cannot help thinking that one very valuable piece of evidence has been supplied by the document which has been issued by the Law Institution. I am not certain
  650
  that they intended it in the direction in which I am about to use it; but by way of showing how important it was that registration should be allowed to remain perfectly voluntary they point to the fact that from inquiries they have made throughout the country, if you exempt properties under £300 a year in value it would probably affect half the conveyances of property in the country. I think the effect of that is not quite that which the Law Institution intended to attach to it. Observe how the difficulty of the transfer of land operates in that direction. I doubt whether your Lordships quite appreciate, or are in a position to appreciate, the difficulty which surrounds transfers of a small kind amongst the smaller class of people. There are a great number of noble Lords as to whom I believe it would be perfectly true to say that any purchaser would take any part of their land without any further title than the fact that it was known to form part of their estate, and they can make their own terms and insist upon the purchaser, if he is to be a purchaser, taking such title as they can give. But that is not the case with the great body of persons who want to deal with land; and the result is that you have not any one starting-point from which you can take it that such and such shall be the date after which there shall be no inquiry into title, because all these dealings with land go on perpetuating themselves year by year, and each new purchase involves a fresh investigation, and this may continue for ever. That is the one condition of things which those who desire the state of laud transfer to remain as it is must acquiesce in; because I am not aware of any other mode by which the object can be effected except some such mode as that which is described by this Bill. Now, I do not at all mean to deny that there are two questions in this Bill of a fairly debate able character. I mean the question of the law of inheritance, and the question of the Statute de donis. With reference to the Statute de donis, I can understand and appreciate the value of that Statute as it was observed at first. It may have been right or it may have been wrong; but I can understand and appreciate the policy under which that Statute was observed. But the moment the Courts invented a fiction, as

  651
  they did in 1834, to defeat that which the Statute de donis prescribed, it appears to me that you have only been creating an artificial proceeding which, by an extensive and circuitous method, may defeat what you have done. I confess myself that I do not see, and I never have been able to see, the value of the Statute de donis when once the Real Property Commission in 1834 prescribed a more certain mode of getting rid of the entail. But, my Lords, I go further. I cannot help thinking that however tenable the arguments by which such a condition was permissible and defensible in times gone by, they are quite fallacious now. You say—"We do not want great estates to be broken up." Why, your tenant for life can sell if he likes in spite of you. Subject to a very questionable exception as to the mansion house, the tenant has a right to sell, and to break up the estate in spite of any settlement, under the Settled Lands Act. It appears to rue that the whole condition of things, therefore, has been changed. With reference to the law of inheritance, I quite admit again that that is a fairly debateable question. The view which has been taken by those who have a strong objection to the alteration of the law is, I believe, not very much different from my own; but it would have very little actual operation except that it would present an example and create a principle which must be followed up. I am not aware that the practical abolition of the right of dower has led to people leaving their wives unprovided for, and I do not suppose it ever will; but that is a change which has been acquiesced in with great philosophy, perhaps, by those who are not at the moment impressed with Women's Rights. But the question which is contended for, and with a great show of plausibility, is that where you are dealing not with great estates, not with persons who are able to have solicitors as advisers, but with persons who may have small quantities of land and nevertheless die intestate, those persons do not have their property distributed in the way that they would have desired to have it if they had been persons in a different position. I have endeavoured to make some inquiry; but I am sorry to say I have failed to find out anything satisfactory as to the number of
  652
  great estates—of large landed properties—which have ever passed by inheritance upon mere intestacy. I certainly have not been able to find any frequent examples, if an example at all, of any such transaction having taken place. But what is contended for, and what is pointed to as being established, as a matter of fact, by a great number of persons, is that in the case of very small properties the land goes to the eldest son, which was certainly not what the owner of it intended, but which is a result that does happen, by reason of his not having made a will. Now, I believe that some such alteration of the law as I am now contending for is an alteration which will, in truth, secure the right of making wills and settlements, and that one of the most formidable engines against such rights is the separation of the owners of property into two classes—property owners who own personalty and property owners who own realty. I believe the united body would be if very formidable one to attack; and a every person who has Consols has in his mind that when he is trying to limit the right of the landowner to settle land as he pleases he also limits his own right to deal with Consols as be pleases, I believe the attack against the property owners would be much less formidable than it otherwise would be. But be that as it may, I quite admit that that is a fair question for debate; and the ground upon which I believe it is reasonable and proper that your Lordships should make the alteration is that it will preserve the right of disposing of property as one pleases, subject to legal restrictions, and enable people to make their wills, and to some extent force them to make their wills. Now, upon that part of the question I confess I am a little surprised that no. Amendment has been moved by the noble Lord upon the subject of preserving rights which may exist at the time of the passing of the Act in the cases of lunacy and infancy. I remember very well when the first Bill was before your Lordships the noble Lord himself pointed out, with great force and precision, that the provisions of the Bill were imperfect in that respect, and I accepted from him an Amendment which is intended to effect the object which he had in view. Further consideration induced me to suppose that it was both ill-

  653
  drawn, if I may venture to say so, and that it would not properly effect the object, and I brought up a clause, half 'of which the Committee adopted, and the other half of which I believe would have satisfied the noble Lord, and he professed his intention at the time of moving the other half of that clause in the House. Now, I confess I am a little surprised to find that that course has not been taken. I am not surprised at it as a matter of tactics at all; because I can quite understand that if by withdrawing that Amendment the noble Lord can make the Bill open to greater exception so as to unite a larger number of your Lord-ships against it, it is very good tactics; but I do not think that is a mode in which a member of the Committee at all events should have treated your Lordships. The noble Lord expressed his intention to move that in the House; and although I quite agree that on the Committee stage it was said it would not be convenient to bring it forward at that time, I do not now understand why we have not upon the 'Third Reading any such Amendment, except that the noble Lord thinks that, as a matter of tactics, it is more prudent to make the Bill open to that exception also. Now, I wish to say one word upon the subject of the expenses which I find has caused such a deep feeling of regret in the minds of solicitors. The paper from which I have already quoted has made a calculation. I believe a gentleman in the Land Transfer Office pointed out by an elaborate calculation, which I know is in possession of one of your Lordships, that this notion of an extravagant expense of registering possessory titles is a delusion. According to the Economist,
  "The cost of registering an absolute title is mot easy to gauge with accuracy, but the estimate given by the Land Registry of the cost of registration of a moderate estate, say £100,000 value, is £29 19s., and an estate has recently been registered, running into five sheets of the ordnance map and valued at £30,000, at a total cost of less than £15."
  I know no reason why we should not take those figures as fair specimens of the cost that would be involved under this Bill; and I do not think it is fair to assume, as the circular does assume, that the cost will be so extraordinary, when all the authorities who know anything about the subject tell an entirely different story. I have thought it right
  654
  to call your Lordships' attention to this condition of the argument now, because it appears to me something in the nature of a surprise in the fourth year, after the compulsion, which was one of the great objections to the Bill originally, has been in a great measure removed from the Bill, to seek to defeat the Bill which has been read before your Lordships now for four years, which has been on several occasions affirmed without division in your Lordships' House; and I cannot help thinking that such an attempt as this to reject a Bill upon its Third Reading after four years of discussion, and without any real debate upon the principle of the Bill upon the several occasions when it has been presented, will not, if it should prove successful, be altogether to the credit of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be not read until this day three months, I must first of all express my regret at finding myself in the position of opposition to Her Majesty's Government; and, in the second place, that it should have fallen to me and not to some noble Lord more learned in the law to better express what I have to state to your Lordships. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has rather complained that we should now attempt to reject this Bill. My Lords, I think that when such a general feeling of dissatisfaction exists throughout the country at the prospect of this Bill passing, it must not unnaturally have been expected that Her Majesty's Government would have withdrawn it. I can only fancy two reasons why this Bill should pass; one because there might be a general wish throughout the country for the Bill, the other that all the landowners, small and large, throughout the country wish for a Registration Act. I am convinced that no such feeling exists either in the country generally or amongst the landowners. We have already seen the working of the Land Transfer Act of 1875. It was prophesied when the Act was passed that there would be a general rush to register properties; but I am informed by lawyers and people

  655
  who ought to know that there has been no such rush, but that, on the contrary, the Act has been very nearly a dead letter. I am further informed that the Settled Estates Act of 1882 is working well and satisfactory, and that the lawyers are all getting perfectly accustomed to the working of it, and that it is doing good to the country, and they all unanimously (those that I have seen) tell me that this Bill will only cause great confusion. Now, this has been said to be a Permissive Bill; but upon looking at its clauses, I find that the Privy Council has the power of making it compulsory, and not only making it compulsory, but selecting various parts of the country in which it should be compulsory, and leaving out other parts. I cannot think that that is a satisfactory mode of legislation. I think that one of the most objectionable parts of the Bill is that in which an owner succeeding on the death of his predecessor is precluded from the enjoyment of his property until having paid the succession duty he shall also have paid the registration fees to the Court. There has been a great cry for some years now that it would be of great benefit to the country that all estates should be more divided, and that there should be more small owners of land. That has come about to a great extent, and there are a great many freeholders who own a very few acres of ground. I think it would be very hard upon those people to have to go to the expense of having plans made of their small estates and to have to come to the Registration Courts to register them. It must be remembered that landed property is in a very different state to what it was a few years ago. At that time many a speculator, many a man who, in commerce or trade, had made a fortune, was often found reducing a considerable portion of his income, and found pleasure in so doing, by investing his money in land and becoming the squire of the parish. I am sorry to say those times have passed. Investment in land now means ruinous loss; and if we are to add to that loss the other loss of going into this elaborate system of registration, we shall still further depreciate the value of land, because the whole cost of registration is to fall upon the purchaser. I am told by various
  656
  lawyers that this registration may be defeated by the old dodge or device of lease and release, and by various modes, which I need not describe to your Lordships, compliance with the Bill when it is compulsory may be defeated. There is one part of this Bill—namely, the fourth part—to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. I cannot help thinking that if it is desirable to do away with the Law of Primogeniture it should be done in a straightforward way. The present system, which goes back as far as William the Conqueror, and for anything I know beyond that, has worked well in this country, and it is one of the causes which have made this country flourishing; and I say, if you want to do away with it now, bring a proper measure forward, and let us thrush it out; but to do that by a side-wind—by a clause in a Bill which has nothing to do with the subject—is, to my mind, not worthy-of your Lordships' House. Without detaining your Lordships further I will move the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and add at the end of the Motion "this day three months."—(The Duke of Beaufort.)
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I trust your Lordships will forgive me for interposing at this moment, immediately after the noble Duke has sat down, to answer a few observations made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The noble and learned Lord seemed rather to charge those who had been parties to bringing this subject before your Lordships, and asking you to refuse to give the Bill a Third Reading, with unfair conduct towards him in that respect. It will be in the recollection of the House that the Bill was moved last year, and it passed a second Reading without a division (I think even without any discussion, but of that I am not sure) on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committtee; and, as your Lordships are aware, when an understanding of that sort is arrived at, it is not usual to raise a strong opposition to the Second Reading of a measurer but the opponents of it are disposed to wait till they see the form in which the Bill comes out of the Select Committee before raising any serious oppo-

  657
  sition to it. The Bill only partially got through the Select Committee last year. It was moved again this year, and passed a Second Reading. The fact that the opponents of the Bill allowed the Second Reading to pass this year, without a Division and without even a discussion, was simply an ordinary act of courtesy on their part, which is usual on all occasions in this House when a Bill is passing through a Select Committee. After the Bill passed through the Select Committee, a noble Friend of mine spoke to the noble and learned Lord, and pressed him not to take the Third Reading of the Bill before Whitsuntide; and the noble and learned Lord then, as I understand, agreed not to take the Third Reading of the Bill till after Whitsuntide, if the opponents of the Bill raised no opposition to it in Committee; and as we were quite satisfied with the proposal of the noble and learned Lord to raise whatever opposition we should raise to the measure on the Third Reading, we were quite ready to allow it to pass through Committee without any opposition. So far with regard to any complaint of surprise upon the subject. The noble and learned Lord knew perfectly well that the Bill would be opposed upon the Third Reading. Then, the noble and learned Lord complains that we should move the total rejection of the Bill instead of bringing forward Amendments to it. I do not know what line of argument the noble and learned Lord would adopt in this House; but certainly in the Committee, when any serious Amendment was proposed upon any clause of the Bill, we were almost invariably met with the answer that that particular clause was a necessary part of the Bill, and that if it was struck out or amended in the form proposed it would necessitate the re-commitment of the whole Bill. I have no doubt that if an Amendment had been moved at this stage to omit Part 4 we should have been told that Part 4 was a necessary part of the whole measure, and that the throwing out of Part 4, apart from the merits of the question itself, would involve the re-commitment of the whole Bill. My Lords, we are all in favour of making the transfer of land as easy and as cheap as possible. It is to our interest to do so; but the question is, Does this Bill do it? Just let me
  658
  ask the House to consider that matter. In addition to all the difficulties and all the embarrassments which attend the present mode of transfer of land, you would have the further difficulty and the further embarrassment of appearing in a Government Office to obtain the consent of the Government Office; and both the vendor and purchaser would have to wait the convenience of some Government official before the sale could be completed. At the present moment it is a mere matter between the solicitors, and if anybody is dissatisfied with his solicitor, and with the progress that is being made, he can take the business elsewhere and put it in the hands of another solicitor, who will proceed with the matter more quickly. But if this Bill passes we shall, all of us, in every transaction of the kind be entirely at the mercy of a Government official. Now as to the cost. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the cost of registration would not be very large. Well, I do not know about that. Just see with what you are going to saddle the country. You are going under this Bill to saddle the country with the cost of an Insurance fund which does not exist at the present moment—a fund to ensure against the blunders caused by the incapacity of the Registrar or the Board of Land Transfer. You are going to saddle the country—perhaps I ought rather to say the land—with an expensive staff who will acquire vested interests, and who will require compensation, whether hereafter this measure proves successful or not. In the initiatory proceeding, that is to say in the first registration of any land, you have to produce maps and descriptions very much the same as you have to produce them in the case of sales by auction. Just consider what the expense of that would be. Then, you will not get rid of your friend the solicitor after all. We should, all of us, like to reduce the solicitors' charges, but you must employ solicitors or agents. And I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the great objection that the solicitors have taken to this measure is not the reduction of charges, but the practice of allowing agents, that is to say persons not professionally qualified, to do solicitors' work. Now it does not signify to us whether we pay

  659
  an agent or whether we pay a solicitor; it is equally burdensome in either case, and if this Bill passes you still will have to employ a solicitor to make the arrangements between the parties, to make the application to the Registrar, and to investigate the Register to see what charges there may be upon the land, and so forth. Consols are, and always will be, easier and cheaper to transfer than land, yet nobody purchases or sells Consols except through a proper broker; and do not imagine that by this Act you will get rid of your solicitor. The fact is, this Bill will effect very little saving in the disposal of registered land, and it will impose upon the present generation of proprietors an enormous burden in order to register their land in the first instance. What we object to this measure are the compulsory clauses of it. Why should compulsory clauses be introduced? If this land registration scheme is likely to benefit the land, and to facilitate the transfer of land—and there are but few owners who do not wish to see the trans for of land facilitated—if this Bill would effect that, there is no reason to make it compulsory, because every landowner will rush in and take advantage of it. Just look at the compulsory part of the Bill. It is compulsory in all districts which have been proclaimed by the Privy Council. The registration of land is to be compulsory in every case of transfer by sale or by settlement, and in every case of a successor succeeding to a landed estate and r the will of a predecessor it is compulsory upon him to pay the cost soft he registration. Whether he may wish to sell or not, whether he may wish to register or not, he is at any rate to be saddled with the cost of registration. A man comes into an estate, and, in addition to Succession Duty, in addition to all the burdens that he has to bear, and the charges he has to pay at that particular moment (and he is probably fortunate indeed if he can get half a year's income out of the first twelve month's tenure of the estate), he is saddled with the charges of registration, although he may not have any wish to sell any part of the property. Then just see how it will work in the case of small proprietors. As to large proprietors the objections will not be sc great; but to small proprietors the cost
  660
  will be absolutely prohibitory of sales. It is a mistake to suppose that these sales are very expensive matters now. I have bought land myself, and the whole charge I had to pay (it was a very small property, it is true) was about £2 18s., including my solicitor's fees. Where there is a good title, easily traced, the sales can be effected at a cost, so far as the conveyance is concerned, of about £1, or a very little more. Then, my Lords, if this Bill is of very small advantage to persons desiring to sell, and of very little good in facilitating land transfer, it really will destroy to an enormous extent the present security of landed property. At the present moment the principle practically prevails of caveat emptor, and it is the business of the purchaser to see that he gets a good title to the land he is purchasing; but if this measure passes we shall all be at the mercy of the stupidity and blunders of the Registrar, or of some official at the Land Transfer Office, and there is practically very little appeal. From the decision of the Registrar there is an appeal only to the County Court in some cases, and to a single Judge, who is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, in other cases. It is perfectly possible that there may be two applicants to be entered upon the Register. The question may involve the title to a whole estate. It may be a question involving the most difficult and intricate questions of law upon which it would be necessary for the highest and ablest tribunal to pronounce. Yet there is no appeal from the decision of the Registrar except to the County Court, or to a single Judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor, whose decisions are to be final. Then not only is land unsafe by this Bill, but charges on land are also rendered unsafe. You cannot register a trust, and trusts are only protected by cautions and inhibitions. I will not take your Lordships through this part of the Bill in detail; but if you will look at it you will see how illusory even these protections are. For instance, a trustee is bound to enter a caution with regard to his trust. Your Lordships will recollect that only the life owner can be registered. The trustees who represent probably a much larger interest can only be protected by a caution. If the life owner wishes to deal with the estate the cautioner

  661
  may be called on to give security for any damage that may arise from the delay which his caution or objection may cause. That will be a direct discouragement to trustees doing their duty with regard to their trusts. But the caution itself is absolutely valueless, because notices have to be sent. The cautioner is to give an address within the United Kingdom, and if be does not put in an appearance within the prescribed time his rights and his powers are set aside. Further, there is a provision in the Bill that a purchaser for valuable consideration shall not be responsible for the omission to send any of these notices. My Lords, I have done with that part of the Bill. I now only want to say a few words with regard to the other parts. There is one clause in the Bill to which your Lordships' attention ought particularly to have been directed. The matter was raised in Committee, but with very little effect—I refer to Clause 74. At the present moment any person succeeding to an estate under a will takes possession of the landed estate on the death of the owner, the moment the breath is out of his body. By the Bill, as proposed by the noble and learned Lord, that estate—instead of going immediately to the successor—becomes vested in the executors. Now, so far as that provision affects personalty, there would be nothing to be said against it, because money standing in the funds or in railway shares, and so forth, would be in other people's hands, and practically all the executors would have to do in those cases would be to collect the money. But a landed estate is very different. The unfortunate owner may be kept out of his estate for a year at least, and possibly more. He is unable to occupy the house; he is unable to look after the estate; he is unable to exercise any of the rights or duties of ownership. It is in the hands of executors who possibly may be hostile to him, who certainly will be advised by a solicitor whose duties will be not towards the estate to be administered, but towards seeing that the executors whom he is advising incur no dangerous personal responsibility. On most estates there is always a difficult question with regard to the employment of labour, and most persons know that a certain amount of labour has to be employed on the estate which
  662
  is not commercially reproductive, but which in the interest of the estate, and everybody connected with it, it is desirable should be employed. But can the executors take that responsibility? Is it fair to let them do it; and is it fair, with respect to the owner, that they should be employing people at his expense practically without his consent, and when it is doubtful whether they have power to do so? Then, suppose that an estate is in the hands of executors for a year, and that in the course of the year one of the leases—perhaps a lease for 21 years—falls through; the owner is not in a position to renew it, and the executors, who have no interest whatever in the property, are the people who will have to decide as to the renewal or otherwise of the lease. Take another case. Suppose a tenant whose term is expiring while the executors are in control gives notice that he will only renew upon a reduction of rent, it would then be for the executors to decide whether it was a case of holding out for the old rent, and even allowing the tenant to leave, or whether a reduction should be made which might be perhaps ruinous in the result to the estate. That is one of the most important parts of this measure, and my Lords, it is one of the most dangerous. With regard to the general question of assimilating the law of succession in cases of intestacy in regard to real and personal property, if we are to have it, let us, as my noble Friend said, have it done openly, and in a proper Bill, and let it be well considered by the House and the country, and let us know what we are doing, instead of its being done by a sort of side wind—by clauses tacked on to a Land Transfer Bill. The noble and learned Lord alluded to the question of small owners. It is a very doubtful question whether the present law of intestacy is so unfair to small owners as the noble and learned Lord seems to think. What I should describe as the small owners may be divided into two classes—the artizans, who have gathered together a little money, and who have been able to purchase or build their own house, with perhaps a garden annexed to it, and the small proprietors, who own between five and 50 acres of land. As to the artizans, they are generally the most intelligent of their class, because the

  663
  most successful, and they make their wills. The small farmer makes his will much more frequently than perhaps the noble Lord supposes. I think you will find that in the great majority of those cases they do not leave their landed property, whether it is in the shape of a small farm or in the shape of a house, to be broken up and divided amongst the children. The fact is, the artisan who has built a house out of his own savings is perhaps as much attached to it, and as proud of it, as one of your Lordships may be of your own house, and he does not wish to see it sold at his death. They do not do, perhaps, what persons with larger property do: they do not leave everything to the eldest son. It is, perhaps, the youngest son who may get it, or the widow. To suppose that owners of houses of that class wish for a division amongst all the children is not at all correct, as is proved by the wills that the majority of them make. Another great objection to this measure, my Lords, is that you really have not got the whole of the measure before you. You have got the Bill; but there is matter left unsettled in this Bill for another Bill as large again. There are orders and directions which are left to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, and which may be most important to people concerned in any way in the measure. It is a measure for giving to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a registering power that I doubt whether any Lord Chancellor ever before possessed; and it places in his hands an amount of patronage in this Land Transfer Court that no Lord Chancellor has exercised probably since the original institution of that office.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is true, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that the principle of his Bill has been very frequently affirmed by the House. The subject is a difficult one, and no doubt it is not a bad thing that some time should be taken to endeavour to ensure a good scheme of this kind. But I think it would have been better, considering the nature of many of the objections which have been suggested, that some endeavour, at all events, should have been made to put forward those objections in detail at a time e hen they could conveniently have been dealt with. Now, I do not mean to detain your Lordships long. The Bill may be regarded
  664
  as consisting of two parts—not parts essentially necessary to each other, but (I think for good reasons) combined in this Bill. The first relates to the register; the second relates to some alterations in the law of property. I have a few words to say upon both. With regard to the register, the only real question is, whether it shall be made compulsory to the extent which is proposed in this Bill? I must say on that subject that I was a little surprised at the sort of objections which fell from the noble Marquess who last addressed the House. They were not what I should have expected from him. I do not think we hoard the greater number of them at all in the Select Committee. And, if I had been asked what my impression was as to what was likely to be the noble Marquess' view, I should have said that the noble Marquess would strongly object to that part of the Bill which relates to alterations in the law of property; but with regard to registration, I was not aware that the noble Marquess entertained those objections of which your Lordships have now heard.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The noble Earl will recollect that I was not on the Committee last year when that part of the Bill was under consideration.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But in the present year all the clauses were again gone through, and anyone who objected to any of them had full opportunity of bringing forward any objections he might have. What was done last year had of course to be done, in one sense, over again. No doubt it is true that those who had nothing to object to the work of last year did not renew the discussions of the previous Session; but I should have thought that those who had anything to object to would at least have given opportunity in the Committee stage for the consideration of their suggestions. I wish to illustrate the value of a certain class of the objections of the noble Marquess by one or two observations. Amongst other great burdens which were to be put upon the country by this Bill there was the Insurance Fund to be formed. I think that those of your Lordships who heard that objection and have not studied the Bill are probably not aware that the Insurance Fund is to be formed by a charge of one farthing in the £1. That

  665
  is certainly no very serious burden upon any person who purchases or succeeds to an estate, and in a case where a man succeeds to a large estate, perhaps of the value of many thousands, or even millions, he may very well console himself with the enormous surplus which remains. Then, the noble Lord spoke of the system of caveats and inhibitions as no security against improper transfers on the Register. That is a system which has formed an essential part of all the Registration Acts already passed, and it was never objected to. The answer to that objection is that it is a system which has been for many years in operation, as to the many millions of public funds, which are as constantly made the subject of settlements as is land. You do not upon the register at the Bank of England put trusts or interests of that kind. You keep a simple register showing the legal title to the stock, and anyone taking under a settlement has to enter a caveat to protect himself. No transfer can he made without notice to him, and I suppose it has happened to many of your Lordships that you have received from the Bank that class of notices, and you are told that if you do not object to what is asked you need not take notice of it. If you do, then, you go to the proper Court, and obtain an inhibition. That system has worked inexpensively and well, and has answered every purpose. In regard to the first part of the Bill, it does not seem to me that there is any real substantial question raised except the question of compulsion, and I think that without compulsion, to the extent at least whirl the Bill proposes, we might as well give up the hope of any system of registration which would be useful to the country at large. If we cannot have a system which will by degrees be brought into general operation, and which will eventually result in simplifying titles to land, facilitating its transfer, and diminishing the expenses attending it for the people at large, for the entire country, for the great and small, who want to deal with land, then there will be little value in any other registration system. In every other country, so far as I know, where there is a register of landed estates, registration is compulsory; and beyond all question, if you do not mean it
  666
  to be compulsory, you must abandon the idea of effecting that simplification which has long been thought to be of importance. There are two things in regard to the transfer of land which give some real foundation for the outcry that we do not make land accessible generally to those who might otherwise be disposed to buy it in small parcels. There is, first, the enormous expense of making out the title, and, next, there is the much less considerable expense of instruments of conveyance. Now, when you get land upon the Register, you affect both, but in different ways. So far as relates to the instruments of conveyance, unless there be a settlement or something behind which will deal with things outside the registry—if you are content simply with the ordinary transfer of land, it cannot be doubted that a transfer upon the Register such as is proposed by this Bill would be the simplest thing in the world, and would cost next to nothing. There can be no doubt that the legislation of recent years has greatly diminished the ordinary expenses of Deeds and Conveyances; but in that respect much more will be done by this Bill. The most important thing of all, however, is the operation of the system in getting rid, in the course of time, of the expense of making out titles. I do not speak of cases of absolute title or qualified title which approach to the absolute, because the Bill is not compulsory in respect to them, and really in that respect makes no alteration in the existing law. But when you register a possessory title, the only thing necessary will be to prove that you are bonâ fide in possession, and to produce the conveyance, will, or settlement, under which you claim. As time rolls on, titles that were originally possessory will, on the register, become practically absolute, and the burden and expense of making out titles in the ordinary way will diminish every year and ultimately cease. But if there is anything in the world that can be demonstrated, it is that without compulsion on the occasion of sales we cannot accomplish that object; and with compulsion I believe it may be accomplished. With respect to the part of the Bill which I strongly suspect is the part to which the noble Marquess really objects, I mean the part which makes certain changes in the law of property. I

  667
  have never been one of those who hold the very strong opinions which are often expressed as to the evils of the law of settlement; and I confess that I have not always thought that there was any necessity for altering the law of inheritance. On such subjects something is to be said on both sides, and no man need be ashamed if he changes an opinion which he at one time entertained. By the Bill, in the case of intestacy, land is to pass like personalty. With the power of making a will that will hardly affect the larger and more important estates; but it may affect the smaller estates, because they are often held by persons who do not well understand the law as to wills, and who often omit to make wills. There has been a growing feeling in favour of that change. There really is more justice in an equal division on the part of the law—because the owner is left to do what he thinks right by a will—there really is more justice when the law has to regulate the succession to land in making it equal, and in providing for all the children, than in giving the whole estate the eldest son. That is the feeling which has been growing in the country, and I think it would be wise to give effect to it by this Bill. Then as to the clause which relates to executors, the noble Marquess knows that I participate, to some extent, in his objections to it, and that I voted against it more than once in the Committee. But it is considered necessary by many lawyers, both in order to facilitate the payment of debts when recourse must be had to the real estate, and to prevent a suspense of the registered title when there is any question as to the effect of a will. My own objections to it were much mitigated by the introduction of a clause enabling the executors, when they wish to be relieved from the responsibilities connected with sand, to assent to the registration of the beneficial owner at any time, even without being registered at all themselves, and by enabling the beneficial owner to insist upon a transfer to himself in every case at the end of one year, unless good cause can be shown to the contrary. And I do not think that the rights and duties of the beneficial owner would he interrupted in the meantime, in the way that the noble Marquess supposes. The Bill provides expresssly that the personal representatives of the
  668
  deceased owner, subject to the liabilities of the property, shall hold the real estate as trustees for the persons by law beneficially entitled thereto. They cannot keep the owner out of his house or his property, as the noble Marquess appears to suppose, unless they can show that for some good reason it is necessary to do so. Therefore, although I do not mean to say that I like this clause so well as the rest of the Bill, I should be sorry if your Lordships, after all that has passed, did not now send it to "another place," where, if there are serious objections felt to it, they will no doubt be duly considered. The only other important alteration of the law in that part of the Bill is where estates tail, as we call them, are turned into estates in fee simple. I myself think that the clause will not operate to the disadvantage of the owners of landed property. There will remain all the powers which are now possessed by the owners of personal estate, of leaseholds, money in the funds, and everything else; and experience has shown that those powers are amply sufficient for all the reasonable purposes of settlements. I shall be sorry to sea the power of making reasonable settlements on those occasions on which they are naturally made taken away, as to either land or personalty; but I think it is not necessary for the good of families, or for the public advantage, that land should be tied up longer than personalty can be. There are persons who would go much further than the Bill goes in the direction of interference with the power of settlement, and I am sure that neither landed property nor its owners will gain by the maintenance of unnecessary distinctions between real and personal property. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will pass the Bill
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who last spoke altogether failed, in my opinion, to meet the objections raised to this measure by the noble Marquess. Of course, the executors cannot alienate the property or otherwise deal with it; but as a matter of fact, they can keep out of possession for a time the persons entitled to it. The noble and learned Earl gave what I must take leave to describe as a very remarkable examination of the observations of the noble Marquess with regard to expenses. The noble Marquess

  669
  contended, and I think with justice, that this Bill will entail great expenses upon the landed interest. What was the answer of the noble and learned Lord? He said the Insurance Fund is not to exceed more than a farthing in the £. Yes, but what will be the other fees? Has the noble and learned Lord ventured to from any estimate as to what the other expenses will be? If the provisions of the Bill are looked into, I do not think it will be found that the noble Marquess has taken at all an exaggerated view of the expense. We have heard estimates before now of expenses under various Bills. We were told that the Education Rate would never exceed 3d. in the £, and we know how that prophecy has failed. I decline to accept estimates so indefinite as those to which we have been treated by the noble Lord. What was the other observation that the noble and learned Lord made upon my noble Friend's speech? He told us that the system of caveat was a system in use with regard to the public funds and with regard to moneys passing every day. But your Lordships will remember that there is a very great difference between dealing with funds or railway shares and dealing with land. If you are defrauded of so much money, those who commit the fraud can be made to pay it back again; but if you are defrauded of land, very great injustice is done to you and those coming after you. The nature of land is altogether distinct from the nature of money. But, said the noble and learned Lord, the principle has been over and over again adopted by this House. Is that so? There was an occasion, in 1875, when the noble and learned Lord himself raised the question of compulsion, and your Lordships distinctly rejected it. The question was then precisely on all fours with the question raised in this Bill. Lord Cairns, in the year 1874, brought in a Bill in which he accepted the principle of compulsory registration of title in deference to the noble and learned Earl who had then preceded him; but when Lord Cairns fully examined the question, he found that the reasons against compulsory registration of title far outweighed the advantages to be gained front it, and Lord Cairns, in 1875, deliberately omitted from his Bill the principle of compulsory registration of
  670
  title to land. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Selborne) raised the question in this House, a distinct issue was taken, and a distinct verdict was arrived at. Therefore, I say, that so far as the verdict of this House has been pronounced, it has been pronounced distinctly and unequivocally against the compulsory registration of title to land. I would venture to say something now in reference to what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with regard to the course of proceeding. I am not open to the charge of not having taken exception to this Bill. Last year, on the occasion of the Second Reading, I ventured to trouble your Lordships at some length with regard to my objections to part 4, and I shall not now repeat them; but at all events, I did raise those objections, and as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says, part of them were raised before the Select Committee, and so far as regards the right of persons taking through lunatics and minors dying intestate, the Committee gave effect to the objection which I raised so far as existing settlements were affected; but when the question was raised with regard to lunatics and minors in the future, the noble Lord who had supported me up to that point informed me that as regarded the future, though he had drawn the clause, he was not himself prepared to support it. Under those circumstances, I did not see my way to pursue the subject further before the Select Committee. But, at the same time, I consider I am quite within my right in raising the question before your Lordships at the present moment. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said he had been taken by surprise. Why, it is nearly a month ago since the first notice was given in this House. The moment the Bill had passed in Committee, notice was given that objection would be taken to the whole Bill on the Third Reading. Therefore, I fail to see how the noble and learned Lord can have been taken by surprise. I will not trouble your Lordships upon part 4, but I should like to say a word or two with regard to this question of compulsory registration. It is perfectly true, I frankly admit, that when the Committee were going through that part of the Bill, I was not so conversant with the matter

  671
  as I have been compelled by circumstances to become now; and I had then more confidence in the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack than at the present moment, I am sorry to say, he enjoys. I then did not appreciate all the mischiefs that were lurking behind the question of compulsory registration, and I did not know the great authority which there was against it. The noble and learned Lord may take that admission for what it is worth. We are not all of us trained lawyers. But I wish your Lordships to consider this. The landed interest in this country does not exist for the sole purpose of affording subject-matter for a scientific system of the sale and transfer of land. The sale and transfer of estates forms but a very small part of the laws affecting land. The primary object of the land laws of this country is not that land should be bought and sold, but that a person should enjoy peaceably the land which belongs to him. The sale and transfer of land is a very small percentage of the transactions. There are questions of mortgages, there are settlements, there are charges of all sorts and kinds, and when, after all, you have succeeded in making a theoretically perfect system for the sale and transfer of land, if you attain that theoretically perfect system at the expense of great inconvenience and annoyance and delay and cost attaching to all the ordinary transactions of every-day life, you are buying very dearly, indeed, a theoretical advantage for which you get no adequate compensation. The interests of the land of this country, are of far more importance than satisfying the theories of pedants and fanatics with regard to the transfer of land. I take it that the object of the land laws of this country is the peaceable enjoyment of land, and not merely the facilitating of the transfer of land. I wish to remind your Lordships that in the year 1878·79 a very strong Committee of the House of Commons sat to inquire into the reasons why Lord Cairns' Act of 1875 had not proved popular and effective. That was a very strong Committee, which was composed of persons fully conversant with the matter and conversant with the ordinary transactions of everyday life affecting land, and it made a most valuable and im-
  672
  portant Report. Various persons gave evidence before that Committee, and amongst them was a noble Lord whom I do not see in his place (Lord Thring). Lord Thring said:—
  "The only question is whether it is the province of the Legislature to compel a man to do with his own estate what he does not wish to do."
  That was the view that Lord Thring put in his evidence before the Committee with regard to the abstract propriety of the Legislature compelling a person to do with his property that which he does not want to do. Then, again, Mr. Howard Elphinstone gave evidence before that Committee. He said:—
  "I may say as a matter of history that in England, whenever you passed an Act of Parliament to make people do something which they do not like to do they have never done it… If you tried it we should set our wits to work to evade it."
  I think, my Lords, that is the result of passing laws which are not in consonance with the real wishes of the people—that if you pass them they will evade them. I am rather surprised that after what has been said before we have now heard so little about Australia. The noble and learned Lord said just now, as I understood him, that in all other countries there was a compulsory system of registration, but I cannot endorse that observation. It is perfectly true that in Australia there is a compulsory system of registration; but it is not a compulsory system of registration of title; it is a compulsory system of registration of deeds. I will say something presently about the application of such a system to this country; but so far as Australia is concerned, it is a system which is, in its essence, a voluntary system. It is a system so consonant to the wishes of the people that the compulsion is not brought into use. There is no such thing as a compulsory system of registration of title in Australia; it is only that it has become so convenient to do it that everybody does it. But, my Lord, the circumstances of Australia are not at all to be compared with the circumstances of England. The Committee of the House of Commons to which I have referred with regard to Australia, took the evidence of Sir Robert Torrens, the author of the system, and the evidence of Sir Arthur Blyth, a person

  673
  most competent to give an opinion upon the subject, and they described the difference which existed between this country and Australia. In Australia you have a system of Crown grants, all of very recent dates; you have young titles; you have habits and customs of the people entirely different from our own. They look upon land as an article of commerce; they have not ancestral traditions or title deeds going back centuries as we have in this country, and yet, notwithstanding the difference between Australia and England, notwithstanding the advantages which the system in Australia gives to the landed interest, there the registration of title is not compulsory. I beg your Lordships to understand that it is the registration of deeds which is compulsory, and that is a most important distinction. The Committee of the House of Commons to which I have referred, which sat during two Sessions—1878 and 1879—made various recommendations for the improvement of Lord Cairns' Act. What do you find in the Report of the Committee? Did they recommend the compulsory registration of titles? No; I do not think any voice was raised in that Committee in support of such a proposal, and certainly it is not recommended in the Report. Nobody pretended that compulsory registration would be a panacea for Lord Cairns' Act. And that, I must remind your Lordships, was after the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne), who had always been a strong advocate for compulsion, bad raised the question in this House; and, therefore, it had been fully before this Committee of the House of Commons, and they deliberately refrained from recommending compulsory registration of title. Then, did they recommend so drastic an alteration of the laws of real property as that which is embodied in the Bill before us? No, they did nothing of the kind. There was a gentle hint to the effect that some such a scheme had been proposed, but they carefully refrained from making any such recommendation. Then did they propose any shadowy scheme which would invest the Lord Chancellor for the time being with not only a vast amount of patronage, but a vast amount of legislative power such as is reserved to him in this Bill? No, their recommendations were very different. One of
  674
  the first things, if not the first thing' that they recommended was the curtailment of conveyances, and that has been done. In the year 1881 Parliament passed an Act, at the instigation of Lord Cairns, which very greatly curtailed the length of conveyances, and simplified enormously the transfer of land. That was the practical recommendation of the House of Commons, and to that Parliament gave effect. They recommended further that there should be a representative of real property in the case of death. That is a matter which I will not pursue further, because it has been already adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, and although it is proposed by this Bill, it is not such a serious matter that I need trouble your Lordships upon it. Another practical recommendation which they made was the acceleration of the completion of the cadastral survey, and that has been done. Then another matter which they recommended was the establishment of district centres for the registration of assurances with proper indexes. Your Lordships will remember that the great cost of conveyancing, and the great bulk of the conveyances, is mainly due to the recitals of deeds; and, therefore, the system which was adopted in 1881, upon the recommendation of Lord Cairns, following out the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, is one which must, generation after generation, hear increasing and additional fruit, and tend very much to diminish the cost of conveyancing, upon which so much stress has been laid. Those, my Lords, were the practical recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1879. There are 10 recommendations altogether, but I will not weary your Lordships by pursuing them. Yet, my Lords, what we are asked to do now is not merely to confirm and strengthen Lord Cairns' Acts of 1875 and 1881, but you are asked to introduce a system which he deliberately rejected. I think it is a great mistake to be always interfering with our landed system. If a gentleman has a new and ambitious gardener who is always desirous of investigating the growth of the roots which his predecessor planted, and was always digging them up for the purpose of investigation, or for the purpose of establishing some new system, you

  675
  would not find that his employer gained a very great profit by him, and I think we should do much better to leave the operation of Lord Cairns' Act, as improved and simplified by the Acts of 1831 and 1882, rather than indulge in an ambitious scheme for unsettling what is already done, and making a fresh departure. I should like to say something more with regard to the expenses under this Bill. Lord Cairns gave evidence before that Committee, and he said that he thought, assuming that the principle of compulsory registration were adopted, it would be quite impossible to do with less than 60 registration divisions. Think of that, my Lords—60 Land Courts all over the country That cannot be carried into effect without a staff of Registrars and officers of all kinds all over the country which must involve very considerable expense, and there is this further consideration—we have made great sacrifices to simplify county administration. We were told "Your Poor Law Authorities and your County Administration overlap," and yet now you are going to introduce an entirely new division into the country for the purpose of land transfer, and to add additional complications to those which already exist. I must say that it seems to me, after the legislation of last year with regard to the simplification of County Administration, it is rather strange to find the authors of this Bill introducing an entirely different system for the division of the country for legal purposes, for the registration of land titles, without any indication whatever as to the method of division which they propose to adopt. You may look the Bill through, and you will find no clue whatever to the manner in which the country is to be divided for this purpose. It is entirely to be done by Order in Council; and thus the system is not, in the first instance, to be compulsory. You are to have, by degrees, first one, and then another, district brought within the circle of compulsion. My Lords, I venture to think that the history of land law reform in this country is a very instructive one. Where those reforms have given effect to popular opinions which have been gradually growing, they have been gladly welcomed throughout the country; but I am convinced that if we introduce a new system which is alien to the wishes of
  676
  the people, you cannot expect that the legislation will bear good fruit. I ask the authors of this Bill, Have you confidence in this system or not? If you have confidence in your system, why is it necessary to compel everybody to come in? You have the example of Australia to show you that if you have a wise and proper system people will gladly come in, and it will in a very short time meet with universal adoption. If, on the other hand, you have not confidence in your system, what right have you to charge the landowners of the present generation with the enormous cost and inconvenience of the system which you propose? If you tell me it is for the good of posterity, then say posterity ought to pay. If it is for the good of the society at large that 30 years' hence titles should be simplified, I do not see why you should put the unfortunate owners of land at the present moment to the great burdens which the Bill would entail. Surely if you are doing it for the benefit of the community at large, the community at large ought to bear the cost. This is not a moment when the landed interest can voluntarily take upon itself a burden so great. I venture to think that if Lord Cairns, with his great sagacity, recoiled from making his system of registration compulsory, we cannot expect success at the hands of those who are now trying to string the bow of Ulysses. When we know that the mature judgment of Lord Cairns was against compulsory registration, I do not think we should be wise in now attempting to establish it. We have been told that this is a Bill coming from the hands of a Conservative Government, and that, therefore, we ought to accept it. My Lords, I think an argument of that kind comes too late. We who are engaged in painfully trying to lick into shape the frankly democratic measure known as the Local Self-Government Bill, and are now only beginning dimly to appreciate the large burden which it imposes upon the land, cannot blindly accept at the hands of Her Majesty's Government any measures they choose to propose without knowing what will be their exact effect. I decline to take this matter upon trust from Her Majesty's Government. I think it is the duty of your Lordships when a measure of this sort is submitted

  677
  to you to consider it carefully, and to ascertain whether it has been coined at Hatfield or at Brummagem. We are told that if we do not agree to this measure now, worse things are in store for us. I cannot accept that argument. It was used once very successfully by Sir Boyle Roche, when he said that he would sacrifice one-half or even the whole of his liberties in order to preserve the remainder; but I am not prepared to sacrifice the half simply because the loss of the remainder is threatened, and I do not see that it is wise or prudent for us to accept a measure which we believe in our hearts to be mischievous because it is for the convenience of Ministers or because it is feared something worse is coming. I should like to remind your Lordships, in conclusion, of some words used in this House in the year 1871:—
  "After all, if we are only to exercise our authority by sacrificing our opinions, is it quite worth while to possess that authority at all?"
  Those are the words of the Marquess of Salisbury, and I commend them to your Lordships' consideration. I heartily support the Motion of the noble Duke for the rejection of this Bill.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I think the allusion which my noble Friend has made to the supposition that this Bill does not represent the opinions of my noble Friend behind me (the Marquess of Salisbury), but is forced upon him, may be passed by without further remark than to say that it is absolutely without foundation. Then my noble Friend says that the Bill would put burdens upon present landowners for some prospective benefit. In the main, the compulsory part of this Bill does not affect the present landowners because the provisions of the Bill as to the registration will only come into operation on a change of owners by succession, purchase, or otherwise; and, therefore, that part of the measure does not necessarily fall on the present generation, and, as a matter of fact, posterity will pay the cost of registration and not existing owners. I am not prepared to accept my noble Friend's definition of the position landed property in this country, or that legislation of this kind for the easy transfer of property is against the inte-
  678
  rests of the landowners, and that what we ought to be doing is simply to make them comfortable in the position which they hold. It is quite true that many men do wish to retain and enjoy very large quantities of land of their own, and there is no occasion for them to be apprehensive; but there are others who wish to have facilities to part with their property, and they ought to have those facilities.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I pointed out the ample powers already existing.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My noble Friend says that the existing powers are ample, and he actually calls in aid the opinion of my noble Friend Lord Cairns. I should say that the opinion of Lord Cairns was quite the contrary to that which my noble Friend represents, because we must remember that Lord Cairns did introduce a measure for compulsory registration, and, although the current of opinion at that time induced him to withdraw it, we do not absolutely stand still in these matters; and no man who has seen the changes that have taken place with regard to the landed interest under the Settled Estates Act and other Acts can fail to recognize the advance that has been made. Suppose a man has only a possessory title, such a title held for twelve or twenty years practically gives him an absolute title, and one that cannot be interfered with. From that time forward all the conveyancing of that estate will, under this Bill, be settled practically by a mererecord on the register. And how small will be the registration fee in comparison with the advantage gained, and how small the insurance. This is not a question simply for landlords altogether, or for the smaller holders or any one else connected with landed property. It was to put landed property on such a footing that those who have the power and means should be able to buy without plunging into extravagant expenses for researches into title. It is for the interests of the country that the transference of land should be as easy as that of personal property, because it is important there should be a larger number of proprietors of land who should have a deeper interest in the stability and the institutions of the country; and I believe that by accepting this Bill your Lordships will be beginning a system which will go far

  679
  to accomplish an end so much to be desired.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, if this Bill had been simply a Land Transfer Bill to facilitate the transfer of land, I certainly should not have opposed it; but, unfortunately, my noble Friend, for some reason or other which I cannot define, has thought proper to enshrine in the Bill a principle which is of the most revolutionary and dangerous character. Probably there is no Member of the Front Bench who was a Member of the House of Commons when Mr. Locke King almost annually brought forward his Bill for assimilating the law of real property to that of personal property in cases of intestacy who has not voted against that, while many must have spoken against it; and I confess it does seem to me a strange thing that, without any pressure from without or demand for it in the country, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack should initiate in the House of Lords a revolutionary change to which the House of Commons has never yet assented. The object of those who advocate the assimilation of the law of real property to that of personal property is an obvious one. It has ever been the pet project of the extreme Radical Party, and their object is plain. It must lead to the destruction of the landed gentry and eventually of this House. That proposition has always received the opposition of the greatest and most trustworthy statesmen of all Parties. You are asked to assimilate things which in their essence are totally dissimilar. There is no difficulty whatever in dividing money, but in dividing land you may seriously impair its value. This distinction has always been upheld by the law of England; and I will call your Lordships' attention to what was said upon this subject by Mr. Disraeli, then the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. On one occasion, when he, in common with the whole of the great Party of the day, was opposing one of Mr. Locke King's Bills, he said—
  "It might be the opinion of some honourable Gentleman that there ought not to be any difference in the law between real and personal property. But one thing was quite clear, the law of England does acknowledge such a difference. He confessed he had himself a very strong opinion upon it. He thought that there ought to be a difference very much between real and
  680
  personal property. The whole of our social system was built up upon that difference, and the Constitution of this country mainly depended upon the recognition of that principle."
  A Division ensued upon the Bill and the result was, for the Motion 82; against, 203; and amongst those who voted against it were found such names as Sir William Molesworth, Lord Palmerston, and Lord John Russell, and also—a name which may perhaps, carry conviction to some noble Lords opposite—Mr. Gladstone. Now, my Lords, the law of this country has settled that in case of intestacy personal property shall be divided in a certain manner. The law has done for a man who dies intestate that which it is supposed a reasonably just and fair man would have done for himself if he had made a will; and, therefore, it has divided the personal property in the manner which is well known. Otherwise with real property, because no just or wise man would order his landed estate to be divided. Yesterday I went into the Library of your Lordships' House and I took up at haphazard two volumes of Hansard. I find that on March 15th, 1855, the then Solicitor General, Sir Richard Bothell, said—
  "One hon. Gentleman said that the greater part of the large estates went by the law of entail; but of the law were altered what became of the principle upon which our settlements were founded and maintained? Would the great settlements of the country be permitted to remain if the law of primogeniture were taken away? The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the measure knew that, should they abolish the law with respect to the succession of the eldest son, the whole principle and form of arranging settlements, and the foundation on which the order of estates was fixed, would fall, and they would have nothing more than estates divided indefinitely, to the great disadvantage of the country, economically, socially, and, he would hold, agriculturally."
  That is not the only opinion that I found in this debate to the same effect. I read the speech of Sir George Cornwall Lewis, who said:—
  "The effect would be to extinguish the class of persons who were denominated heirs. There would be no such thing as inheritance. No person would hereafter be heir to landed property. That, be apprehended, would clearly be the effect of the Bill. Under the present system the younger children could have no reason for complaining of injustice or partiality on the part of their parents. But if this Bill became law the feeling would be entirely inverted. A person who made a marriage settlement according to

  681
  the present system of marriage settlements, would be robbing the younger children of the rights which the Common Law would give them."
  There was a Division on that occasion, and the result was, for the motion, 76; against, 271; majority, 195. Then, my Lords, it will be said this will not matter much, because every man may make a will. I recollect my noble Friend the Prime Minister two years ago said this is really a Bill to compel everybody to make his will. You cannot compel a man to make a will by Act of Parliament, any more than you can make him sober or moral. On this point I would like to read what Sir Frederick Thesiger, afterwards Lord Chelmsford, said in the House of Commons, on the 8th of March, 1854:—
  "He had heard it said, 'There can be no harm in it, because there is nothing to prevent a person from making a will, by which he can obviate the distribution of his property.' Now he did not think it was a good course of legislation to pass laws because they could do no harm. He thought it was very desirable, when a mischief was to be remedied, or an improvement was to be made, that a law for such a purpose should be passed; but he could not agree with such a principle as that which had been alluded to with regard to the law of succession. It was very true persons might obviate the operation of the law by disposing of their property by will; but if they did not, that which he thought an objectionable principle would come into operation, and thus at once an effect produced, which was contrary to the institutions of the country, and contrary to the laws, and had been considered prejudicial in the course of our history."
  My Lords, I shall oppose this Bill with very great reluctance for many reasons, but without the slightest doubt as to the propriety of my vote. It is our duty to vote without any fear of the consequences. If your Lordships think that the objections which are urged are without foundation, then the Bill should be passed; if, on the other hand, you consider that it will be pledging the House to a mischievous principle, if you consider that it is such a Bill as you would not have looked at if it had come from the opposite side of the House, then your Lordships, in my opinion, have but one duty, and that is to reject it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I am not going to enter into any elaborate argument as to whether the law of succession ought to remain as at present, or whether the devolution of personalty
  682
  should be assimilated to the devolution of realty. I do not myself believe that it is a question of such enormous importance as the noble Lord has suggested. Neither do I believe it will revolutionize the dealings in land in this country. The noble Lord has quoted with approval a statement that if the law were altered landowners would cease to leave their estates to their eldest sons, and that they would feel it harsh and monstrous to do so, seeing that the law had provided another distribution in the case of real estate. Now, I believe that there would be ample inducements still to those who could properly do so to leave their estates undivided. The owner of an estate who could make proper provision for the rest of his children would not feel that he would commit any wrong in leaving his estate to his eldest son, and so preserving it intact. Landowners who cannot make proper provision ought not to do so, I admit; but in all cases in which it can be properly done, I cannot conceive that there would be any reason owing to the change of the law why it should not be done. Though the law regulates the distribution of personal property in the case of those dying intestate, it is by no means the universal practice of testators when they deal with their personalty to distribute it precisely as the law would distribute it in case of intestacy; and I cannot suppose that that freedom of disposition which prevails in case of personalty would cease to prevail in cases of realty. I myself believe that there are a great many cases in which the operation of the law as at present existing works injustice. A great number of small owners of land do not make wills—In the case of proprietors of large estates, where there is an object in keeping the estate together, wills are made, or the result is secured by settlement, and therefore I do not believe, in the case of large estates, that the alteration of the law would have any sensible effect; but in the case of small properties it would have an effect, and I think it ought to have an effect. Now, I turn for a moment to another part of the case. If I thought that this Bill would really impose serious burdens on the landowners of the country, I should say that a very strong case indeed had been made out against it. But I have never been able to see how the cost of

  683
  the serious burdens it would impose is calculated. Two attacks have been made on the Bill from opposite quarters. The landowners are afraid of the operation of the measure because of the great burden it would impose upon them; but I have also read in a legal periodical the most alarmist statements about the effect it was going to produce on country solicitors. According to this periodical a large proportion of country solicitors would be ruined by the Bill. No doubt that would be a very lamentable thing; but if that is going to occur it is difficult to see how it can occur without somebody benefiting. If the country solicitors are to be ruined it must be by the money which is now going into their pockets remaining in the pockets of the landowners. That seems to be the general result. That is my answer to the contention that if the system is so good it might be left voluntary. Again, while not making the slightest imputation on the honour and uprightness of the solicitors, I would suggest that those who, it is alleged, would be likely to suffer by the adoption of the system would not be the most impartial advisers, however impartial they might desire to be, as to whether the law should remain as it is at present. Further, I would say that people are very apt to continue in an old and accustomed course, even if a newer one were more convenient and beneficial; and this is why the system should not be merely voluntary. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) said that in Australia the system is not compulsory; but practically, according to the noble Earl's own statement, it seems to me that this is not the case. There is no compulsory registration of titles; but there is a compulsory registration of deeds, which is so much more objectionable that every one registers the titles. I call that compulsion, and a very inconvenient form of compulsion. Now, one word as to the extent of these burdens. All the Bill requires is the registration of titles, which is a matter that ought not to involve any serious expense. Registration is only compulsory in the case of sale, when the expense falls upon the purchaser, or upon succession; so that existing owners need not register at all. No doubt in the case of succession it does exercise a certain amount of compulsion—that is to say, on the next successor
  684
  to the estate. But I have been looking at this question of fees, and I find that on an estate of the value of £200,000 the fees payable would be about £50 or £60. It has been urged that the successor might never desire to sell, and so would not derive any advantage from the registration. But such persons often desire to mortgage, and when the land is once on the register mortgage will become a cheaper and cheaper operation. This, I venture to think, is a great benefit, which is worth securing by any landowner believe most strongly that the landowners will find it for their advantage to have their lands on the register; and when once you have the register established and in operation, not only the selling but the whole operation of charging or mortgaging will be simpler and cheaper than it can be now. Nobody can be more conscious of the enormous difficulty of the subject than those who served during 18 months upon the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred. I do not for a moment say that it may not have its blemishes and defects; I think it almost certainly has; but it will go elsewhere and be considered by others, and every flaw in it is likely to be discovered before it finally passes into law. But I should regret that your Lordships should put a summary end to the measure now before you, because I believe that it will be done under a mistaken apprehension, and that those who now oppose it would find that in the end it would be to their own advantage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before your Lordships go to a division I should wish to say a few words in support of the doctrine laid down by my noble Friend behind me—that your Lordships should not use your authority except in support of your own opinions. My tear is, from the peculiar use which has been made of the forms of the House, that there is a very great danger of your Lordships voting on this Bill for that which will not be your own opinions. I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed that the speeches made against this Bill have boon a succession of speeches in Committee They have been speeches against particular features of this Bill, which could have been struck out of it without affecting its essential principle or the

  685
  operation of its machinery. My noble Friend behind me devoted the whole of his speech to one clause of the Bill—an important clause, I do not dispute, and one upon which opinions may differ, but one which could have been struck out without seriously impeding the operation of the rest of the Bill. On that ground he proposed to reject the Bill. In the same way, earlier in the debate, the grounds urged against the Bill were not grounds levelled at its principle, were not grounds denying the beneficence of its objects, but grounds of detail, such as objections to expense and machinery, which ought to have been urged and discussed in Committee. In regard to the question of expense, I will not go over the ground so ably traversed by the noble and learned Lords opposite; but I wish to give your Lordships some figures, which have been given to me on very good authority, as to what has been the actual expense of the machinery now existing, which will be the same machinery as that to be employed under the Bill—the machinery of the Act of 1875. My noble Friend (Lord Selborne) stated that the insurance could not be more than one farthing in the £; and, in reply, it was said that besides the insurance there was the question of office expenses, which would be enormous. I have a list here, which has been estimated, and in a great proportion of cases ascertained, of the office expenses of obtaining a possessory title. I entreat your Lordships to remember that this is a Bill for securing that possessory title shall be obtained. Indeed, I almost regret that other titles are mentioned in the Bill, because it gives people the notion that their title deeds will have to be brought under the consideration of the registrar. All that the Bill makes compulsory is that when ownership is changed a possessory title shall be obtained. That means nothing more than the registration of the Ordnance map, showing what land is in each case actually held. Well, this is the expense which it has been ascertained by experiment is imposed upon the landowner who comes into possession by succession or by transfer, and who is compelled to obtain a possessory title. If the value of the property is £2,400, £3 10s. would have to be paid to the office, and 14s. for the map. This is not theory, but practice;
  686
  it has actually been done. If the estate were valued at £4,000, £4 would be paid to the office, and £2 4s fur the map. If the estate were valued at £27,000, £11 5s. would be paid to the office and £2 4s. for the map. If the estate were valued at £30,000, £12 would be paid to the office, and £1 6s. 6d. for the map. I am entitled, therefore, to say that this idea of vast expenditure involved by the necessity, on the change of ownership, whether by succession or transfer, of registering for the possessory title, is the most baseless legend ever devised. Then, I contend that these things ought to have been brought forward in the Committee. It is a great inconvenience in a debate when you have to turn first to one small detail and then to another, and never deal with the principle of the Bill as a whole. And why have we not had the advantage of discussing these objections where they ought to have been discussed, in Committee on the Bill? It appears that it is on account of the overflowing courtesy of the opponents of the Bill. Their courtesy was so irrepressible that it has burst from the pores of their skin at every step. They have said nothing of their objections to the Bill on the Second Reading through sheer courtesy; and when the Bill came out of the Select Committee through sheer courtesy they stayed their objections on the Report stage of the Bill. But this courtesy vanishes on the Third Reading, when they hope that by combining all these small objections they may gather together a sufficient number of objectors to destroy the principle of the Bill. I think that it is a very great misfortune that the House has not had the opportunity of examining in detail any Amendments which might be suggested, not only in the Select Committee, but by those outside the Select Committee who have studied the Bill And I propose, if the Bill should pass, that we should defer the further proceedings for a week, in order that any Amendments which noble Lords have to any of the parts of the Bill may be put down and discussed in detail. That will enable us to deal with objections to detail where they ought to be dealt with—each on each detail, and not sentence the whole principle of the Bill to extinction because a particular detail is objected to. My Lords, I

  687
  would earnestly press on the House that it is undertaking a very serious responsibility to negative the whole principle of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to make cheaper the transfer of land, to remove the greatest cause of expense which no w exists in reference to the transfer of land. My noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) made an observation, if I caught it rightly, that the business of the law is to provide not for the sale of land, but for the enjoyment of land. That is a very pleasant doctrine to those who are enjoying land; but I am not sure that it is equally pleasant for those who wish to enjoy it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I said the peaceable enjoyment of land.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "The peaceable enjoyment"—I suppose that is undisturbed by any buyer. I agree that there are large estates that have been held in the same families for a considerable length of time, and which are not likely to be changed. But there is in this country an enormous amount of land which is subject to the ordinary operation of purchase and sale, the value of which is depressed if you load its sale and purchase with undue expenses, and the value of which will be raised if you make that operation cheaper. I am speaking now principally of towns; and when you consider all the advantages to trade, to health, to the happiness of the people, of making all the operations which owners wish to perform with respect to their lands cheap and easy, I am sure your Lordships will not assent to the noble Earl's view that the law has nothing to look to except providing for the peaceable enjoyment of land. If you reject this Bill on account of those accumulated small objections which ought to have been urged in Committee, and which may yet be urged at a future stage of the measure—if you reject the Bill, you say that as far as you are concerned, there shall be no cheapening of the transfer of land. I know that noble Lords say they are enthusiastic about cheapening the transfer of land, and that they would support it; but your action must be judged, not by your words, but by your deeds. In voting against the Bill at this stage you are voting against the essential principle of the Bill. That is undoubtedly the law
  688
  and practice of Parliament, and no other interpretation whatever can be placed on the action you take. And just consider the grave inconveniences of that result. To us it will be a very great disappointment. We have, from the first period of our political existence, put forward the desire to cheapen the process of transferring land as a matter to which we attached the greatest importance. I remember four years ago urging it very strongly. The Bill of my noble and learned Friend was prepared, and I think it was introduced, though I am not quite certain, four years ago. At all events, it was introduced very shortly afterwards; and, of course, by a decision given against the principle of the Bill on the Third Reading you practically say that this Government shall riot introduce a Land Transfer Bill to the House of Lords again. My noble Friend behind me dwelt much upon the freedom of the House of Lords from any controlling authority, and upon the absence of any necessity on their part to defer to the opinions of any constituency. I quite admit the position of power which that gives you m respect to a Bill of this kind. If we were defeated on a Bill of this kind in the other House there would be a remedy open. There is no remedy if we are defeated here. But with great power comes great responsibility. We are presenting to you a measure which we believe will conduce largely to the happiness of the people of this country, and largely also to the prosperity of the owners of land—which we believe will remove one of the greatest causes of odium from our present landed system, the one that most threatens its existence. We earnestly ask you not to take from us the power of carrying this beneficial reform into law, and not to place on this House the ominous responsibility of standing between the people of England and this great advantage.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Although the hour is so late I would ask your Lordships' permission to say a few words not upon the details of the Bill, but merely to register a protest on the part of those who, while approving of the principle of land transfer, absolutely and totally object to having this Bill forced down our throats. The noble Marquess, as I understand him, described the opposition which has been raised to this Bill as a factious opposition.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never used such an epithet.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble Marquess said that the objections which have been brought forward might have been advanced on the Committee stage, and that it is extremely difficult to answer piecemeal objections on the Third Reading. Well, this measure has been objected to on many grounds by persons who are perfectly prepared to accept Land Transfer on reasonable principles; but we are not prepared to accept this Land Transfer Bill of the Lord Chancellor, which leaves the whole working of the measure and all the patronage under it in his own hands, and which leaves the whole thing in entire and total chaos. I am not going to occupy the time of your Lordships; but I may say that in 1885 I brought in a Bill embodying the whole principle of land transfer, and I took the trouble, so far as my abilities allowed me, to put the matter before your Lordships in very great detail. The noble Marquess also was kind enough to take notice of it, and before we go to a Division, after the impressive words which he has delivered on the grave importance of this House putting aside this measure, I must take leave to read the remarks which the noble Marquess himself made on the subject of land transfer generally. The noble Marquess on that occasion said—
  "It appears that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Selborne) and all who have taken part in this discussion go upon the theory, which is very common in this country, that there is something in the law in this country as it is practised which makes it specially difficult and expensive to transfer small properties from one person to another; and there is a belief that by something we can do in this building we may alter the state of things altogether. Now, I wish to say—and each man must contribute his own experience—that I have a very great scepticism on that subject, and I found my scepticism on the fact that I have myself dealt in a small way with small properties in England and in France. In France the almost fixed charge for conveying land is 12 per cent on the purchase money. In this country the charge varies enormously; but, according to my experience, it does not exceed, as a rule, 4 or 5 per cent."
  Now, as we are going to a Division, I think it is of importance to those who oppose this Bill that we should have the full benefit of the views of the noble Marquess, not only as expressed on the present occasion, but as expressed on the very
  690
  minor and unimportant occasion when I ventured to lay my Bill on land transfer on the Table of this House.
  On Question whether the word "now" stand part of the Question, their Lordships divided.
  Contents, 113; Not Contents 104;
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and to be further proceeded with on Thursday, the 4th of July.
  House adjourned at ten minutes to Eight o'clock till Thursday, a quarter past Ten o'clock.